What's up with "possibly" the largest sports player contract to date? Is it or is it not the largest contract? Don't we have the firm statistics? DoomsDay34904:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Because it depends on the way the money is counted. He gets 55 mil a year but only 10 mil is his salary. So it really depends on whether the other 45 mil, which he is getting from the club, is counted or not.--HamedogTalk|@08:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I think one of is a much better way of phrasing it. I never expected a soccer player to get it, they're not all that well known in America. DoomsDay34916:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Could we please remove this about David Beckham from the Main Page. He's a mere footballsoccer player getting a new contract, that hardly qualifies as real news. User:Allard Sunday 13 January 2007 | 15:58 CET.
The ITN item is about the unique contract, not just a new contract. And, he's not a "mere" footballer. (Please read his article.) Please also note that what we do at ITN is not exactly news-reporting, but featuring wikiarticles updated or created with new contents related to news and other current events. 'Newsworthy-ness' is just one of the criteria for inclusion. And this is indeed a notable news item. --PFHLai21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This best way to remove any item from ITN is to help update other articles so that we'll have more new ITN items to displace the old news, including the ones you don't like. --PFHLai21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be simply "Los Angeles Galaxy" instead of "the Los Angeles Galaxy"? Similarly, you wouldn't say the Manchester United Football Club or the FC Barcelona. Dirtybutclean
Do anyone know the real millionth article. The one that we called the millionth is really the 999,999, because the main page is in the mainspace, but isn't an article, thus it was counted in the million milestone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
Given that there is probably at least one fake article floating around out there, we'll never know what the real millionth is. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-14 19:13Z
Good question. I also wonder if redirects count. It's obvious that the "millionth" (or soon enough the "two millionth") article can only ever be an approximation, though it's a fun enough gimmick when it's happening. Newyorkbrad19:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume it used the generic statistics definition, so no redirects, deleted articles or articles without links to other articles, but including disambiguation pages. --Cherry blossom tree19:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The millionth article was the first article (not redirects, discussion pages, image description pages, user profile pages, templates, help pages, portals, articles without links to other articles, or pages about Wikipedia administration) that put the total number of pages in the mainspace over 999,999. In fact, the 999,999th article was later deleted, however, it did not move the millionth article, because the millonth was defined as the first page to be at 1 million. Prodegotalk19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The 500,00th was defined differently, IIRC. It was the first article to hit 500,000 without the count dropping below 500,000 again. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-14 19:43Z
We could have a list of them in the Wikipedia namespace though. I think that would be an excellent idea. It would save the discussions that come up here all the time, as as soon as they came up, we would be able to link to that particular page. J Milburn20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well it's just the 6th anniversary of Wikipedia Day. Maybe if it was the 10th anniversary, or some other milestone anniversary. Nishkid6403:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm, alright. That makes sense. It would just be nice for Wikipedia to have something mildly different for this day. The 5 year anniversary was noted on the Main Page banner (diff), so I guess I can wait another 4 years for the 10th year. GracenotesT § 04:25, January 15, 2007 (UTC)
It states "Anemonefish are born as males and only become females if they rise to the top of the hierarchy?" but the article says they are born sexless and become males if they rise to the top.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.132.76.4 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2007 January 16 (UTC).
Actually, according to the article, they are born sexless, develop into males, and turn into females if they rise to the top. DYK is now fixed. Thanks for pointing out the error. Next time, please make use of WP:ERRORS. Service may be quicker there. --PFHLai14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
HAWAIAN Main Page
I introduce a wikilink inter-language between (en) and (haw) on the wiki-(haw) Main page.
Would you do the same therefore the hawaian main page would be linked on (and towards) every main page in any language thanks to the Thijs!bot
There are four photos on the main page with the option to upload a new version. Suppose this was done. What if the image was something very, very wrong (may I remind you of the mutilated...erm...you know). Would this be possible? If so, can we stop it? DoomsDay34906:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure a bot auto-protects templates and images on the front page these days making such vandalism (in theory) impossible-137.222.10.6715:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought as much, it's just that the upload link was there and I was worried it might work. Just trying to look for any holes in the system. DoomsDay34917:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No, iirc, this particular feature has been on MediaWiki for years: Any non-sysop who tries to upload a file with the same name as a protected image will always get an error message. If this was not the case, the main page would have vandalism-only images every second. Zzyzx11(Talk)17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Any guesses as to when the first "front page topic to cause a long discussion as to why the topic was so chosen" will be? (Some articles will not normally be included, and some won't be "caught" on clicking random article - and there will always be a grey area of topics which cause debate. How easy would it be to set up "an opt in" program - though I cna see there would alost propmtly be an "opt me out of medical/political/contortionist etc categories" squawkfest. The point is that you know what you are letting yourself in for (and don't look at it in the library etc) Jackiespeel18:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Some pages cause much discussion however "innocent" they are - I was just posing the theoretical question. My comment about the article in question was that it/the image was far more tasteful that some of the things in tabloid newspapers - and that people who "don't mind" more varied access can have it. Jackiespeel16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Er what article? You mean the one about a month ago that had a picture some people called porn? There have already been a lot of featured articles with a lot of discussion. Pokemon articles tend to get a lot of attention, as have mathematical concepts which people don't understabd (0.999...) and anything remotely political at a time when Americans are politically sensitive... Nil Einne09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"In the News" bias
In my opinion, "In the News" is too biased toward political events, and under-represents space,science, and other events. --Ineffable300004:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
To counter this perceived bias, please update wikiarticles in underrepresented fields and then suggest new news headlines on WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the troubles IMHO (I'm a biologist) is science rarely has events which are significant at the time. Often, only with the benefit of hindsight do we realise how important one event was. And of course, a lot of the time it isn't even single events but multiple events Nil Einne09:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Background Image
Is there a way to havea background image on a table, I 've posted this in the new commers page and I don't think there is, but I don't want to risk there being a way and I ignore it. --Daniel()FolsomT|C|U19:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, maybe the Click template isn't the right thing, nevermind. But it should still be possible. Try asking at WP:VPT. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-17 13:50Z
Main page move discussion
I think you're confused about how policies came to exist on Wikipedia. They weren't handed down from on high, and are still open to modification. It seems easier to simply add a note to the policy, than to edit a billion links and/or force the servers to redirect millions more clicks. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-11 15:30Z
I'm not sure how you could fix many of my concerns below simply by editing a policy. Which policy to you intend to edit, and how? (If you're thinking of the Main Page fair use debate, there are plenty of reasons to move unrelated to that.) --ais523 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I would modify Ignore all rules to include "especially the rules that would change traditions that span all wikis and have existed since their inception, and/or rules that result in a needlessly large burden on the servers and editing community with no positive gains to the reading community." This requested move fits both of those descriptions. If the work needed to do this move was on the same order of magnitude as the resulting benefit to the reading community, I might have a different opinion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-11 16:00Z
Depending on the caching architecture of MediaWiki this could mean no performance cost at all, since no HTTP redirect is sent. You shouldn't worry too much about the severs since it is likely that this wont noticably affect the load and if it does it just temporary. As for the magnitude of the work I doubt that it can be that much. A bot or a team of editors would fix this quickly. Especially since most links to the Mian page probably are in templates. Your point about other Wikimedia Wikis is a very valid one though, but there is at least the Swedish Wiki has moved their main page to the portal name space.Jeltztalk16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Not all wikis have their Main Page at Main Page (for instance, Wikia's main page is at http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia). The Main Page can be selected by editing MediaWiki:Mainpage (see http://wikia.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Mainpage). The change would not be too big; most links to the Main Page are from templates (for instance, the entire first page of the WLH), so it would just be a case of changing a few templates. And as mentioned below, this would cause minor gains to the readers (the removal of the cite link, for instance, and the correction of the statistics). I admit that these aren't big improvements, but there's no reason to keep the Main Page at its current location apart from vague historical reasons. And Jeltz is right too: the Swedish Wikipedia's Main Page is at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida. --ais523 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can think of any substantial gains to the reading community, it might be worth it. Otherwise, we're just wasting time satiating our own desires; there's no reason to fix something that ain't broke. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-11 16:38Z
We can deal with that if/when it happens. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-12 15:16Z
I disagree. As I've said before, IMHO the way things are means that this could happen. If it does happen and we just wait for it as you suggest, it will seriously restrict the potential solutions and it will mean things will ultimately be ugly IMHO. Also, we won't have time to reach a proper consensus etc. That's why, especially in a case like this, we need to anticipate potential problems not run around with out hands in the air when the problem arises. Personally, I don't want a dab link, but we will have to do so for a while if we follow your suggestion IMHO. Also, we will probably not be able to keep Main Page as a proper redirect for very long if at all. Nil Einne16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so some people, as in the last move request, will say it will disrupt the encyclopaedia and such what. That is not looking at the long term, only at the short term. Change the software to hid "Redirect from Main Page", point en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ to Portal:Main page and same with the portal. Having the Main Page in article space is a violation of wikipedia policy.--HamedogTalk|@09:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it just comes up when you use the template it tells you to use in WP:RM. Feel free to remove it. But, on the other hand, shouldn't that template be changed to there is not survey section per WP:NOT? Dinner for me now--HamedogTalk|@09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a weak argument to me. Main Page is by no means an article, even if it is in article name space. Main page isn't an article about anything, it is a portal. I don't have any legal education but I can't see why the law should care about a technically such as name spaces. It is how you use the images that matters not Wikipedia's internal ordering and categorising. If you have a portal in article name space it is still not an article. Jeltztalk15:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My strong support has IMHO been sufficiently explained previously. I don't really with to get too deep into this but if there are any important questions about my previous points, please mention them at my talk page Nil Einne11:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has very few hard-and-fast rules. There's really no reason why the Main Page should not stay right where it is. Why break thousands of internal and external links? Redirecting just looks cheesy. --Nelson Ricardo13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
For some previous discussion, see WP:VPR#Main Page to Portal:Main. There are some points there which haven't come up here yet (Main page could go to home page even if Main Page can't (notice the caps), 'cite this article' doesn't work properly on the Main Page, and is disabled on Portals, and Current Events was moved to portalspace a while back (so there's a precedent)). There's also a rebuttal to the fair-use claims there; loopholes in Wikipedia policy don't affect copyright law, and anyway taking advantage of them would violate WP:IAR and WP:POINT (yes, I believe it's possible to violate WP:IAR). Feel free to list any points there I missed, especially as I support this and am probably biased in which points I copy across. --ais523 13:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That would imply a portal about Wikipedia. My suggestion on WP:VPR was Portal:Main; the exact name to move to should probably also be decided here if the move is accepted. --ais523 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I wish people would stop taking this seriously. No, do not move the Main Page. There is no reason for it. If people are looking for information about home pages and they type "main page" into the search box and get back here, they're going to figure out pretty quickly that typing "home page" would be better. Home page is a poor article, and if someone's knows enough about the internet to use it, they know what a home page is. I can't imagine that article gets many visits, certainly not compared to the TWO MILLION per day that the Main Page gets. And all that's irrelevant anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page probably one of the most-linked-to pages on the entire Internet now, so if moved there would *have* to be a redirect to the new title. So the old name wouldn't be usable for anything – Gurch15:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the arguments above? Here's some more that I've thought of:
With the Main Page in article space, it's included in database dumps of articles, which means it's plausible that a bot or mirror would need an exception for it.
My edits here now on Talk:Main Page add to my Talk-space edit count, when really they're nothing like ordinary Talk-space edits.
Things related to the Main Page aren't in article-space, so redirects are needed on the subpage parent links (the links that link back to the parent of a subpage).
The Main Page adds to the article count on Special:Statistics, so actually Jordanhill railway station was the 999,999th article. And I hadn't realised all this time! (A redirect wouldn't add to the count).
This is an entirely serious proposal; there are many reasons to move it on top of 'freeing up the space for something else', which is only a very minor benefit (I agree, the redirect would need to be maintained more or less forever). --ais523 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The main page is the main page, whether its at Main Page, Portal:Main Page or User talk:Main Page on Wheels!, the same rules would apply to it regardless of its location in the wiki. There are some marginal benefits from a move to portal space as described by ais523 above. However, not one of those concerns matter to the readers. In fact, I think the main page should be at http://en.wikipedia.org and nothttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (most external links are probably targeted at the former). Likewise in an ideal world the title of the main page as seen in a browser window, should be "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and not "Main Page - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". However as I understand things this would need the devs to change MediaWiki slightly, but at least that has value to the reader.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually I see no reason not to move it. Just because it's always been here doesn't imply that it always should be --T-rex16:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It can if you want it to. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-11 16:42Z
Even if the Main Page is moved (which is almost unthinkable), a Portal is clearly not the apropropriate way to do so. The main objection to the current location of the Main Page is that Wikipedia pages do not belong in the article space; a Portal does not resolve this objection. Another elephant in the room is an article about "Main Pages" which would clearly be a perpetual non-starter, doomed to be an inferior article, accessed mostly by people trying to find Wikipedia's main page, most of whose history would be composed of people arguing about how to add a link to the "real" Main Page in that article. The Main Page is the sole exception to the article space being inhabited only by articles, and not a particularly bad one. It is rootly deeply in Wikipedia's history and thus even this forum is insufficient to generate a consensus suitable for moving it. This should also be taking place on the mailing list, etc. Savidan19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Portals aren't in the article space, they are quite separate. And why would an article on "Main Pages" (or a movie entitled "Main Page" etc.) be doomed to be an inferior article? And simply because something is rooted in history does not provide a sufficient defence - otherwise we still wouldn't have the wheel! I agree that this debate needs to be put out further. --Midnighttonight(rendezvous)23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Some traditions are more important than others. It's all subjective, but then so is the rest of this discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-12 00:09Z
Well, the proposed move is saying that the rules should triumph over tradition. The rules were adopted for a particular reason, there is logic behind it. The Main Page being in article space seems to defy logic. If you were creating a new Wikipedia2 tomorrow, would you have the main page in article space or as a Portal? Related question: Did portals etc exist when Wikipedia was first created? --Midnighttonight(rendezvous)02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Portals are relatively new on Wikipedia. When I joined (late 2004) there were no portals other than the main page. WP:PORTAL claims they were added in 2005. English Wikipedia has existed since early 2001. Since there was no concept of portals in the early years of Wikipedia it makes sense to when they were added to move the main page to portal namespace. WP:PORTAL even uses Main Page as an example of a portal, and it perfectly fits the descirption of what a portal is. The portals were modelled after the main page from what I remember. Jeltztalk11:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
So if portals are rather new developments, then surely Wikipedia should be fully adjusted to met the new technical abilities of Wiki-software. Whenever there has been a technical change, or a new space created there have been changes. The Main Page should be moved to reflect the continuing changes in technical ability available to Wikipedia, along with all the other arguments. --Midnighttonight(rendezvous)02:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said in the last long debate that we just finished, the main page is part of the encyclopedia. It should remain in the mainspace. --- RockMFR22:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I would contend that the main page is not part of the encyclopaedia, but rather a glorified contents page. We don't include the contents page as part of an encyclopaedia, usually they are not even on the standard page numbers in a book/paper encyclopaedia. --Midnighttonight(rendezvous)23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, my view on what is a part of the encyclopaedia is that it is just the articles and disambiguation pages for articles. Portals are meta information pages used for navigation and presenting parts of the encyclopaedia, like Main Page. These pages are vital for the project but not actual encyclopaedic content and therefore should be kept separate. Jeltztalk23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My only question about this whole thing is whats gonna happen if you move the main page Buford444
Nothing much, except that this discussion page will now be called Portal talk:Main Page, and the Main Page's URL will be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Main_Page (with redirects from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and http://en.wikipedia.org). Also, the 'cite this article' link will disappear from the Main Page (a context in which it doesn't work anyway), the article count will become correct, the article-only database dumps wouldn't contain the Main Page, and contributions to Talk:Main Page would show up in the Portal talk rather than Talk namespace. In order to actually move it, three MediaWiki messages will need to be changed (MediaWiki:Mainpage, MediaWiki:monobook.js, and MediaWiki:monobook.css), the page will have to be renamed by an admin, some double redirects will have to be fixed (I wouldn't think there'd be very many, and an admin with AWB could manage that easily), and Shadowbot2 will have to be told about the new location. --ais523 14:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
But what are the improvements for the reader? Otherwise, why waste time on this? Also, the article count argument is nonsense; that count is always changing as articles are deleted/created; its only real purpose is as an estimate. And, the "cite this article" link can be removed from the Main Page more easily than the work required for this move. The only real change I see is that editors interested in accurate edit counts will be happier, and that robotspeople obsessed with logic will not have their brains explode; but is that enough of a reason to justify all this discussion and work? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-12 15:23Z
As Wikipedia expands, more and more of it is becoming automated (either by developers or by bots). For automatic systems, namespace is a big clue as to what happens. Removing the "cite this article" link would be more work than simply renaming the Main Page, because it would require a developer; and a specific Main Page exception will have to be coded into every other namespace-dependent feature for the rest of time. To take a slightly frivolous example, suppose the Main Page was proposed for deletion (not that it ever would be deleted, or the proposal would ever get further than a speedy keep). Would AfD or MfD be more appropriate? If MfD (like I would suggest), what would prevent the AfD template from coming up with an error? Likewise, on the list of most-viewed articles (which is of interest to readers, based on the frequency with which the question comes up on the Help Desk and the various Village Pumps, 'Main Page' is shown as the most frequently viewed article. Without changing the namespace, there's no way that current and future namespace-dependent tools are going to be able to handle the Main Page without special exceptions. --ais523 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Improvements for the reader will include being introduced to the logic of how Wikipedia works earlier, which could make them more able to access information, less confusing for those who want to sign up and get involved in the community, and show that rules must be followed. --Midnighttonight(rendezvous)02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Main page is not an article.
Tradition means nothing. WP:CCC and WP:IAR say very clearly that rules and traditions are less important than making a better encyclopedia.
Main page is a portal, and ought to be treated as such.
There is precedent for such a move.
The only arguments against this are "tradition!" and that it'd be a burden, but arguing that it'd be a burden is making empirical claims without evidence. The precedent shows that it has in fact been done before and not been a problem, so why not do it here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have one problem and one problem only with a pagemove. Google for Wikipedia, and the first hit relevant to en is "Main Page - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"; this is the same with other search engines. Portal:Main Page is more fitting in terms of WP namespaces but it is obfuscated to a wikipedian, why confuse matters? If someone can make a css tweak for the main page that changes the html title of the page to be just "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" then that is a strict improvement. The location of the main page in wikipedia is an irrelevancy, compared to how it appears in external websites (like search engines). If this can be fixed, then does it really matter where the main page is? In short, nope - so a move would be much less contraversial.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, very basic js could be added to MediaWiki:Common.js making the html title of the Main Page just "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". —Mets501 (talk)23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason I personally prefer Portal: over Wikipedia: is that the main page in most ways (layout and contents) is exactly like the other portals. Jeltztalk23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Portal:Main page would be a portal about homepages. Whatever name you move it to, there's going to be some oddity causing it to be totally absurd. Both Main page and Wikipedia:Community Portal, which should obviously be at Portal:Wikipedia or Portal:Wikipedia community, predate the portal namespace and have contentedly remained in their original location since the hazy mists. I'm not sure why there is such a sudden panic to move the page, but the rapid-fire nature of the recent requests suggest an attempt to exhaust, rather than convince, the clear consensus to continue as is, as illustrated by the most recent discussion. I don't see the problem that this is purporting to solve. The only real encyclopedic content argument, holding the opinion that the main namespace is the justification for Wikipedia and all the other namespaces are just support functions to keep the real work progressing, to be made is that main page should be a redirect to homepage, which is so problematic that it will probably never be implemented. I don't see the point in having a bot make thousands of disambiguation edits and devs tweak how to handle incoming requests for something that appears to be trivial at best, and that doesn't actually address the issue as it relates to the content. - BanyanTree23:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The developers don't have to do anything at all for the main page to moved. Moving the main page is something admins do. It is if we don't do anything and still want the main page to be treated differently (like no cite link for example) that something has to be done by the developers, something which would litter the code base in spite of there already existing a solution. Jeltztalk00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
(copy and paste on the right article) Portal:Main_Page has no meaning at all for a guy coming here. The name in itself reflect to me subjectivly an idea of a technique change that has a meaning only to those who follow the rule to the letter. Even if there is a wikipedia policy (don't know wich one but let's assume that it exist) wich say that such page type should be sent into the "Portal" namespace. I think the Main Page should be an exception to this rule. This page is the first page that a visitor will see and if he see Portal_Indextypenamespace2.0:Main_Page, he will take wikipedia for something ruled by people too technical for him. Main_Page is simple, and appear better. Then let's assume that there are people wich got the Main Page in there bookmark. I know it's "not much" but how will they react when they see that they will be redirected to a new main page ? They won't understand. -- Esurnir17:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Those who have bookmarked it wont notice much if anything at all. The main page will be the same main page but with another url and they will eb silently redirected. As for the issue of it looking technical and complicated I don't really think so. What is complicated about "Portal:Main Page"? It is a very descriptive and simple URL compared to most of the internet. Jeltztalk19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That seems like the best option (having the main page at en.wikipedia.org, but having the actual page for editing/talking stored at a Portal or MediaWiki page, maybe) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-12 15:20Z
Actually if Portal:Main Page is technocratic, having this page at the "root" of wikipedia would be far easier and better on my part. But how will be called the Talk page ? "Talk:" ? Perhaps stay with wiki/Talk:Main Page and have the main page itself as the root ( / ). Esurnir17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't possibly see the advantage. It doesn't open up the page name because if you don't put in a redirect lots of links (both internal and external) will die on us. Not to mention, the main page has been with us from the beginning. Moving that entire history will be a strain on the server and it really serves no useful purpose. - Mgm|(talk)19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You can't do this... Wikipedia pages don't actually "exist" as separate files. They're stored in the database and served up on request. All page requests are requests for the same page. Every page, including special ones, is just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php with various parameters supplied. There is no page at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page", it's just a shortcut which is converted into "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page". en.wikipedia.org is already a redirect to the Main Page, but the page can't "be" there because it's not something that can be moved, without changing the path for all pages to something else – Gurch20:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I said. Lots of things redirect to the Main Page: "en.wikipedia.org", "en.wikipedia.org/wiki", "en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php", "en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=". The point is you can't "put the Main Page at en.wikipedia.org". All pages are returned by requests to index.php; MediaWiki can't work any other way. The page has to have a title, in order for it to exist in the database, it can't be blank – Gurch01:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure it can be blank. The title argument can be the empty String. Both HTTP, Apache and PHP allows that as far as I know. "en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title="doesn't have to be a redirect, that is just a choice made by the developers. There is no technical reason for why the main page can't be at "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/". Of course another name would have to be used in the DB like "Portal:Main Page". I'm not saying that this is a good thing, just something which is technically possible to implement with the platform used for WikiMedia (and that I also know it would be done). Jeltztalk10:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"If it aint broke, don't fix it". Yes, it probably does technically violate naming policy to have the entry page, which is not an actual article, in the article space, but so what? One of the most refreshing things about Wikipedia is that its internal rules don't have the burden of absolute consistency. Nothing above has shown to me a pressing need to move the page at all. Sam Blacketer23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I was asked for my opinion, and while of course this sort of thing is not directly the sort of thing that I consider Up To Me, I thought it interesting enough to want to weigh in about it. Certainly a hypertechnical reading of some "rules" would suggest that our current naming convention is "wrong". And of course the main page is not an encyclopedia article but really in fact a portal. And ideally it would not be in the article space. However, it always has been, it causes no serious trouble for anyone, and I see no particular reason to change. It is a historical artifact. Certainly arguing for internal consistency within the rules is not much of an argument. The real question is: are there compelling usability reasons to do something extremely disruptive against nearly 6 years of tradition?--Jimbo Wales13:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So the God-King wants to break rules? Just like breaking the rules to keep himself in power? Tell the WikiTruth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.216.133 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 January 2007
The main argument here seems to be whether this move would be disruptive or not. I don't think there are compelling usability reasons to make the move; the move would only be a slight improvement. However, I don't think the move would be disruptive, so there's no reason not to do it. As this seems to be the issue, it's probably worth gathering statistics somehow on how disruptive a move is likely to be. --ais523 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are we even talking about this? What's the big deal about it being at Main Page. I completely agree with Jimbo's (^) statement of opinion. I suggest everyone read it as well. Alex43223Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
But what if it isn't disruptive at all and gives a slight improvement? Why not do it then. I have not seen any convincing arguments for why it should be a major disruption. Why not simply fix things that are slightly broken? If the Main Page would have been created today it would have been in portal name space so why not simply move it there and fix the redirects. Can't bee too hard, Swedish Wikipedia has already done it. A slight improvement is still an improvement and the disruptiveness wont matter in the long run. We don't plan to move our main page every fortnight. Jeltztalk21:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind such a move, but it's a lot of work for rather little gain. I'd rather see people apply their talents and spend their time and energy working on improving wikiarticles instead of executing this 'arduous' pagemove. --PFHLai22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
People are complaining about all this work. What work? Moving the page would create a redirect to the new one. This means the [en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org] and everything would still go to the new page. What problems are there? --TeckWizTalkContribs@22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Taking the time to read the opinions regarding this move, and making this contribution here, have kept me from improving wikipedia in other ways. It seems that all of our time would be put to better use not arguing over what something is called when there seems to be no technical benefit, for the most part. But then I'm probably just wasting my time : ) 74.255.97.13902:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As for the 'how many redirects are there to the Main Page', here are all the backlinks to the Main Page in the article namespace (these should all be redirects or self-ref dabheaders if people have been obeying WP:ASR):
Some of these (MaIN PAGE, for instance) probably ought to be deleted, and some (Wikkipedia) probably ought to be retargeted (update: it was actually an article with an incorrect link --ais523). In fact, as they're all cross-namespace redirects, it may be worth deleting nearly all of them; if people here favour that, I may as well put them up for RfD. (I don't expect many backlinks from other namespaces once the templates have been corrected.) Note that one of the links above was an attempt to link to an encyclopedia article (at least how I interpret it), and also note that the Main Page alternatives seem to be in article space (moving these, to Wikipedia- or Portal-space, will probably be less controversial). Before posting this, I looked through some of the more suspicious entries and corrected them if necessary; I haven't checked all of them. --ais523 16:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
On one hand, I must commend you for cleaning the redirecting up, ais523. On the other hand, I wish some actual encyclopedic entries had gotten cleaned up. You seem to really want to make this pagemove. I ain't stopping you from doing things you really want to, but I wish something more constructive and useful gets done. Maybe something else at Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask would be next ? --PFHLai00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The only way this will end is with a vote. There is no middle ground between moving and not moving, and there are few if any arguments based on actual policy that would guide us in getting to consensus. All technical issues are fairly trivial, so there is nothing there to guide us one way or another. The only way "consensus" will be determined is by counting heads, and any such vote will result in not moving. So this whole discussion is fairly pointless. --- RockMFR18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah, that is not how Wikipedia works. A poll would instantly be closed since Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Voting about this kind of issue wont work. Actually I have no idea how to resolve this kind of issues, I only know how it is not done. :) Jeltztalk19:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia work by consensus, as long as everyone dont seems to agree on one statement (move it to xxxx). It won't be done.-- Esurnir22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but it is more complicated than that. See Wikipedia:Consensus for cases like this everyone doesn't have to agree. I'm not claiming there is a supermajority any side (the result of the last poll was really poor since people from both sides didn't care about discussion and motivating their votes – it was starting to become and experiment in democracy), but I hope that more people will join this debate so we can try to reach a consensus (or fail doing that). Jeltztalk23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that we have mostly reached consensus; all the pro-move points are fairly valid, and noneall of the anti-move points have not been sucsessfully rebuted. I think we should begin looking toward closing the discussion.--Tom03:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's another reason why the Main Page is in the wrong namespace: a new search engine called Wikiseek has been released (http://www.wikiseek.com), searching only Wikipedia and websites linked from it. It's clever enough to avoid things outside article namespace (e.g. search for 'current events'), but it finds the Main Page first on a search for Main Page. So it's another example of an automated tool that's getting confused by the namespace; it would make more sense to fix this by moving the Main Page than to patch every tool ever created and that ever will be created. --ais523 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Time out
This discussion is very confused as there is no clear course of action proposed. I suggest that the proponents of a move sit down and work out exactly what they are proposing. Then provide detailed arguments as to why they are proposing that particular action over all the other actions suggested above, while considering all the comments above. A lot of this discussion is at cross purposes. A vote will not resolve this at all. --Monotonehell06:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think that only one or two actions ("Portal:Main Page" and "") have been proposed by several users, but otherwsie you are correct. The debate is confused. Please fill me in if there were any suggestions I missed. Jeltztalk21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page and Portal:Main have each been suggested by at least 2 users. (I'd favour them in the order "", "Portal:Main", "Portal:Main Page", "Wikipedia:Main Page", and then "Main Page", but clearly other people will have different views on this, and we want to avoid making this into a vote.) --ais523 09:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You suggested it on 14 January: [2]. I beat you to it by 5 days: [3]. --ais523 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally i think it should be left alone, if it ain't broke don't fix it, we should find something that actually needs fixed Buford444
Something doesn't have to be broken for it to be worth fixing. Bad spelling isn't necessarily broken either as long as the article can be understood. The discussion is about where the main page should be and if it is worth the effort to move it if it should be moved. The alternatives have to be weighted against each other and the effort to move it has to be estimated (which seems small compared to some things I have been involved in). I have not yet seen any good argument for why it would take a lot of effort or be disruptive. Jeltztalk15:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Main Page → Portal:Main page — Not an article, is a portal, contradicts Wikipedia's policy. Only reason last one closed is because of WP:NOT (as in democracy) and the RM was flawed with confusion about whether it would be at Wikipedia:Main page or Portal:Main page. While this move is highly controversial, it needs to be done as to prevent contradiction to Wikipedia policy. This will not create hundreds of broken links - not many pages redirect to Main Page any way and bots can fix redirects over time.--HamedogTalk|@09:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a democracy.Do not cast a "vote" please state an opinion and an argument. This debate will only be resolved by a consensus.
Okay we're still going around in circles. If someone who cares about this proposal wants to redact (without bias) the arguments into their salient points then you might have a (re)starting point. Otherwise this discussion is no consensus. --Monotonehell19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Summarizing the arguments
I don't trust myself to represent both sides of the arguments without bias, so I'll summarize the arguments in favour, and let someone else give the arguments against. Note that I think even some of the arguments in favour aren't particularly strong, but I'll summarize them anyway. --ais523 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Arguments in favour
There is no technical reason why the move cannot be made.
The number of links and redirects that will need to be fixed won't be too high, and bots can carry out that sort of fixing anyway.
Moving the main page won't create any lasting extra load on the servers.
The 'redirected from' message isn't visible on the Main Page, so people won't notice the move when visiting a redirect (this protection can be updated through a rename).
Main Page and Main page could be redirected separately if needed after a move.
No evidence many people link to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Other Wikimedia wikis already have their Main Page outside the article namespace: [4][5].
Most of the large number of incoming links to the Main Page are templates, and so can be easily changed to the new location (and redirects would take care of them, anyway).
The only problems that this might cause would be short-term, whereas the benefits would be long-term.
Problems with keeping it in article namespace
Main Page is included in database dumps of articles, which means that various software features (such as Special:Contributions and 'cite this article') and external websites (such as Wikiseek and the top-100-articles list) consider it to be an article when it isn't.
In the event we ever need Main Page for an article (who knows?) we will either need a disambig in the Main Page or need to rush through a sudden resonably major and will not be able to redirect Main Page to Portal:Main Page for long unless we continue to disambig
Consistency
Having the Main Page outside the article namespace would help people find out about the logic of how Wikipedia works earlier.
De facto, it's a portal
The Main Page is a contents page, and therefore not in the body of the encyclopedia.
WP:PORTAL uses the Main Page as an example of a portal.
Having a portal in article space contradicts policy.
Replies to arguments against moving
WP:CCC says that tradition is not necessarily binding.
Even if something isn't broken, fixing it can be a good idea.
So that's the case in favour; anyone care to set out the arguments against? --ais523 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Arguments against
Potential disadvantages of moving
It will be a lot of work for no real benefit for the readers.
Many link to and have bookmarked the main page.
"Portal:Main Page" and similar would seem overly complicated to the visitors.
Other
Most other Wikimedia wikis have their main pages at Main Page.
It is a historical artefact and one of a kind.
Time could be better spent on doing something else.
Why fix something that isn't broken?It is broken since it is a violation of policy. FirefoxMan 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Some people really do believe it is not broken. See below. —DragonHawk (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added some arguments against but I'm pretty sure I have missed a couple. Feel free to add. But remember that the list being shorter doesn't mean that the arguments have less weight. Jeltztalk21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I've refactored both lists of arguments by grouping them into categories, to facilitate talking about them. I think this discussion is ready to reach some kind of conclusion, and this outline could help, it seems. If anybody thinks the organizing could be done better, please feel free to improve it. -GTBacchus(talk)04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit break 3)
This argument is getting so long that a new page will have to be created soon so that browsers won't start crashing! Anyway, we've now heard the arguments for and against but what are we going to do? I agree with Jimbo Wales about what the real question is. The real question is: Are there compelling usability reasons to do something extremely disruptive against nearly 6 years of tradition? Personally, I think that the move to Portal:Main Page is a good idea. For the reason, we need to look at what a namespace is. A namespace separates the wiki into different sections as these pages have different purposes. So which namespace does the Main Page belong to? We need to know what each namespace is for. Here is a list of namespaces (excluding talk namespaces (the purposes for those are simple to work out), Special and Media):
Namespace
Reason
(main)
Articles
User
Pages for the users
Wikipedia
The running of Wikipedia as a project
Image
For files
MediaWiki
System messages
Template
Pages that can be copied into other pages using a special code
Help
For people who need help with editing
Category
To sort pages
Portal
Pages that are dedicated to show people other pages
Looking at this, it seems that Main Page should become Portal:Main Page. Also, I think that some tools (such as those on the toolserver) require this. I haven't got any examples, but I will probably give one later. But does this answer Jimbo's question? The debate goes on. P.S. Thanks to Smurrayinchester for showing me how to do make tables here. P.P.S. Evidence of my support for this can be found at wikia:nwn. See, the page name is Neverwinter:Main Page. --Leon (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Dunno but I would hope so! After all this certainly contradicts Wikipedia policy - what an outrage considering the Main page is the "face" of Wikipedia!--HamedogTalk|@01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat true, Hamedog, but it's always been this way and there's nothing wrong with it the way it is; besides, it's simple, clear-cut and in the article space, taking new visitors into account it just simplifies things for them, I'd say, because they aren't instantly confused with the idea of portals or namespaces. And, to repeat again a point made a few times during this discussion already - it ain't broken, so don't fix it. --Ouro16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. It is broken, so we need to fix it, there are a lot of things wrong with it (like what happens if we ever have an article called main page, do you really want to have a disambig link? And as I've pointed out before, a sudden change without a redirect for a few months is not a good idea so crossing this bridge when we come to it is an incredibly bad idea (as is often the case)). Also, it's much simpler, clear-cut etc to use Portal:Main Page, visitors are less likely to be confused and IMHO you insult our visitors to suggest they would be whatever the case. 203.109.240.9315:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
There is, in fact, something wrong with it, to quote User:ais523: "Main Page is included in database dumps of articles, which means that various software features (such as Special:Contributions and 'cite this article') and external websites (such as Wikiseek and the top-100-articles list) consider it to be an article when it isn't." Besides, it IS broken. It's wrong.--Tom00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You gave no argument supporting the fact that it's broken. Does it not function? Does it not perform its function well? Are the inner workings screwed up? No. It's always been like this, it's fine as it is. I was tempted to put a {{Cite needed}} tag by your comment. --Ouro07:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a teeny weeny thingie why it's broken (some guy brought it up before), the cite article function. 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The argument "it's not broken" should be removed. Anything not following policy or guidelines is broken and needs to be fixed. If we don't accept that, we might as well stop working here altogether. If we cannot use non-compliance to the guidelines as a reason to change something, we have nothing left to do any more changes. So there has to be a good reason to leave the page where it is. But, again, the argument "it's not broken" is invalid. Piet | Talk13:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not concur. How come then did it happen that the situation went unnoticed for all those years? This discussion will yet again turn into a pointless back and forth of proponents and opponents of the move, so let's just keep things the way they are and not waste time, there are probably trolls and vandals about. --Ouro14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It was noticed (see the Main Page FAQ). According to that FAQ, it wasn't changed for tradition reasons; this argument does not seem to a be sufficient reason to block the move to me (WP:CCC). --ais523 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Policy has to exist for a reason beyond just having policy. Policy exists to make it easier to create and maintain an encyclopedia. Pointing at policy and saying "That is reason enough" is not enough. Pointing at WP:CCC is not enough, either, because, by the same rule, policy can be changed. There may well be reasons why MP should be moved, but saying "Policy! Policy! Policy!" is not sufficient. —DragonHawk (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. WP:CCC is not a reason to do anything (otherwise we'd be changing policy at random simply because it had stayed the same too long), but there are other reasons to do the move; I brought it up as a rebuttal to one oppose argument that I don't feel is correct. (The move, obviously, should only take place if the support arguments outweight the oppose arguments, so in this sense the link tends to support moving the Main Page.) I think we're agreeing with each other here, but I'm not sure; I apologise for being unclear. --ais523 10:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Come on DragonHawk, that doesn't make sense. If I move a page Barbed Wire to Barbed wire to make the name conform to policy, I need no reason to do this other than policy. IAR states "if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". It is up to you to prove that following the guideline in this case will prevent you from improving and maintaining Wikipedia. Piet | Talk13:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That's odd. If I move Barbed Wire to Barbed wire, it would be because it's a common noun, and not a proper noun. I would do that regardless of whether I knew we had a written guideline on the topic — in the early days, we didn't. Completing the move would still be improving Wikipedia, because we would no longer be representing a common noun as a proper noun. Simply following rules without knowing why isn't a reason to do anything, and that's precisely what "WP:NOT a bureaucracy" means. Any reason to moving the main page must hinge on the idea that the encyclopedia is somehow worse for having it where it currently is. -GTBacchus(talk)01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Since people coming here to visit Wikipedia wont see "Portal:Main Page" on the actual page and only in the URL field I think it is ok. When they then use Wikipedia a bit it will make more sense to them than the current way. I'm not saying that the Main Page being an exception is hard to learn, but why not fix it so that people don't have to? If it is a portal I think it also would be easier to understand why it can be permanently protected while Wikipedia still being editable by anyone. Generally articles should not protected since that is contra productive to the evolution of Wikipedia, but a portal is a tool for navigation and doesn't necessarily have to be editable by anyone. Jeltztalk20:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, for the first time an IP summarized the opinions of all of us. Nobody cares. So can we just go back to not caring why the main page is in mainspace after it has been there for several years and is in most of the 701 other WMF wikis? Then we can all go work on Wikipedia:How to use process so that we can all follow a process about the correct way to following a process. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Several people must care (including me), or we wouldn't have generated this much debate. --ais523 10:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If nobody cares, then we should just move the thing and be done with it. Many people including me have argued strongly for it so clearly some of us do care. It seems unfortunately that the other side cares as well but if they don't then just move it 203.109.240.9315:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, Royalguard11, and the anonymous contributor who contributed in quadruple-big font, you both care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't bother to oppose the move and you would just let us do it.--Tom17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, obviously the point was on the second part of my comment. So I'll repeat it for you that missed: So can we just go back to not caring why the main page is in mainspace after it has been there for several years and is in most of the 701 other WMF wikis? Then we can all go work on Wikipedia:How to use process so that we can all follow a process about the correct way to following a process. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Grammatical Error
The "In the News Section" contains a grammatical error. "Defeat" in "Australia defeat England " should be plural. It should read "Australia defeats England". --Geoffrey Gibson01:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. "Australia defeat England" is correct. In both countries' varieties of English, groups of people are grammatically plural. —David Levy01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think it is correct. Groups of people are collective nouns and are considered singular. Ex: flock, herd, class, group.... all are singular collective nouns and a specified nation would fall into this category.Larry haven01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)lary haven
This is truly bizarre usage and I was going to object as well, but it seems as though David Levy is right. Googling reveals it is common among sportswriters. I've never seen anybody do this when talking about the result of a war or something, though... Redquark02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That's probably because most writers would use the past tense "Australia defeated England" it's just the ITN writing style that forces the use of this tense. These days due to the overwhealming amount of US media, in Australia both plural and singular are acceptable. It's almost to the point where "defeats" is becomming the norm. The logic is as David said above, a team is a group of people and therefore treated as a plural. Even though "a group" is singular in itself, it's to recognise a team effort. --Monotonehell02:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It still grates on the ears. I always thought that a group "was" singular in word but plural in concept. But I am American, not English or Australian, and I don't know cricket at all, so it's out of my range. However, if it read "Australians defeat England" or something along those lines, would it still be good sportswriterese? graphite_elbow14:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No, 'Australians' is not acceptable either. This is because You should not say "The Australian captain scored a century", but rather "The captain of the Australia team scored a century". Ditto "The England team", instead of "The English team". Carcharoth11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A little off topic, I know, but "defeat" is the plural form of the verb. "Defeats" is the singular. The number in the verb must agree with the subject.--205.133.240.25419:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm based in the UK, and can confirm that sports teams are often referred to in the plural: see various instances of this at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/6236687.stm. The grammatically correct form is, as far as I know, to refer to sports teams in the singular (Arsenal was playing Liverpool last night; Arsenal's players were playing Liverpool's players last night), and this usage is creeping in to the British media. However, the plural is still the most-used form. Because I'm so used to hearing the plural form, I find the American singular strange - the exact opposite of what User:Graphite_Elbow experiences. In general - and I don't know the reason for this, but I'd like to know - American grammatical usages are usually correct, whereas British grammar often deviates from the norms in various ways. --Jim (Talk) 08:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I think you'll find that British English grammar generally adheres to British English norms very well; one of which is to treat a team as plural object (a team of players), hence the requirement for the plural version of the verb (see here, [6] and [7]. Bazza16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
When I find that a main page item seems linguistically incorrect or confusing to people from one nation or another, I attempt to devise suitable wording that eliminates the issue. Unfortunately, I've never managed to arrive at such a solution for the "defeat/defeats" problem (which arises from time to time). It seems impossible (without using awkward wording) to not end up with either an Americanism or a Commonwealthism.
I suppose that we'll just have to continue relying on the nationalities of the teams involved (or the event's location if the teams represent nations with conflicting rules), and accept the fact that a large segment of our readers will think that we've messed up. Let's just try to remember to include a hidden comment explaining the situation (to avoid accidental back-and-forth edit wars among people who all believe that they're correcting a simple typo). —David Levy17:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a well-known difference between U.S. and British/Commonwealth usage, which has come up before on this and other pages. It's not just confined to team names or the sports(US)/sport(Br) pages; one finds the same treatment of an multi-member entity as plural (where Americans would expect the singular), in articles about music groups, for example. Newyorkbrad15:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the "reason" this works is that Australia and England in this case are kinds of an adjectival nouns modifying some assumed word such as a "players." As in the sentence, "Superman does good," the word good isn't acting as grammatically incorrect adjective as an adverb but a somewhat mysterious noun relaying terms we may already understdand; for example, "Superman does good [things for society]." Whereas "Australia defeat England" sounds weird, even to my American ears; it may be modern shortform of something like "The Players of Australia defeat the Players of England" that is, today, acceptable and understandable on it's own and which we understand within its content. Evidently this grew from the need to conserve space in newspaper print in the late 19th century and early 20th century. One can grammaticalls justify this by saying that there exists in some Indo-European languages the ability to replace whole phrases with one word but still give that word the grammatic properties of the entire phrase. Arthurian Legend14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is this on every page, was it decided by the marketing department? I don't like it at all, it looks very unprofessional. People keep adding messages like that for promoting whatever, I completely hate it. Imagine a paper encyclopedia putting a message at the top of every page. And where is this discussed, I've never seen a discussion about it? Piet | Talk11:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It's just under the main heading at the top of the page, even on edit pages (for instance, it's the subtitle for 'Editing Talk:Main Page (section)' on the edit screen for me now. --ais523 12:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
For a paper encyclopedia, that would be unnecessary. But for a new visitor who has never been to Wikipedia, he/she might not know anything about Wikipedia, so even the small tagline might help. —Mets501 (talk)12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
many printed books, even, have the title printed in the header of every page. I don't see the problem. Since the content is GFDLed, the line also assures that mechanical copying results in a licence compliant copy, you'd need to purposedly remove the note to plagiarize the content. It would be enough to have "from Wikipedia" in the footer for this though. dab(𒁳)15:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So it's always been there? Gee, I only seem to have noticed today. Probably got out of bed on the wrong foot. Or has the size changed or anything? Pages suddenly looked different this morning. Piet | Talk16:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Piet, if you want, you can get rid of it (if you don't like it). Just place the following code in your Monobook css file: #siteSub {
display: none;
} ...but the site tagline doesn't seem so bad to me. It means free as in freedom, and while Wikipedia is free as in beer (of course, I'd prefer Wikipedia), but they're not the same thing (Gratis versus Libre). GracenotesT § 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It's very relevant to this page (being that this page is for feedback on the main page) and in point of fact I'm interested in reading what is said here. Raul65416:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I always read the main-page summary of the featured article (except for days when I don't go near a computer). I usually (but not always) follow through to the article and at least read the beginning. I often read the whole article. Lately I've been copyediting a lot of featured article candidates. Several of those have since been on the main page. I don't usually read those when they are on the main page as I've already read them. However, I do check out the diff from the last time I read it and the main page version. Some main page articles are better than others. I don't always read the entire article when it's not very good. Seeing as I have the bad habit of doing most of my Wikipedia browsing from work, lately I've been following through to the article less and less because of the template-vandal. It'd be embarassing to have some of those images suddenly on my screen. However, I've yet to visit the main page or any of its articles when they've been vandalised, and I understand that problem's mostly solved by the new cascading protection stuff, so I'm getting back into the habit of usually reading the featured article. As for ITN, DYK, and Today in History, I scan ITN to see if there's anything I haven't already learned about from real news sources, and I read today in history, and sometimes follow through to an article. I also read whatever's in DYK when I chance to look at it, and usually twice a day; but it changes so frequently that I know I miss seeing stuff. The article that I contributed that was featured in DYK was featured while I wasn't on the computer so I missed seeing it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You can disable image-loading in your browser, so you'll never have to worry about inappropriate images. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-14 21:04Z
You can still view them easily. Any images that you want to load, simply right-click on them and click on Show Picture. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-15 17:46Z
Oh, and to disable image loading in IE, go to Tools > Internet Options, go to the Advanced tab, and under Multimedia is an option to enable/disable showing pictures. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-15 17:48Z
Same with all the sections on the main page - I only read something if it peeks my curiosity. So somedays yes, somedays no --Monotonehell08:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I read the main page summary pretty much every day and then if that really interests me I'll read the whole thing. Other than that I read it if there's a big "this shouldn't be on the main page" uproar or if it's something I personally would never have guessed there'd be an article/featured article on. Jellypuzzle | Talk10:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As a person with a mild case of ADHD, I think it's important to check out the main page every day and see what "sticks" or catches my eye as an ordinary reader. It would be nice if the FA didn't always mean very long, in my opinion. There are so many high quality articles that could be featured. That said, I read at least a portion of the FA every day. I bought my Uncle's birthday present based on the Rwandan Coffee article just recently. I try not only to read but to improve, comment, and congratulate. NinaOdell | Talk15:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Very rarely do I read the FA of the day on the main page. Rarely do they interest me. My main page use is chiefly to log in, occasionally to check what happened on this date to check if i'm ignoring a day of religious observance or something (when I'm too lazy to pick up my prayer book and breviary) and check recent deaths to make sure my name isn't listed. —ExplorerCDT21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I will usually read the summary on the main page then, if the article sounds interesting, I will read it. --Credema09:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I usually read the main page article, unless it is simething very strange (like the pokemon one a hile back(which i read anyway))--Chickenfeed919:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I read the synopsis (and everything else on the main page) daily, and the full F.Article if I'm personally interested (about once a week). —Quiddity21:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia - An ACADEMIC encyclopædia or not ?
Firstly, I must say that I've been a Wikipedia user/reader/visitor for quite a while now, and like and appreciate the project very much.
My concern is with the general content of Wikipedia (non language-specific). Although officially called an Encyclopædia, I find it more and more difficult to believe that those very, very long articles about TV shows, large companies, etc, are encyclopædic content. Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to the information (that is usually very carefully and completely put together) being available. However, I am tempted to call for a an official separation of Academic content from the Generic - perhaps Wikipedia Academic that would collate content of strictly academic value.
I'd like to hear what others, especially admins & mods, have to say about this.
Wikipedia is not an "Academic encyclopedia"; it is simply an encyclopedia of all notable and verifiable topics. Just because you're not interested in a topic doesn't mean other people aren't either. In fact, if you look at the list of the top 1000 Wikipedia articles, the popular culture-related articles are by far the most popular. —Dark•Shikari[T]10:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
By no means do I oppose existance of any notable and/or verifiable topics, but shouldn't there be a distinction, perhaps at least a flag, to mark articles of academic value? It is otherwise unfair (if I may use such a flexible word) to compare Wikipedia to any other encyclopedia in size or otherwise. I also believe that in time to come (say, a couple of years) content that is very popular today, will become largely outdated and irrelevant, and any articles relating to those topics will not be updated. Thus, Wikipedia will slowly begin to emerge as a collection of outdated scrolls, rather than current encyclopedic knowledge/information. —Sergeroz13:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You're assuming that either the Wikipedia editing population will decline in the future, or there will be fewer topics of popular interest to write about in the future. Are either of these true? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-17 13:53Z
Perhaps he is suggesting the pages on pop culture topics which are getting so much attention now will be left to stagnate once pop culture moves on. It's certainly something to consider. APL16:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of content in Wikipedia that I consider more appropriate to an almanac. For example the detailed sports results over a detailed article about the sport. But sometimes the line between academic interest and not is very hard to define. There would be endless discussions over whether XYZ is academic or not, since just about everything is studied at some level of academia. Already projects like Wikinews and Wikibooks have been splintered from Wkipedia when the difference is noted. Perhaps in the future Wikimanac will be a project and we can shove off a tonne of non-encyclopedic but valuable information to there. --Monotonehell14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I support this. Then again, I'm an academic studying comics and video games, so I'm not sure this distinction actually does anything. Phil Sandifer15:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Large companies and TV shows are indeed encyclopaedic subjects and you will find them in your encyclopaedia (example). And I actually have seen no problem with the length of our articles on companies. What bothers me somewhat is how long articles on for example TV shows can become, but it isn't easy to draw a line. Jeltztalk21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Complete list
Where is the code that makes "Complete list" show up as an interwiki language link in the left margin of the Main Page, at the end of the language list? I can't seem to find it in the code or transcluded pages. Dovi15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This has been brought up a few times (and added once or twice if I remember correctly), but the counter-argument has always been that the main page is primarily for the readers, not the editors. We don't want to give the impression that you "have" to contribute or anything. The community portal is for the editors. Besides, it's not like we have a shortage of editors or anything ;) Oskar15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. :( But if you know that the image's default height is h, and its width is w, and you want a height of n pixels, then copy and paste the following to include as a parameter in the image:
100 px high
"There's something magical about that ratio!" he said. The crowd gushed "Auuuuuuuuu."
{{subst:#expr: n * w / h round 0}}px
(For example, Image:Example.png is 275×307, and suppose you want the height to be 100 px. So
[[File:Bad Title Example.png|thumb|{{subst:#expr: 100 * 275 / 307 round 0}}px|"There's something magical about that ratio!" he said. The crowd gushed "Auuuuuuuuu."]]
It depends on what you mean. If you want to be able to make a perfectly square image into a rectangle by reducing the height while keeping the width constant... then no, Wikipedia always keeps the aspect ratio constant. However, if you want to reduce an image by specifying the new height rather than the new width just use a ridiculously large value for the width. That is, [[File:Bad Title Example.png|999999x100px]], would scale the image to the lesser of a 999999px width and a 100px height. Unless the initial image were already vastly wider than it was tall that would result in the height limit being the lower value and thus the sole determinant of the final image size. --CBD13:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be more logical to use the following syntax: [[File:Bad Title Example.png|x20px]] where you explicitly don't specify the width (leaving it unconstrained), but just the height (here 20px). Let's try:
Hmmm... it does work within thumbs (see on the left).
Hmmm... it does not work outside thumbs (see below).
For this reason, on French Wikipedia, I created the template LargeurImage where you can specify the original image width and height, and it will constrain the image within a box specified with minimum and maximum width and height (it takes care of not enlarging the image, but will reduce only one of the two dimensions so that it won't exceed the maximum). It is used for displaying the Picture of the Day within constraints of 250px to 350px max in either dimensions... This is used to compute the effective width to give into the [[Image:...]] link. All you need is to check the full resolution of the original image, and it computes the rest.
If min and max parameters are equal, the image is constrained to a maximum square box, otherwise it will be fitted into a Saint-André cross (like on the Swiss flag or the cross on the Red Cross logo). Using distinct min and max values is useful to avoid that panoramic pictures get too narrow, by allowing them to use a wider width (up to the maximum indicated), without the height being greater than the specified minimum value. This gives approximately equal surfaces on all Featured images: the minimum box is always completely filled (unless the image is very narrow), and the extension are allowed either on both left/right sides (when width is greater than height) or on both top/bottom sides of the minimum box (when hight is greater than width). If the original image is an exact square, it will be displayed in the minimum square specified. verdy_p14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is the database closed?
database of Arabic Wikipedia and meta are closed for a long time. Why?
It's not only Arabic. It affects almost all Wikipedias, except the English one, which benefits from a sort of positive segragation, where its maintenance always gets high priority. Meta is locked too, as well as French Wikipedia... which can be suspended for many hours instead of minutes for English Wikipedia...
Why don't we have a link in the maintenance message displayed on top of the edit page (when a database is locked) where we can see the current state of all databases, and possibly an history of database locks and unlocks?
It seems that not all Wikimedia projects have the same level of support, and WM database admins don't care much about other project than English Wikis... But I'd like to see a rationale for this behavior, notably because smaller Wikipedias should always be much faster to synchronize between servers than English Wikis. For now, English wikis are stealing all the ressources at any time... I think that the smallest wikis should have priority in all cases (and possibly Meta having top priority, so that coordination remains possible), even if this means that dabase locks will be longer for the largest wikis that have the most important number of changes to synchronize. Apparently, when maintenance locks are needed, projects are not sorted by their growing volume of changes to synchronize, as this should be (but may be these synchronization statistics are still not maintained in the software). What we see is that all databases are updated at the same time, then synchronization starts and take very long on some projects. I don't understand why databases need to be synchronized all at the same time, and why there is not a correct queuing system, to minimize the global impact. verdy_p13:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that when the synchronization of the English wiki was finished, the updates of foreign servers were immediately restored. But the main consequence is that now, the ongoing updaets on English wiipedias are taking up all the resources needed to synchronize the other wikis. So their synchronization is extremely long and probably suffers a lot from the traffic generated by English Wikipedia now that it is active again. It seems that these current English updates are not constrained and do not leave enough resources to allow other wiki databases to synchronize in a reasonnable time. verdy_p14:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Stagnation
Barzan Ibrahim has been on the front page for like 3 days now. somebody please change the photo.
You aren't even kidding!!! I WAS JUST going to comment on this. I am getting really tired of a picture of someone who was executed (especially since his head was severed in the process... no need to have a constant reminder that it was once attached to his body... and no need to have a humorous point of showing only a headshot of the guy--even though no humor is intended) remaining on the front page. Take it down please. --Marsbound202400:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I am just agreeing with what was pointed out. It shouldn't be hard to figure out that something needs to replace it. ANY image from a decent news story would work. I am not an Administrator but it should be obvious that after a few days, the image needs to be updated. Thankfully it has now. I wouldn't recommend a picture because it is ultimately up to the Administrators and I don't want to intervene with the regular process, but instead want to make sure the regular process happens at an acceptable rate. :) --Marsbound202407:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
While the problem has been fixed for a few hours now, I did make a suggestion, on 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC) in the appropriate place but no admin took it up 203.109.240.9308:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
How is this noteworthy news compared to everything else that may have happened in the last 24 hours? A quick perusal at Reuters should give people a good overview of real news that's happened lately. A cynic my well comment that this is indicative of the pop culture road Wikipedia has headed down. Peter196814:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please update some non-pop culture-related articles with news materials, then suggest replacements at WP:ITN/C. Don't just complain and do nothing about it. --64.229.179.16714:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to go through my user contribtions. I have made suggestions and I have updated material - repeatedly. By the way, I've noticed your IP address has made a few drive-by comments in this part of Wikipedia. Why not sign in and/or create an account and do the things you insist I stop complaining about? Peter196814:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you would have better luck if you worked on the things you complain about, rather than asking anonymous users to create accounts and do them for you. --Maxamegalon200015:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess you didn't you read all of what I wrote. Here it is again: I have made suggestions and I have updated material - repeatedly. I then told the guy to log in. So yes, I have "worked" on stuff myself and yes, I feel I can "complain" about things just like anyone else here. But the bottom line is, I actually do edit things here; I don't just complain. Peter196815:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I don't mean to imply that you don't update material or that you don't have the right to complain. I do notice, however, that you haven't edited Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates recently, and that you apparently decided it more appropriate to ask an anonymous user, who suggested a remedy to your concern, to create an account and "do the things you insist I stop complaining about". I only meant to suggest that your current method may not be the best to address the issue you raised. --Maxamegalon200016:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This event is significant because of the international diplomatic impact it had. Despite the british TV show is almost unknown in France, the fact that it caused troubles between UK and India, was related in France within the main evening news on major TV channels. It was reported also in other European TV channels. The UK Prime Minister had to give an official reply to this concern. This is not only a pop culture event.
And in fact the main reason that it was focused in international news, is about racism tolerated on a popular british TV channel, not the fact that those behaviors were broadcasted publicly (there's a right in Britain for such opinions), but the fact that they were not rapidly balanced by the TV channel itself or by British surveillance authorities not requiring that the channel give a opposite reply. So the reply had to be made publicly by the Prime Minister himself, and this should not have occured... verdy_p15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I would argue the bigger issue for many is not the tolerance for racism on UK television, but whether this reflects widespread racism in the wider UK society. Regardless however, it doesn't matter. All that matters is as has been mentioned elsewhere (in the news, discussion) and you pointed out, that given the scale of this incident, it's of international interest regardless of our opinions of the matter 203.109.240.9317:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not every day a major broadcaster records footage of Z-list celebs racially abusing a Bollywood queen, broadcasts it across the world for fun and profit and ends up having its people burned in effigy in the streets of India. Definitely significant enough for ITN, it'll be taken off when enough new stories push it off the bottom of the list. --Sam Blanning(talk)12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
