Jump to content

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}}}<!--

<!--- Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. This "section edit button" is important, so please use it. -->
Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "NEW SECTION" tab, or use the "EDIT" link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "New section" tab are important, so please use them.
[[Category:Main Page]]
-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism}}}}
{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}
{{Annual readership|title=the Main Page}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|counter = 133
|maxarchivesize = 200k
|counter = 207
|minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(3d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}
}}
{{MPH alert}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
<div style="right:100px;" class="metadata topicon">'''{{Currentdate}}'''</div>
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 [[Special:PermanentLink/539296113#Could we maybe turn off SineBot on this page?]] -->
=Main Page Error Reports=
[[Category:Main Page discussions]]
__TOC__
{{clear}}

= Main Page error reports =
{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors}}
{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors}}
<!-- ---------------
Please do not write anything here.
Please go to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to place an error report.
To discuss the contents of the Main Page, please start a new discussion using the "New section" button above, or use the "[edit]" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
--------------- -->


= General discussion =
<!-- Please leave this stickied at the top of the page, to avoid repeated posts about it
{{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}}
=How to remove the donation notice=

'''Logged-in users''': Go to 'my preferences', select the 'Gadgets' tab, check the box labelled 'Suppress display of the fundraiser site notice', click 'Save', then bypass your browser cache (Ctrl + F5 on Internet Explorer, Ctrl + Shift + R on Firefox) to see changes.

'''Not logged in''': [[Special:CreateAccount|Create an account]] (this takes very little time, all you have to do is pick a username and password), then follow the above instructions. It is beyond the control of the English language Wikipedia to remove the donation notice for users not logged in. Alternatively disabling javascript may be used to prevent the article from being displayed, although this may affect other script based browsing.
-->

=General discussion=
{{Shortcut|T:MP}}
__TOC__
<!-- ---------------
<!-- ---------------
Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so have the courtesy to use it.
Please *start* a new discussion at the bottom of this talk page (e.g. using the "New section" button above), or use the "[edit]" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
------------------ -->
---------------- -->

== The sad thing is ==

The April Fools wiki page is indistinguishable from regular wiki pages.

-G <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.32.141.8|173.32.141.8]] ([[User talk:173.32.141.8|talk]]) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== DYK ==

''... that Sandomierz Voivodeship (1939), a proposed administrative unit of the Second Polish Republic, was projected to be 24.5 km² and to incorporate 20 or 21 powiats?''

— And all along I thought it was 22. [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

: Meant for [[WP:ERRORS]]? --[[Special:Contributions/74.13.126.63|74.13.126.63]] ([[User talk:74.13.126.63|talk]]) 18:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:: No, I don't think it is; he's saying that the hook taught him something. That's the wonderful fun of DYK. [[Special:Contributions/79.71.44.8|79.71.44.8]] ([[User talk:79.71.44.8|talk]]) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Actually, no — I was saying that no one in the English-speaking world would have any idea how many powiats the Sandomierz Voivodeship (proposed 70 years ago) would have had, and very few would have any idea what a powiat is or even a voivodeship. A few history buffs might have heard of [[Sandomierz]].

:::[[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Or Sandomierzians themselves perhaps? --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Today's entry on Henryk Rzewuski is, to my mind, in a similar class. None of Rzewuski's works is available in English on Amazon, and I suspect he is virtually unknown among English speakers. It seems to me that DYK entries ought to start off with some person, place or topic of which English speakers will have some idea, however vague, and add some truly surprising or interesting fact about that person, place or topic. Otherwise, the "Did you know" question seems silly.

:::::I don't know if Polish Wikipedia has a DYK feature, but if it does, it wouldn't make sense to ask "Did you know" questions there in relation to something in the English-speaking world that Poles will have no knowledge or inkling of.

:::::Of course, that's not to say that Rzewuski doesn't merit a thorough treatment in an eponymous article on English Wiki, if he is indeed a writer of repute in Poland.

:::::[[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Learning things you don't know about is what encyclopedias are for. If you're looking for light entertainment, I suggest a change of venue. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] | [[User:Zocky/Picture Popups|picture popups]] 01:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed the whole point of the DYK section is to tell people interesting things that they probably don't know but are covered in a recent article in an attempt to attract them to read the article. There's clearly no point just featuring stuff people already widely know. Now you may argue that the hook wasn't very interesting but that's a quite different argument from the one that started this. Also by the nature of DYK, most things covered would be fairly obscure as these are the most likely to lack any article or to be stubs and therefore have a chance of being DYK. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If DYK is to be a random compendium of intellectual trivia, it shouldn't be called "Did You Know?" The did-you-know question presupposes and implies some basis for further inquiry. In the case of the first example cited above, asking the general English reader if he or she knows how many "powiats" the proposed Sandomierz "Voivodeship" would have had (had it been created 70 years ago) strikes me as absurd.

Of course encyclopedias are about expanding knowledge, but I don't think informing the reader that the Sandomierz Voivodeship would have had 20 or 21 powiats constitutes a contribution to the pool of knowledge, since the topic is from the English-speaker's point of view so obscure as to be meaningless. (I suspect it's largely meaningless from the Polish point of view as well, but at least Poles will know what a ''powiat'' is.)

I would much rather hear from our Polish friends about what was in Copernicus's library or how many horses Casimir the Great kept in his stables. In other words, give me something I can understand and on some level relate to.

I will now return to my light reading. Current selection: ''The Discoverers,'' by [[Daniel Boorstin]].

[[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 21:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
:I can't say that hook appeals to me either, but I am sure there are plenty of English speakers who are either Polish or have an interest in Polish history, Polish geography or whatever. As I see it, did you know is not there to provide a fact, it is there to interest you, leading you to the article. For instance (perfectly timed for me...) the top hook is currently "that the hallucinogenic mushroom Psilocybe naematoliformis (pictured) was first discovered in a tropical rain forest in the Uxpanapa Region of Veracruz, in southeastern Mexico?" Very, very few people are going to know anything about that mushroom specifically. More have heard of Psilocybe. More may be interested in hallucinogenic mushrooms, or just mushrooms/fungi in general- any of these people may be drawn to the article, whether or not they had ever heard of the mushroom. I certainly would be, had I not already read it. DYK is not meant as a list of freestanding facts, but as a list of interesting tidbits that make you want to know more. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

::I agree with everything you say. I don't think DYK is a list of facts, not at all. Indeed it's meant to interest the reader in some topic. My point was, the topic should not be so obscure as to be virtually meaningless. In your example, everyone knows what a mushroom is.

::I wasn't taking an anti-Polish stance. Polish history and other aspects of the Polish nation and culture can be fascinating — but contributors should find truly interesting and comprehensible topics to write about. I perhaps gave the wrong impression when I cited only a couple of famous Poles as appropriate examples. I'm ready to be interested and intrigued by any topic, so long as it means something to me (or to a significant proprotion of readers).

::As an aside: Many of the more technical scientific entries go right past me, a beknighted liberal arts major, but I imagine there are plenty of readers who find them interesting.

::[[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
== risquee ==

the "risque menage" a trois should be a risky menage a trois? it's not proper french either so i would think that.[[Special:Contributions/24.132.170.97|24.132.170.97]] ([[User talk:24.132.170.97|talk]]) 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

:"Risque" in the sense of "wink wink, nudge nudge" innuendo... it's effectively an English word borrowed from French, as is "menage a trois," since they don't necessarily carry the literal definitions of the original French words (or maybe they do... my French is very, very poor). [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
:: Please don't forget the accents! Without them, the words have a different meaning ( ''risque'' = risk ; ''risqué'' (with an acute accent) = hazardous). So, ''le risque ménage à trois'' would be used rather by an insurance broker trying to ward you against working disability induced by fights, nervous breakdowns etc...( id. in ''assurance tous risques'') - while a preacher could vigourouly blame that immoral and ''risqué ménage à trois''...Sorry about those accents é, è, ê (...& ë, though this one is very seldom used...) Heartily, a french passing by [[User:Arapaima|Arapaima]] ([[User talk:Arapaima|talk]]) 06:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

== OTD: [[Selena]] ==

Not a problem, just a curiosity. The 14th anniversary of Selena's death doesn't seem to be a significant anniversary; I was wondering why it appears in OTD. I don't really have a problem with it... I just thought it was odd. [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 12:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

: Probably there for variety's sake. WP has loads of pop culture stuffs. --[[Special:Contributions/76.64.77.116|76.64.77.116]] ([[User talk:76.64.77.116|talk]]) 16:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

::Mmm, I didn't mean that the anniversary of Selena's death is insignificant; I meant that the 14th anniversary specifically isn't really a special anniversary. I had thought that OTD events were supposed to be a little more... landmarkish. (In 2015, for example, we'll feature the 20th anniversary of Selena's death, and that ''will'' be a significant anniversary.) [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

:::How is that more significant? If anything, it's less significant, since fewer people will care [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 19:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Wait wait wait, I thought the rule was deaths/births are only noted on centennials. What's the deal here? <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
::::: So did I... I guess it doesn't matter much now as there are literally hours left of today... <small><span style="border:1px solid #999933;padding:1px;">[[User talk:Garden|<font style="color:#999933;">&nbsp;'''GARDEN'''&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the ''amount'' of significance or importance is not the only factor in determining what is posted each day. We also have to consider whether the chosen bolded article is a relatively complete and well-formatted article (i.e. not a stub and does not contain cleanup problems like {{tl|POV}} and {{tl|unreferenced}} tags; whether there is a mixed variety of topics; and whether there is a mix of events spanning the centuries. As the cards played out, it just so happened that the Selena article got to be the one of the events posted, especially when it is a current [[WP:FA|Wikipedia featured article]].

Lastly, the rule about "deaths only noted on centennials" is sort of relaxed when dealing with events like assassinations, executions, natural disasters, civil accidents, or some sort genocide/extinction/mass murder. Otherwise, for example, an article about a notable actress [[Sharon Tate|murdered]] by followers of [[Charles Manson|a cult leader]], or an article about three notable musicians [[The Day the Music Died|dying]] in a fatal plane crash, might never get on there. Cheers. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

== April 1 ==

I would like to invite users to help with ITN design for tomorrow. Most material is gathered already, what needs to be done are some fixes of the articles and modifications of wordings so that we get the effect we want. Appreciated. [[Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/In The News]]. --'''[[User:Tone|Tone]]''' 14:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
:The rough design is [[Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/In The News/1 April 2009|here]]. Due to go live in a few hours. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

== April fools modification ==

{{tlx|editprotected}}
In order for the Main Page to transition automatically on April 1st, I propose that the following change be made:
<pre>{{#ifeq:{{CURRENTDAY}}|1|{{Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page}}|(regular contents of the main page)}}</pre> The cascading protection will prevent vandalism. Just say if it won't work. --[[User:Ipatrol|Ipatrol]] ([[User talk:Ipatrol|talk]]) 19:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
:All of the components are already set to change automatically. &ndash;<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
:: It's one day a year, we'll cope. Plus what Julian says. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">[[User talk:Garden|<font style="color:#000000;">&nbsp;'''GARDEN'''&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant stuff guys! :D [[User:Spacehusky|Spacehusky]] ([[User talk:Spacehusky|talk]]) 03:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== April Fool's a day early? ==

[[File:Verpa conica.jpg|right|50px]]
"Did you know . . . that the [[Pileus (mycology)|cap]] of the thimble fungus, ''[[Verpa conica]] (pictured)'', resembles a [[thimble]]?"
Genius! --[[User:AdamSommerton|AdamSommerton]] ([[User talk:AdamSommerton|talk]]) 20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
:Plenty of funny fungus around. I've just written [[coprophilous fungi]] ("dung-loving" fungi) and we actually have a featured picture of a member of the ''[[Phallus (genus)|Phallus]]'' genus... We really are fun-guys over at [[WP:FUNGI]]... [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
:: See, is it just me who doesn't see a thimble, but something else... ;) <small><span style="border:1px solid #999933;padding:1px;">[[User talk:Garden|<font style="color:#999933;">&nbsp;'''GARDEN'''&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I repeat, you wanna take a look at some of our examples of ''Phallus''... A [[:File:Phallus hadriani.jpg|featured picture]], and a [[:File:Phallus hadriani.JPG|not so featured picture]]... [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This should have been kept on DYK for today. Sigh. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] ([[User talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]]) 05:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Please add a link directly going to the discussion of 'in the news'. ==

People deserve to know how this is done more easily. --[[User:AaThinker|AaThinker]] ([[User talk:AaThinker|talk]]) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

:There's links to all of the sections above... [[User:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#4c7d7e;">§hep</span>]][[User talk:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:#4c7d7e;"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 23:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

== April fools day ==

This day may be April 1 but this is a serious home page and the main page shroud retain its professionalism.--[[Special:Contributions/134.225.179.44|134.225.179.44]] ([[User talk:134.225.179.44|talk]]) 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:While I would've originally agreed with you, everything's pretty accurate, just with slang and humour thrown in. Don't worry, only 23:57 left. <small>&ndash; <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Latics|<font style="color:#990000;">'''LATICS'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Latics|<font style="color:#fff;background:#990000;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

: The slang is incredibly misleading and highly off putting also the Henry Allingham calimis not sourced adequately.--[[Special:Contributions/134.225.179.44|134.225.179.44]] ([[User talk:134.225.179.44|talk]]) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::It's supposed to be misleading, and somewhat entertaining. As for Henry Allingham, [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2006/4/22/210069.html&date=2007-12-01 check this]. <small>&ndash; <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Latics|<font style="color:#990000;">'''LATICS'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Latics|<font style="color:#fff;background:#990000;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 00:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Irish Guy Hanged? ==

You might want to reword the passage on the Taoiseach in "In the News". The way it is phrased right now implies that the man himself was hanged, not the portraits. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;[[User:Marlith|<font color="Orange">Marlith</font>]][[User talk:Marlith|<font color="Orange"> (Talk)</font>]]&nbsp;</span>''' 00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:I suspect [[April Fool's Day|that's the point]]. --[[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 00:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::But it's horribly horribly unfunny. Please can it be taken out? The others are funny, but that one needs re-evaluating urgently. [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] ([[User talk:Qp10qp|talk]]) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Anything that deals with a living person should be done extremely sensitively. It's been wording really badly, and I agree it needs fixing asap. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#6B8AB8">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:8pt; color:#6B8AB8">talk</span>]] 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:I agree with Majorly. This is just [[WP:BLP|inappropriate]] no matter what day of the year it is and people are already thinking it is serious. - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::"unexpected public hanging of Ireland's Taoiseach." Yeah. Vile. Reword. Please. [[Special:Contributions/201.124.80.93|201.124.80.93]] ([[User talk:201.124.80.93|talk]]) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Agreed. This needs to be reworded. Just becasue it is April 1st does not mean that [[WP:BLP]] goes out the window. Having fun at another persons expense is just not on. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Tweaked for now. Feel free to come up with something better. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:PeterSymonds|<b>PeterSymonds</b>]] : [[User_talk:PeterSymonds|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::No offense, but your wording stank - so I went back to it being about the fact that the portraits are nude. [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::I'm aware. ;) However, it needed to be changed. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:PeterSymonds|<b>PeterSymonds</b>]] : [[User_talk:PeterSymonds|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:It's hilarious, because it's true. Re-read the sentence; the "pictured" part doesn't refer to the image on the right&mdash; it refers to the fact that what was hanged was the pictured person. It's an intentionally dangling modifier. That's the entire joke. It's not BLP, because it's clearly not libel nor even remotely intended to be libelous, moreover, it's true. April 1 is supposed to be our official day to boost PR by making fun of ourselves. It's our self-roast: everyone's seen our vandalism, and everyone assumes it's vandalism&mdash; but it's [[double entendre|shockingly true in this case]]. We do it with style.
:I have to admit, for once I was invigorated with the idea that the community truly had achieved a milestone advancement in progressive thinking by agreeing to create something so genius and put aside the incessant 100% seriousness for just 0.2% (1/365th) of the year. The other 99.726% of the time we're serious, but for that 0.2%&mdash;that one day&mdash;I thought we had finally been able to truly appreciate the humanity, work, and extraordinary talent that goes into making the encyclopedia&mdash;all at once. It was an entire mainpage of stuff that looks like vandalism but is not only factually true but well-crafted to look false? Genius. It outclasses Google's april fools jokes, in my opinion.
:That said, words cannot describe how much my enthusiasm for the project subsequently dropped when I saw what just happened directly above this reply. We can't even spend 0.2% of our existence making fun of ourselves? It actually depressed me. That's saying a lot, too; for, through the drama, nonsense, and occasional pain in the ass, it's extraordinarily rare for me to be anything but enthusiastic with love for this project. I can easily say that this was the first time I felt that warm feeling yanked away while on Wikipedia. In the real world, I've found that business, person, and country alike are doomed to failure when they take themselves too seriously. I just... n/m.
:--[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::From the list of wikipedia policies: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes." I'd assume that "other purposes" includes giving yourself and your buddies a chuckle. By filling the main page with jokes, especially ones in poor taste, we stray from our goal of making a high-quality encyclopedia. People come to wikipedia for information not for laughs. [[User:Makeemlighter|Makeemlighter]] ([[User talk:Makeemlighter|talk]]) 02:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll see your policy and raise you [[meta:The Wikipedia Community]], [[WP:COMMUNITY]], [[:Category:Wikipedia humor]], and naturally [[WP:IAR]]. 99.726% of the time it's for the world. 99.726% of the time it's for our readers. 99.726% it's for the future and things we can't even imagine it being for. 0.2% it's for fun. Isn't that worth an [[WP:IAR]]? Isn't that worth a day? Will it prevent burnout? I'm not sure, but I do know that if our Gentle Readers and Gentle Community expects me to deal with the mean, uncivil, war-like, unfunny, completely-serious people, all the while reading death threats, legal threats, suicide notes, and people being hurtful, mean, pathological douchebags to each other on a daily basis&mdash; ''then on top of that'' be completely serious, myself, 100% of the time, then so help me I ''will'' leave the project. Demanding the impossible of the ''humans'' that edit the encyclopedia is, simply put, wrong.
:::Then again, maybe if we were all forced, maybe once a year, to remember that we're all humans with a sense of humor, maybe we wouldn't be making such a demand in the first place. We'd know better. Without seriousness, we forget what's truly funny; without laughter, we forget what's truly serious.
:::--[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with [[User:Makeemlighter|Makeemlighter]]. While I feel there is some wiggle room for jokes, the front page should not be altered in this manner. What do you think we are? Google? We don't just go changing the front page around for silly holidays. If you want to play a joke, change your signature around or alter your own user page in some way- [[User:J.delanoy|Or just flag yourself as a bot]]. [[User:GLaDOS|GLaDOS]] ([[User talk:GLaDOS|talk]]) 03:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

someone asked at least for some discussion on the AFD fornt page.But it was discussed for days if not weeks prior. There was even a link to the discussion on this Main Page discussion page! IMHO, the Irish politico story was funnier earlier in the day; but otherwise a great job, all! Can't wait for next year! [[Special:Contributions/121.55.196.124|121.55.196.124]] ([[User talk:121.55.196.124|talk]]) 08:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very unhappy with the misleading wording as it is at the moment: "Brian Cowen is seen publicly naked in Dublin". As a bare fact, that's simply not true, and surely violates the spirit of [[WP:BLP]]? [[User:Almost-instinct|''<font color="#FF2400">almost</font>'']]-[[User talk:Almost-instinct|<font color="#007FFF">instinct</font>]] 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:Yeah I know what the date is. As a joke its pretty lame, and in any case its after noon [[User:Almost-instinct|''<font color="#FF2400">almost</font>'']]-[[User talk:Almost-instinct|<font color="#007FFF">instinct</font>]] 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::Wikipedia runs on [[UTC]] (British winter time) and it was therefore 15 minutes before noon when you posted that comment. It is now after noon, but since the prank has already been pulled, it stays up till midnight when tomorrow's normal Main Page will automatically roll around. —[[User:Vanderdecken|Vanderdecken]]∴ '''[[User talk:Vanderdecken|∫]][[Special:Emailuser/Vanderdecken|ξ]][[Special:Contributions/Vanderdecken|φ]]''' 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Taoiseach seen naked publicly? and then it happens it was about some paintings (sigh!)...did this change from wikipedia to wikitabloid-beta overnight by chance?
If the April's Fool thing is on, then you should consider that there is a huge non-native English speaker looking in here who doesnt necessarily knows about that. <b><font face="Book Antiqua" color="black">MOUNTOLIVE</font></b> [[User talk:Mountolive| <sub>fedeli alla linea</sub>]] 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Poisson D'Avril ==

Nice job on the April Fools' Day frontpage, guys. :-) --''[[User:Eastlaw|<span style="color:#810102">Eastlaw</span>]]'' <sup>''[[User talk:Eastlaw|talk]]''</sup>&nbsp;⁄&nbsp;<sub>''[[Special:Contributions/Eastlaw|contribs]]''</sub> 00:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Splendid stuff! ==

Wonderful stuff. Today being my birthday (seriously) I logged into Wikipedia to see what gems would be created, and I must say you've done a grand job! So much so that I look forward to resuming my Wikipedia career. Same time next year! :-) [[User:Rusty2005]]

Just plain inappropriate. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/211.49.236.59|211.49.236.59]] ([[User talk:211.49.236.59|talk]]) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Do lighten up :) [[User:Rusty2005]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.134.252.144|86.134.252.144]] ([[User talk:86.134.252.144|talk]]) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Absolutely brilliant. Well done and thanks for taking the mickey. The world is often such a grim place that a little levity, at least once a year is delightful! [[User:Gillyweed|Gillyweed]] ([[User talk:Gillyweed|talk]]) 03:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== About the Front Page on the 1st of April ==

Who took the decision to put jokes and jokingly false information on the Front Page of Wikipaedia on the 1st of April? Why was this decision taken? Would anyone please point me towards an official policy page that states that this should be done or at least that it is allowed? IF there is no such policy than I BELIEVE that this at least should be discussed, if not mediated somehow. I understand that most people who write in the English Wikipaedia are from places where people celebrate Apil Fool's Day. HOWEVER, isn't this a systematic bias of the Wikipedia communitiy? As far as I know Wikipedia is an Encycloapedia that aims at providing accurate information at all times and across all cultures. Why exactly is Wikipaedia supposed to CELEBRATE any cultural event, as opposed to just MENTION it? Isn't this violating WP:NOT#JOURNALISM? I hope that this won't be taken as an attack on anyone, it's certainly not meant to be one. But isn't Wikipedia meant NOT to be a parody on any day of the year? Why should there be a day when the Front Page of Wikipedia becomes Uncyclopedia? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.124.35.173|86.124.35.173]] ([[User talk:86.124.35.173|talk]]) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:At the risk of spoiling an amusing joke - every single thing on the main page is 100% true. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::If I'm not mistaken, April Fool's Day front page pranks have been a tradition for a number of years, and a good one at that. This front page is not even as radical as some have been in years past. I respect our strive for accuracy and reliability as any other, but our community's sense of humor is also a hallmark of the Wikipedian experience. If you lack any funny bone in your body, then I'm afraid you'll just have to tolerate this for one day out of 366. [[User:SeanMD80|<FONT STYLE="italic" COLOR="#008B8B">Sean</FONT><FONT COLOR="#008080">MD80</FONT>]]<sup>[[User_talk:SeanMD80|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SeanMD80|contribs]]</sup> 01:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Classic - and yes April Fool's Day front pages are becoming a tradition here. Well done - I hope others will remember that [[humour]] is a part of our encyclopedia too!--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 01:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not about anyone's sense of humour. As far as I know Wikipedia is written in an academic manner. I've never read anything about an exception to that rule of style. I'm merely asking on the basis of which policy the Front Page of Wikipedia is presenting unreliable information (not necessarily false) the 1st of April without even a disclaimer. I am asking whether is is violating the spirit of Wikipedia's policies or not. And I'm asking whether this has been discussed as a matter of policy or it has just been accepted as such by most people due to the fact that most writers of the English Wikipedia live in a culture where the people celebrate April Fool's Day (and therefore, this might be a systematic bias that needs correcting). If there is an answer to these questions, wonderful. If there is no answer to these questions I believe that these questions should at least be discussed, because Wikipedia has very real real-life consequences everywhere where there are people that know English, not only in the Western World. I hope somebody hears me: HAS this been discussed as a matter of policy? Is there a policy that allows this? Please point me to something, or at least provide me some answers to the reasons behind his. I assume that people will have the good will of pointing me to even a resemblance of discussion about policy about this. And as a matter of fact, I do have a sense of humour, I just come from a culture where April Fool's Day is not celebrated. Please stop the AD PERSONAM and answer me on policy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.124.35.173|86.124.35.173]] ([[User talk:86.124.35.173|talk]]) 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please note that none of the information on the front page is false. It is unusual, or phrased in a deliberately misleading fashion... but it's all ''true''. [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Noted. Now can please anyone point me to a page that states that this is POLICY or where at least this has been discussed as a matter of policy? By the way has it been discussed or it' just accepted as default? Because if it was accepted by anyone without discussion it MAY be a systematic bias due to the fact that most people who write on the English wikipedia come from a culture where April Fool's Day is celebrated. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.124.35.173|86.124.35.173]] ([[User talk:86.124.35.173|talk]]) 01:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Are you new to Wikipedia? Because the April Fool's Day tradition is nothing to be surprised about if you have been here for some time. I don't know whether it has been discussed formally as a matter of policy, but I'm sure that, since this tradition had survived-- thrived-- for six or seven plus years, being planned months in advance, and being approved by those Wikipedians in the upper eschelon who set up the heavily-guarded, most visible main page, this tradition is not viewed as an egregious violation of our policies. And if you worry that it will mislead people, you should understand that, as soon as curious visitors click on the links, they will realize that they have been fooled. There is simply not enough material to mislead visitors for any more than twenty seconds. [[User:SeanMD80|<FONT STYLE="italic" COLOR="#008B8B">Sean</FONT><FONT COLOR="#008080">MD80</FONT>]]<sup>[[User_talk:SeanMD80|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SeanMD80|contribs]]</sup> 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. When I saw "Turkish missiles" and "oil" my first impulse was to phone my brother who is stationed with the Turkish Army on the border with Irak. My first thought was "Oh, no, it's war!" It's hard to think rationally when the misleading wording arise emotions such as fear. And I think that the son or wife od the Irish prime minister might have gone through something even worse when she saw "hanged" there, even if she is from the Western Culture. Anyway, thanks for the information. I live now in an European country and I will get used to it. :) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.124.35.173|86.124.35.173]] ([[User talk:86.124.35.173|talk]]) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Yes, well thank you for your understanding. Thankfully the Irish prime minister headline has been changed so it's not as potentially shocking. [[User:SeanMD80|<FONT STYLE="italic" COLOR="#008B8B">Sean</FONT><FONT COLOR="#008080">MD80</FONT>]]<sup>[[User_talk:SeanMD80|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SeanMD80|contribs]]</sup> 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]], I presume. &mdash; [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|talk]] 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw another two cents in, the april fools day main page smacks of a lack of professionalism, and a licence to put every cultural "Whatever day" on the main page. I see no reason why april fools is special, or interesting in this context. Wikipedia is somewhere that people visit to learn things. [[User:User A1|User A1]] ([[User talk:User A1|talk]]) 06:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the front page lacks of professionalism. I would love to be able to someday site this as a source in a paper, or be able to tell someone that I learned about something in the wikipedia and not have them look at me like it wasn't factual. This blatant waste of a wonderful resource isn't going to get the wikipedia any closer to those ends. I'll remember when I go to give money that my local NPR station doesn't give me fake news reports to try and be funny.[[User:Bobbit bob|Bobbit bob]] ([[User talk:Bobbit bob|talk]]) 06:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Firstly, only the main page is affected, all other articles are strictly off-limits to April Fools shenanigans. Secondly, this was discussed months in advanced, at [[Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page]], and it was a collaboration between many users. It's a tradition on Wikipedia, and indeed on the internet (many sites including [[Google]] and [[YouTube]] traditionally pull an April Fool) with the full blessing of the Wikipedia administration. Thirdly, if you phone your brother to tell him there's a war on, or cite an academic paper based on a ''single hook on the main page'', you deserve everything you get. For that matter, writing any academic paper completely based on facts from Wikipedia is stupid as everyone knows we have issues of reliability even on our best articles. Clicking any one of the links on the main page would reveal the joke and present you with the unmodified truth. Fourthly, lighten up. —[[User:Vanderdecken|Vanderdecken]]∴ '''[[User talk:Vanderdecken|∫]][[Special:Emailuser/Vanderdecken|ξ]][[Special:Contributions/Vanderdecken|φ]]''' 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:NPR -- for example [[All Things Considered]] -- always does an April Fool's prank. One year the US sold Arizona to Canada; another year's show featured a dog-bark translator. Unlike those pieces, our Front Page stories are actually ''accurate''. I see no lack of professionalism here, and encourage the tradition to continue. Thank you, [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

*Main Page is not an encyclopedic article. It outlines some of the best content we have on wikipedia and any relevant info for the day (today is april 1 so i think main page looks extremely relevant). So ppl need to stop complaining and live with the fact they got fooled thinking wikipedia got hacked after looking at main page. And if u truly believe that it is not ok to put jokes on april 1st then go home and grow some sense of humor. [[User:Ashishg55|Ashishg55]] ([[User talk:Ashishg55|talk]]) 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== News Section ==

Public hanging in Ireland? Turkish Missiles launched at oil giant? Showers of diamonds? Could someone please check the news headlines... They seem suspiciously like an April Fool's day prank.

Thanks <font color="009900"><b>Falconus</b></font><sup>[[User:Falconus|<font color="000000"><b>p</b></font>]] [[User talk:Falconus|<font color="000000"><b>t</b></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Falconus|<font color="000000"><b>c</b></font>]]</sup> 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:Looks like [[User:BorgQueen]] has been having some April Fools day fun with the wording on the [[WP:ITN]] template.. [[User:Matty|Matty]] ([[User talk:Matty|talk]]) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::Oh wait, this was all planned. Well, hell. Still well done :P, and none of it is false.. [[User:Matty|Matty]] ([[User talk:Matty|talk]]) 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Well it is funny now... It didn't occur to me that it was intentional on the part of Wiki; I was thinking some random person managed to change it. I agree the first one needed to be changed, but now it's good. --<font color="009900"><b>Falconus</b></font><sup>[[User:Falconus|<font color="000000"><b>p</b></font>]] [[User talk:Falconus|<font color="000000"><b>t</b></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Falconus|<font color="000000"><b>c</b></font>]]</sup> 01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== April fools ==

Im loving! Well done to wiki for the great idea! Happy New Assyrian Year too!!![[user:Gabr-el|'''''<font color="00B33B">Gabr-</font>''''']][[User talk:Gabr-el#top|'''''<font color="013163">el</font>''''']] 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Great stuff ==

Awesome work on the main page. Congrats. One of the best I've ever seen, especially the "joined together to become very serious" and "Turkish missiles" parts. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.184.93.203|99.184.93.203]] ([[User talk:99.184.93.203|talk]]) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Yes, this is so much more funny than last year. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;[[User:Marlith|<font color="Orange">Marlith</font>]][[User talk:Marlith|<font color="Orange"> (Talk)</font>]]&nbsp;</span>''' 02:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== bad ==

the main page is not funny this is horrible wikipedia should mot stoop this low!!![[Special:Contributions/24.109.219.135|24.109.219.135]] ([[User talk:24.109.219.135|talk]]) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
*[[Sense of humor|Here's a link that might help you]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.184.93.203|99.184.93.203]] ([[User talk:99.184.93.203|talk]]) 02:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Funny, I get a 404 when trying to find that page on wikipedia. [[User:GLaDOS|GLaDOS]] ([[User talk:GLaDOS|talk]]) 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== ...atleast half of the items on the April Fool's are about England ==

Says something.--[[User:PsyopsGuy1982|PsyopsGuy1982]] ([[User talk:PsyopsGuy1982|talk]]) 03:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
*England is awesome. Even I know that. [[Special:Contributions/66.68.86.77|66.68.86.77]] ([[User talk:66.68.86.77|talk]]) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:I think featuring England on April Fools day would mean something different? [[User:Matty|Matty]] ([[User talk:Matty|talk]]) 04:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::I blame it on the [[Kenya]]n-centric bias we see daily on the main page. :d <small>&ndash; <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Latics|<font style="color:#990000;">'''LATICS'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Latics|<font style="color:#fff;background:#990000;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 07:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:That's simple. We never left the colonial period. It's all a complex illusion... [[User:Pacific Coast Highway|Pacific Coast Highway]] <sup><font color="#009900"><b>{</b>[[User talk:Pacific Coast Highway|spring]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pacific Coast Highway|ahead]]<b>}</b></font></sup> 13:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</font>
:I count (using the broadest possible interpretation) 9 England-related items out of 24. That's not half, and doesn't even beat the US contingent (also 9). [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 13:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::It's an optical illusion. If you cover your right eye, it's an India-centric main page with a decidedly British Raj flavor. If you cover your left, it's a page full of recipes involving mock chicken. [[User:Graymornings|<b><span style="color:#00CC33">Graymornings</span></b>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Graymornings|<span style="color:#FF9900">(talk)</span>]]</sub> 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::[[Fajita|CHEESY FAJITAS]]! It works. <small>&ndash; <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Latics|<font style="color:#990000;">'''LATICS'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Latics|<font style="color:#fff;background:#990000;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 17:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Permalink? ==

Is there a permalink available for today's main page? I realize the content is transcluded from elsewhere, but as all the content today is fresh, such as ITN, I wouldn't think the usual technical restrictions would apply. [[User:Newsboy85|Newsboy85]] ([[User talk:Newsboy85|talk]]) 04:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, [[WP:April_Fool's_Main_Page/2009_(1)|found it myself]]. [[User:Newsboy85|Newsboy85]] ([[User talk:Newsboy85|talk]]) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia is the future! ==

Any reference source that deliberately permits false information one day of the year, will permit it every day of the year.

[[User:Chrmlssmn|Chrmlssmn]] ([[User talk:Chrmlssmn|talk]]) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the truth, therefore delete it. The Wikipedia way. Long live Wikipedia. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Chrmlssmn|Chrmlssmn]] ([[User talk:Chrmlssmn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chrmlssmn|contribs]]) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

[[User:Chrmlssmn|Chrmlssmn]] ([[User talk:Chrmlssmn|talk]]) 07:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:Luckily, nothing on the page is false. Just creatively worded. Enjoy! [[User:Newsboy85|Newsboy85]] ([[User talk:Newsboy85|talk]]) 07:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Possible ITN ==

A new item for today was suggested:

[[Korea DPR national football team|North]] and [[Korea Republic national football team|South Korea]] prepare for a '''[[2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_-_AFC_Fourth_Round#Group_B|hostile stand-off]]''' in [[Seoul World Cup Stadium|Seoul]], in their quest for [[2010 FIFA World Cup|world domination]].

Because this talkpage has broader audience, I post it here to see if this is ok to have on Main page or not because it is a bit strong, as the public hanging discussed above. --'''[[User:Tone|Tone]]''' 07:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Do it. They're all pretty bad, at least this one is funny. [[User:Matty|Matty]] ([[User talk:Matty|talk]]) 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:Ok with it. This one won't have any BLP overtones. And we survived the attacks by Turkish missiles. :) [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] ([[User talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]]) 08:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::There were some other BLP ones I could have chosen for this topic (a number involving Kim Jong-il), but I thought it better to steer well clear of them when drafting the above :) [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, seeing that the Brian Cowen blurb got trimmed. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] ([[User talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]]) 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=281058261&oldid=281055356 Removed as of 11:26]. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Well, if a resident of Seoul is OK with it and someone who is originally from South Korea finds it hilarious... whatever went wrong? Incidentally, what ''was'' the final score? I'm sure I could just check the article but it feels like an incomplete conversation and anyone who happens upon this will have great difficulty piecing it all together. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:::: [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25277980-2883,00.html South Korea won, 1-0]. So I guess we could have updated this to read ''South Korea defeats North Korea in quest for world domination.'' -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== "Hanging" discussion move from WP:ERRORS ==

"public hanging" has a rather more violent implication that paintings. Perhaps a more specific phrase could be used. (Also, it seems to me to be less than noteworthy enough for the main page, IMHO).&mdash;'''''[[User:Goodtimber|<font color="#006600">Goodtimber]] ('''[[Special:Contributions/Goodtimber|walk]]'''/'''[[User talk:Goodtimber|talk]]''')'''''</font> 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::::The April Fools jokes were pretty unique, I do, however, believe the wording on the piece about the Irish Taoiseach was a little inappropriate. While the jokes were in good fun, they also need to be in good taste as well. [[User:PTPLauthor|PTPLauthor]] ([[User talk:PTPLauthor|talk]]) 01:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::The most important requirement for a joke is to be funny. I thought the "public hanging" wording was funny, and the subsequent attempted rewrites are not, and the wikilinking is clumsy. [[User:Jnestorius|jnestorius]]<sup>([[User talk:Jnestorius|talk]])</sup> 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::You thought it was funny to suggest that a living person was hanged? [[User:Makeemlighter|Makeemlighter]] ([[User talk:Makeemlighter|talk]]) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Ah. Now that the "hanging" is down, I suppose the rest of the main page makes for a good joke. "Row of suckers" indeed. &mdash;'''''[[User:Goodtimber|<font color="#006600">Goodtimber]] ('''[[Special:Contributions/Goodtimber|walk]]'''/'''[[User talk:Goodtimber|talk]]''')'''''</font> 02:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'm less interested in the question of whether to make jokes about death than I am with whether it is responsible to use what is usually a trusted source of reliable information to imply that the head of government of a nation currently attempting to avoid a reemergance of regional violence/deal with an economic crisis has been assassinated by an angry mob. -- '''[[User:Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#BF0A30">Grant</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#FFFFFF">.</font>]][[User talk:Grant.Alpaugh|<font color="#002868">Alpaugh</font>]]''' 02:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::What Grant said. [[Special:Contributions/201.154.195.65|201.154.195.65]] ([[User talk:201.154.195.65|talk]]) 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::The article in question is largely about different perceptions of the boundary between humour and bad taste, so this discussion is somehow apt. However, the current text seems reasonably funny and not likely to offend the sensitive, so I'll sign off. [[User:Jnestorius|jnestorius]]<sup>([[User talk:Jnestorius|talk]])</sup> 05:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The story regarding nude oil paintings of Irish PM is NOT worthy of being on WP frontpage. Also the title is misleading and sensationalist. "Ireland's Taoiseach, Brian Cowen (pictured) is seen publicly naked in Dublin." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.175.73.204|193.175.73.204]] ([[User talk:193.175.73.204|talk]]) 10:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> (moved from WP:ERRORS)
:I can understand the bit about misleading title, but why is a story that has been covered by media in Ireland and beyond not worthy of being on the front page? [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] ([[User talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]]) 10:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::What was wrong with the title? How is him being seen naked any more tasteful than being the subject of a public hanging? I personally thought that mentioning the lack of clothing was in bad taste. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== To The Miseries ==

I've just been reading some of the grouchy comments about today's April Fools pranks. It just astounds me that people are going on about cultural bias and so on. Now I don't discriminate based on culture or religion etc, but I do find myself being increasingly irked by certain 'groups of people' demanding their rights to practice certain customs etc, then jumping up and down and screaming bias and discrimination when other people exercise that same right. The English Wikipedia is written for a mainly Western audience which means most people looking at it today will realise that there is a prank going on. AND WHY NOT??? When Muslims all over the UK are allowed to take days off work to go to temple on one of their religious days for example, why should we be excluded from doing something that is a tradition in our OWN culture. Seems to me the Political Correctness police are on the case. (I imagine some hairy academic sat humming next to a burning joss stick reciting the mantra - other culture good, white culture bad) [[Special:Contributions/78.150.147.42|78.150.147.42]] ([[User talk:78.150.147.42|talk]]) 10:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:I don't mind the April Fools' theme but I disagree with your assertion that "The English Wikipedia is written for a mainly Western audienc." It isn't, it written neutrally for a global audience. To use another example, [[WP:NPOV]] takes precendence over American-POV even if Americans make up around half of the readers and/or editors on enwiki. We won't have a Christmas theme on 25 December even though most readers would celebrate the holiday. Second, there is a significant number of readers of enwiki who are not from the Anglosphere (ie. English is their second or third langauge) because the Wikipedias of their native languages are tiny and hopeless.

:And although I am not aware, I hope that the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias don't change their front pages drastically during a Muslim holiday nor the Chinese Wikipedia change during say, Chinese New Year. Wikipedia's policies > local culture of readers and editors. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Discuss]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|&#169;]]</font></b></sup> 10:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::Well said Gizza. And to the anon, don't claim April Fools' Day as your group's "own", it is a multinational holiday. Cheers! [[User:Scapler|Scapler]] ([[User talk:Scapler#top|talk]]) 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it as my groups own. I was merely stating that it is a tradition in my culture, I didn't say it was exclusively so. And as everyone seems to be disagreeing with me and spouting about neutral point of view etc, then perhaps you should stick to those policies and not be doing April Fools pranks either. I was just supporting Wikipedia for doing it, but now I wish I hadn't bothered... bunch of pricks. [[Special:Contributions/78.150.147.42|78.150.147.42]] ([[User talk:78.150.147.42|talk]]) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::Right, the encyclopedia is "written neutrally for a global audience". It would be a stretch to say that the Main Page is part of the encyclopedia in that sense, though! [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]</sup> <span title="Talk:Main Page">§</span> 11:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:I find myself increasingly irked by faux-controversy of all forms, whether "political correctness gone mad" or people being overly dramatic about a silly joke on one day of the year. -[[Special:Contributions/93.97.122.93|93.97.122.93]] ([[User talk:93.97.122.93|talk]]) 13:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::Now, this may be a bit off-topic, but if I remember correctly, the Chinese Wikipedia often places a drawing of an animal in the [[Chinese Zodiac]] along with a banner in front of the logo, on Chinese New Year. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]][[User:AstroHurricane001/U|U]])</sup> 22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== No POV! Not even in a joke day like April Fools' Day! Please. ==

I don't like seeing that North Korea vs. South Korea in the page. It sounds like North Korea's gonna nuke a football field if they lose. Please remove that. [[User:Mydoctor93|P.R.O.C.K.Y.]] ([[User talk:Mydoctor93|Mydoctor93]]) 10:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:"It sounds like North Korea's gonna nuke a football field if they lose" - or South Korea's gonna reduce Pyongyang to rubble if the South loses. I don't sense any POV in the line. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] ([[User talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]]) 10:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::''"South Korea's gonna reduce Pyongyang to rubble if the South loses."'': LOL!!! I am originally from South Korea and I find the joke absolutely hilarious. :D --[[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:::And yes, we do celebrate April fools' day in South Korea, to a lesser extent. --[[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 10:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Can someone please clean up the April fools nonsense? Implying that North and South Korea are at war may be funny and fitting for children's blogs, not for an encyclopedia. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2009-04-01[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]10:37z

It's a joke. If you realize it's a joke then there's nothing to worry about. Besides, I find it funny even here on an encyclopedia. --[[Special:Contributions/82.103.239.99|82.103.239.99]] ([[User talk:82.103.239.99|talk]]) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:For the record, score's still 0-0, about 15mins in. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:As a resident of Seoul, I find the whole thing hilarious. [[User:Waygugin|Waygugin]] ([[User talk:Waygugin|talk]]) 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=281058261&oldid=281055356 Removed as of 11:26]. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 15:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Well, if a resident of Seoul is OK with it and someone who is originally from South Korea finds it hilarious... whatever went wrong? Incidentally, what ''was'' the final score? I'm sure I could just check the article but it feels like an incomplete conversation and anyone who happens upon this will have great difficulty piecing it all together. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:::: [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25277980-2883,00.html South Korea won, 1-0]. So I guess we could have updated this to read ''South Korea defeats North Korea in quest for world domination.'' -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:::::I've propsed the following at [[WP:ITN/C]] but nobody appears to have noticed. It would be a shame to let it go to waste.
[[Venezuela]]n beauty queen '''[[Dayana Mendoza]]''' has a fun day at camp in [[Guantanamo Bay]]. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7976207.stm] --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Bravo! ==

I commend whoever drew up the current version of the Main Page (well, the version as of this comment). A nice mix of humor, factual information and borderline nonsense. Especially the whole bit about British pay-per-view pornography. [[User:Pacific Coast Highway|Pacific Coast Highway]] <sup><font color="#009900"><b>{</b>[[User talk:Pacific Coast Highway|spring]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pacific Coast Highway|ahead]]<b>}</b></font></sup> 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</font>

:I second that. Sometimes facts are stranger than fiction! &ndash; [[User:Kaihsu|Kaihsu]] ([[User talk:Kaihsu|talk]]) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo, indeed! Who says encyclopdeing can't be fun?! A most [[In His Own Write|wonderfoul larf]]! Cheers! --[[User:Phyllis1753|Phyllis1753]] ([[User talk:Phyllis1753|talk]]) 15:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:I third (fourth?) that bravo. Sometimes this place just seems way too straitlaced, so when I see writing like this I can't help but enjoy it. It's all true anyhow, so no harm, no foul! --[[User:NovaKrazny|NovaKrazny]] ([[User talk:NovaKrazny|talk]]) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who came in late, I'll explain. "wonderfoul larf" is [[John Lennon]]ese for "Wonderful Laugh". Just follow the links! Cheers!--[[User:Phyllis1753|Phyllis1753]] ([[User talk:Phyllis1753|talk]]) 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== In the news ==

The blurb for the nude paintings of the Irish leader seems to have been changed from last night, and is now completely inaccurate. He was not seen nude; a painting was made that depicted him nude, and it was not painted from life.<small>[[User:KrytenKoro|Not even Mr. Lister's]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|Koromon survived intact.]]</small> 13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Oh. I notice that all the news blurbs are written incorrectly and deceitfully. Well played, wikipedia, you've decided to subvert all that "BLP policy" claptrap just because of the calendar. I hope the day was worth selling off whatever reliability you still had.<small>[[User:KrytenKoro|Not even Mr. Lister's]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|Koromon survived intact.]]</small> 13:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::Where's the breach of BLP? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::Oh for goodness' sake, lighten up. For one day a year, the Main Page (which is not an article, and therefore BLP does not apply) has a mildly misleading hook on it - which I might add is technically 100% true, it's just worded ambiguously. As soon as you click on one of the links you'll find the real, untouched article. Get a sense of humour already. —[[User:Vanderdecken|Vanderdecken]]∴ '''[[User talk:Vanderdecken|∫]][[Special:Emailuser/Vanderdecken|ξ]][[Special:Contributions/Vanderdecken|φ]]''' 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::BLP applies to all pages that talk about living people. While technically the blurb is correct, imo its rather cheap. There was no need to ridicule this person on the main page. —''[[User talk:StaticVision|SV]]'' 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::It was supposed to be handled with due care (i.e. not mentioning the nudity) but now it appears extremely tabloidy, I agree. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 20:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(&larr;)The main page actually made [http://www.webcitation.org/5fis5m7Kd the news] (bottom paragraph). [[User:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#4863A0;">§hep</span>]][[User talk:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:#4863A0;"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 00:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

== Featured redirects ==

I've created a proposal for [[Wikipedia:Featured redirects|Featured redirects]]. I'd like to know, if this proposal goes ahead, should these be displayed on the main page. and if so, how? Please discuss on the proposal's [[Wikipedia:Featured redirects|talk page]].&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Tivedshambo|<span style="color:#7F0000">'''&nbsp;Tivedshambo&nbsp;'''</span>]]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:I don't think this is a priority; I think we should work on [[Wikipedia:Featured footnotes]] first. There are, after all, more footnotes than redirects. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::Absolutely not! We should first work on Featured hatnotes, because we need to work from top down, not the other way around.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); 15:34, April&nbsp;1, 2009 (UTC)

::: If you take that approach, wouldn't we want to start with [[:Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates|Featured maintenance templates]] first? But I do like the idea of working down the page: Featured maintenance templates, Featured hatnotes, Featured infoboxes, Featured section headings, Featured captions, and so on, ending with Featured interlanguage links. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::It's how the page is displayed that matters, not the wikitext. Featured categories should be done last. Featured interwikis are just a side issue. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Wait, do we still have space for Featured citations? [[User:Pacific Coast Highway|Pacific Coast Highway]] <sup><font color="#009900"><b>{</b>[[User talk:Pacific Coast Highway|spring]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pacific Coast Highway|ahead]]<b>}</b></font></sup> 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</font>
::::::I'd suggest they should be combined with [[WP:COMMENT|featured comments]]&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Tivedshambo|<span style="color:#7F0000">'''&nbsp;Tivedshambo&nbsp;'''</span>]]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:::::::What about [[:Category:Wikipedia proposals|Featured Policy Proposals]]? [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Tivedshambo - I thought you were suggesting we feature comments that appeared on article talk/discussion pages, but you meant ''invisible comments'' in articles. Now that I understand, it seems to me that we've (so far) omitted the talk/discussion page entirely, despite that the number of such pages that are, well, fascinating. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Deletion ==

Anyone else think the Main Page should be deleted? Just a place for lazy people to read the news or look at featured articles/pictures when they could go to P:CE or WP:FA/WP:FP, yet hard-working sysops have to maintain it. <font color="#00CCCC">[[User:Sahmeditor|Æe]]</font><font color="#96DED1">[[User:Sahmeditor/Signatures|tlr]]</font> <font color="#B0E0E6">[[User talk:Sahmeditor|Cre]]</font><font color="#00A693">[[Special:Contributions/Sahmeditor|ejl]]</font> 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
: Is this a joke? What would then show in your browser if you go for Wikipedia? --'''[[User:Tone|Tone]]''' 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:: If we used the random article feature as a redirect, that would usually send readers to articles that clearly need work, encouraging them to start helping out with writing rather than just sponging off the hard-working editors here. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::There would then be a (small) danger that they would hit a really good article. Your proposal would work better if we had a 'random terrible article' feature. I think I'll submit a bug report. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::: We could always make it so it goes to the same horrible page, and then lock it so that it stays horrible. I think that would answer your concern. [[User:APL|APL]] ([[User talk:APL|talk]]) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::: Or perhaps a sort of "collaboration of the moment"; all readers get sent to the same (horrible) page until it is improved to at least "C" class; then the target page is switched to another article that needs improving. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::A problem is that people might still navigate away to other pages, which don't need improving so urgently, and work on them instead. This could be solved by making the CotM the only page available. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::: An excellent variant of the "Buy this magazine or the dog dies" approach: "Improve this article or you'll never see another page in Wikipedia." -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Attempts to delete [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] were preemptively stopped. I doubt deleting the main page will get much farther. --[[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::If [[meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of English Wikipedia|this proposal]] goes ahead, main page will be deleted.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Tivedshambo|<span style="color:#7F0000">'''&nbsp;Tivedshambo&nbsp;'''</span>]]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::It's not as good as 2005, when five [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales|recursive]] [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales|attempts]] [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales|were]] [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales|made]] to [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales|delete]] (see the page log on that last link) [[User:Jimbo Wales]] at MfD. ROFL. —[[User:Vanderdecken|Vanderdecken]]∴ '''[[User talk:Vanderdecken|∫]][[Special:Emailuser/Vanderdecken|ξ]][[Special:Contributions/Vanderdecken|φ]]''' 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::: Still, it does seem to be getting a lot of support, despite well-reasoned "oppose" arguments like "Provides an outlet for vandals that would otherwise attack critical projects like Wikispecies". -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Lacking... ==

The Main page needs more information about Wombats. Particularly Pre-Raphaelite Wombats. Our coverage in that area doesn't seem as good as it could be. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross|Talk]]'' 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:<laughs> I enjoyed that post, thanks. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:I'm sure [[User:Ceiling Cat|some people]] would disagree with you. Where's he at when you need him...? <small>&ndash; <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Latics|<font style="color:#990000;">'''LATICS'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Latics|<font style="color:#fff;background:#990000;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Charade ==

Okay, this April-fools charade has got to stop. This is an encyclopedia, not ''MAD'' magazine. No excuses can be made for this blatant vandalism and destruction of what this encyclopedia ought to be all about. How is it any different when someone replaces normal content with obscenities, nonsense, or extremely biased opinions? HUCK2012 [[User:E. Novachek|E. Novachek]] ([[User talk:E. Novachek|talk]]) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Erm. What's the problem? None of it is inaccurate or in breach of policy. In what way does it constitute vandalism? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::In any case, it ''will'' stop in another eight hours. Till then, celebrate the [[All Fool's Day]] spirit and have a good laugh! :-) [[User:SBC-YPR|SBC-YPR]] ([[User talk:SBC-YPR|talk]]) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Three obvious differences are that no obscenities, nonsense, or extremely biased opinions are involved. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Nope, there is no [[WP:UPTIGHT]] policy or essay. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::So is wikipedia going to have a section on the article about itself about its notable April Fools Day hoaxes, like it has for every other website that participates in the "charade"? =P [[User:NIRVANA2764|NIRVANA2764]] ([[User talk:NIRVANA2764|talk]]) 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Then you might wanna hide under a rock for the next 15 hours or so. [[User:Pacific Coast Highway|Pacific Coast Highway]] <sup><font color="#009900"><b>{</b>[[User talk:Pacific Coast Highway|spring]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pacific Coast Highway|ahead]]<b>}</b></font></sup> 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</font>

::Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a collaborative effort. Any collaborative effort that cannot occasionally have a little fun is, almost by definition, a [[government]], which Wikipedia most certainly is not ("Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of other terrible ideas," quoted from [[WP:NOTSTUPID]]). [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::That's a quite remarkably weird definition of government. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::(To original poster) You wouldn't have happened to have read [[WP:IAR]] by any chance, have you? [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry, but trying to claim "having fun" in this case is, well, despicable. In several cases, you're putting up claims that violate WP:BLP, such as the Irish minister tidbit. If you wanted so bad to do this, you should have restricted yourself to past events outside the range of BLP, where this nonsense DEFINITELY is not allowed in any form. Honestly, I think that considering the ''massive'' outrage to this shown on this page, even after you guys have been deleting comments, the editors behind this should 1) stop trying to ignore everyone about it, and 2) probably, not be allowed to edit the main page anymore, seeing how badly you've violated BLP, and how unwilling you are to express any kinds of regret about it.[[Special:Contributions/128.210.146.26|128.210.146.26]] ([[User talk:128.210.146.26|talk]]) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::I still see no BLP violations and would be extremely shocked if I had. We do indeed take BLP very seriously. But it's hard for us to address BLP violations if you don't tell us where there's a BLP violation. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 23:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, it's hard, ''because you deleted my comment earlier''. Okay, for example: listing that the Irish minister was seen publically naked, how is that not against BLP? It's not even true - he WASN'T seen publically naked. Satirical art was found which depicted a naked caricature of him. You've gotten tons of complaints about this, as well, from what I saw.
:::::But it looks like the violations were finally removed. I'm still dismayed at many of the attitudes displayed on this page - people ask for serious coverage, and they are laughed at; a few editors, without ever bringing it up for discussion here (or for goodness sakes, having a ''disclaimer on the front page'', ignore all the comments from a far greater amount of editors who criticize the decision. I still ask that the editors who put this page up not work on the main page for quite some time; I have yet to see ''any'' of them even admit that they might be wrong.<small>[[User:KrytenKoro|Not even Mr. Lister's]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|Koromon survived intact.]]</small> 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

::::::There ''was'' a disclaimer on the front page. The date was clearly noted on the first line of OTD. This sufficed for many other major sources of "reliable information" on the Internet (and other media channels).
::::::As for arguing that the Irish minister wasn't seen naked when an image of him, naked, was seen... that's at least 80% semantics, and the other 20% can be easily ascribed to your need to relax and laugh at the world for a moment or two. I'm sure we're all sorry you didn't enjoy your first experience with April Fool's Day on Wikipedia, but maybe after a short Wikibreak you'll feel better. [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

==DYK==
''...both Egypt and the Holy Land were originally settled by Germans?''
— Gimmicky, but it worked for me. [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== March 31 ==

Why all the fuss? Haven't we overlooked the fact that April Fool's Day isn't until tomorrow? [[User:Mlh loves avon|Mlh loves avon]] ([[User talk:Mlh loves avon|talk]]) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (<--- Gah, even my computer gets it wrong!@)
:Wikipedia works on [[UTC]]- it's April Fool's Day here. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 19:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow... way to kill my sarcasm dude. Thanks. [[User:Mlh loves avon|Mlh loves avon]] ([[User talk:Mlh loves avon|talk]]) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::Sarcasm is hard to define in writing. Try italics, they ''might'' just work! ;) --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 20:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose... and besides, in the time zones that won't get to April 1 until "our" tomorrow, April Fool's Day isn't celebrated. So it was dry wit.[[User:Mlh loves avon|Mlh loves avon]] ([[User talk:Mlh loves avon|talk]]) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== images ==

Why aren't the images linking to the relevant articles on the main page? When you click it, the picture enlarges instead of going to the particular article. Its better if the images links to the article. [[User:Xxxsacheinxxx|Xxxsacheinxxx]] ([[User talk:Xxxsacheinxxx|talk]]) 19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Why would that be better? [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::That's an interesting proposal. Especially since the images are usually in the article anyway... --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Like <font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> said the image is already in the article, users can read the article first then view the picture later. For example users read the headline then view the image then go back and click on the link to read about the whole article. Might as well go to the article, read about it then view the picture. [[User:Xxxsacheinxxx|Xxxsacheinxxx]] ([[User talk:Xxxsacheinxxx|talk]]) 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me.---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::Same here. Pretty simple to do, too. <small>&ndash; <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Latics|<font style="color:#990000;">'''LATICS'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Latics|<font style="color:#fff;background:#990000;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Nothing so far to indicate the possible collapse of Wikipedia as a result... --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::A problem is that this will conflict with what happens when you click on images everywhere else on Wikipedia. Having the main page behave differently from everything else is bound to confuse some new users. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Still no collapse of Wikipedia. Just one new addition for new users to deal with. They'll be pretty confused already. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This wouldn't work, because we need a way to credit the image creators. If you clicked and went to an article, it probably would not be sufficient attribution for the various licenses used in Wikipedia. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Attribution is probably the major issue. See [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 103#Front page... picture linking]] for more along these lines. - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

== APRIL FOOLS ==

This isn't remotely relevant. I'd just like to say "nice one". I like the news articles, particularly the shoe one.--[[Special:Contributions/81.158.237.86|81.158.237.86]] ([[User talk:81.158.237.86|talk]]) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you. Have a nice day. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|&bull;]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== April Fools Day ==

Wikipedia is no place for April Fools Day pranks and jovialitaies. People bang on so much that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I think it should start acting like one. This is a disgrace. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.18.248.15|86.18.248.15]] ([[User talk:86.18.248.15|talk]]) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You have got to be kidding me. -- [[User:Phoenix2|<strong>Phoenix</strong>]][[User talk:Phoenix2|2]] 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:It's only for one day of the year - it acts like an encyclopedia for the remaining 364 days. [[User:DitzyNizzy|<span style="color:purple">DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)</span>]]|[[User_talk:DitzyNizzy|<span style="color:purple">(talk to me)</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/DitzyNizzy|<span style="color:purple">(What I've done)</span>]] 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::Besides, if you think this is bad, take a butcher's at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination)]]. [[User:DitzyNizzy|<span style="color:purple">DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)</span>]]|[[User_talk:DitzyNizzy|<span style="color:purple">(talk to me)</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/DitzyNizzy|<span style="color:purple">(What I've done)</span>]] 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it's "jovialities", dear; and I had some here today, thank you very much. I sign my name:
Cheers!--[[User:Phyllis1753|Phyllis1753]] ([[User talk:Phyllis1753|talk]]) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::You guys have got to be kidding me. Someone complains that the information is acting disgracefully, and you completely ignore her complaint and brush her off. You're disgraceful, and I hope I never have you edit any of the articles I've worked on.[[Special:Contributions/128.210.146.26|128.210.146.26]] ([[User talk:128.210.146.26|talk]]) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 86.18.248.15, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia 365 days a year. Brittanica never jokes around. Instead of adding things for April Fool's, you should do something productive for Wikipedia. [[User:Griffinofwales|Griffinofwales]] ([[User talk:Griffinofwales|talk]]) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

: Britannica doesn't publish on a daily basis, so it's not very relevant to this discussion. If you care to look at 'respectable' organisations that publish an April 1 edition (or even just an April edition) you'll find that many of them ''do'' run April Fools hoaxes. This year AP reported exchange visits between the presidents of Israel and Syria, the Guardian announced that it was moving entirely to Twitter, The Economist announced it was building an economics-based theme park, and [http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/af_database/display/category/2009_/P0/ so on and so on]. Wikipedia's stories are pretty mild by comparison; you just have to click the link to get the straight story. --[[User:GenericBob|GenericBob]] ([[User talk:GenericBob|talk]]) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:What about Google? Nobody's claiming that they are unprofessional, now are they? Newscasters have been known to hoax, as have scientists. [[Special:Contributions/12.172.168.176|12.172.168.176]] ([[User talk:12.172.168.176|talk]]) 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

::I pray that the majority of these people are being ironic and trying to April Fool us all? Otherwise they need to [[get a life]] or at least have a read of [[humour]], [[wit]], [[irony]], [[sarcasm]] and [[fun]]. Christ, so wikipedia made a funny, the [[doomsday event|world isn't going to implode]]! As for "Instead of ... you should do something productive for Wikipedia" ... what, like adding ridiculous comments that are going to get you nowhere to a talk page? Yep, that's productive! Pfffft! [[Killjoy]]s! --[[User:LookingYourBest|LookingYourBest]] ([[User talk:LookingYourBest|talk]]) 08:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Both complainants are newbies and both, already, have notes from other editors admonishing them for possible vandalism. Sour people who probably won't stay with Wikipedia for very long. Cheers. --[[User:Phyllis1753|Phyllis1753]] ([[User talk:Phyllis1753|talk]]) 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:Shared IPs, warning dates back to November 2007. The users were looking for objective responses regarding the unusual setup of the Main page on April first, not your prejudices about their behaviour. —''[[User talk:StaticVision|SV]]'' 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter Phyllis and thats a pretty disgusting attitude towards potential contributors to wikipedia. Its not surprising people turn away if they face this sort of snotty attitude. Shouldn't matter if they are new or having 100, 000s of edits. I am one of our most experienced editors on here and I think its a bad idea mixing humor with the actual encyclopedia even if it is for only a few hours and I have a sense of humor too.[[User:Dr. Blofeld| <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;"> <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">'''''Dr. Blofeld'''''</font>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Dr. Blofeld| <font size="-4"><font color="Black">White cat</font></font color> ]]</sup> 13:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld. Charming (and revealing) name. I'm 56. Experience in life does count. I call them as I have already seen 'em. If I can chase away some of the mindless, hidden agenda, shit smearers then it's for the better for Wikipedia. Let them go to Conservapedia and play their games there. Nor am I inclined to feel abashed by some youngster's emotional blackmail. I've already been there too. I onced worked in psychiatric nursing. Cheers!--[[User:Phyllis1753|Phyllis1753]] ([[User talk:Phyllis1753|talk]]) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, folks. AFD is over and you can get down off the wall. Cheers!--[[User:Phyllis1753|Phyllis1753]] ([[User talk:Phyllis1753|talk]]) 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:For everybody, new editor or not, getting brushed off and called a square for suggesting that the main page of Wikipedia isn't a place for half-truths and deliberate misinterpretations, [[Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page|this]] is apparently the place to start a serious discussion about it. If we try here, it seems we'll just face more name calling. We have 364 days now to establish consensus and put an end to this silly behaviour. /[[User:Coffeeshivers|Coffeeshivers]] ([[User talk:Coffeeshivers|talk]]) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

== Why Wikipedia Must be Banned ==

Hey, I found this interesting documentary short about why Wikipedia is harmful to education and freedom. I think some of you might be interested in it. It can be found at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 Why Wikipedia Must be Banned] '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;[[User:Marlith|<font color="Orange">Marlith</font>]][[User talk:Marlith|<font color="Orange"> (Talk)</font>]]&nbsp;</span>''' 23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:[[File:Gnome-face-angry.svg|20px]] <small>&ndash; <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Latics|<font style="color:#990000;">'''LATICS'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Latics|<font style="color:#fff;background:#990000;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 23:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Alright, I gotta admin, that was pretty good. &ndash;<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 23:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:I really should know better by now, but I don't. &ndash; [[User:PranksterTurtle|PranksterTurtle]] <sup>([[User talk:PranksterTurtle|talk]])</sup> 23:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

: What does that have to do with the [[Main Page]]? --[[Special:Contributions/74.14.16.148|74.14.16.148]] ([[User talk:74.14.16.148|talk]]) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

== GREAT WORK ==

I must say, I'm very impressed by all this, despite the concerns of those who obviously cannot take a joke. The DYK "that German seamen forced a lesbian to go down during the First World War, and the French did the same during the Second World War?" is, in my humble opinion, the highlight. Great work, guys (and girls), great work. [[Special:Contributions/71.254.9.136|71.254.9.136]] ([[User talk:71.254.9.136|talk]]) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:Great, now the featured article is meningitis. Talk about mood whiplash! [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

== Featured Article of the day image ==

[[:File:Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman Meningicoccal Disease.jpg|This]] isn't really something I like to see when I log onto Wikipedia; I'm sure millions of people today will agree. I'm all for a lack of censorship, but I'm not sure that an image so distressing is fair game for the ''main page''. I just hope [[gangrene]] doesn't make it to FA. [[User:Seegoon|Seegoon]] ([[User talk:Seegoon|talk]]) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:Ya. I actually got sick a little when I saw that (thank god it wasn't on the keyboard). Quite awful. [[User:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#3399ff;">§hep</span>]][[User talk:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:#3399ff;"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:Came here to say just this. I have never once complained about content on the main page, not after Bulbasaur or History of erotic depictions or April Fools jokes, but this is crossing the line. Shock images have no reason to be on the main page. [[User:ShadowUltra|ShadowUltra]] ([[User talk:ShadowUltra|talk]]) 00:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::[[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fencyclopediadramatica.com%2FOffended&ei=WwzUSYXSDcLrnQeUr_jwDg&usg=AFQjCNF8RJMgBEhz8vsbOtuXV2bQbPanYw&sig2=ZqyCJwiHBTLzYa9tyshBwQ| Offended, are you?]]
Anyway, maybe... But still, i mean, it's no worse than what you'd see in a medical dictionary handbook thing. [[Special:Contributions/99.184.93.203|99.184.93.203]] ([[User talk:99.184.93.203|talk]]) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::It's not a shock image -- [[Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman|the girl pictured there]] is literally the poster child for meningitis vaccination. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::: True... [[Special:Contributions/99.184.93.203|99.184.93.203]] ([[User talk:99.184.93.203|talk]]) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for the love of god, change the image '''immediately'''. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia's critics will love to point out. Just wait for the [[Conservapedia]] folks to point to this as evidence of how immoral and sick Wikipedia is...
[[Special:Contributions/63.245.144.68|63.245.144.68]] ([[User talk:63.245.144.68|talk]]) 00:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[[File:Charlotte Cleverley Bisman and Pam Cleverley.jpg|thumb|100px|right]]
::Yes, it's distressing. It's also reality. Hope this image, of the same little girl with prostheses, helps. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure if you were suggesting using that picture on the main page. Assuming you are, it's not a good idea because (a) that picture isn't in the meningitis article, and (b) it's not a good illustration of the topic because she doesn't actually have meningitis in that picture. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 00:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::::No, I'm not. I'm making the same point (although obviously not as clearly) as you, and also showing what she looked like after treatment. And if the shocking picture influenced people to look at the article on the disease and the one on the girl, so much the better. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that Wikipedia isn't censored for minors and all that, but the front page at least should be clear of anything particularly disturbing or offensive, in my opinion. You can avoid disgusting things by simply avoiding such articles, but the front page is in your face all the time. [[Special:Contributions/63.245.144.68|63.245.144.68]] ([[User talk:63.245.144.68|talk]]) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I too think that the main page is not the right place for shocking or disturbing images. The photo of the little girl with meningitis should be removed. <font face="cursive">— [[User:Mudwater|Mudwater]]<small><sup> ([[User talk:Mudwater|Talk]])</sup></small></font> 01:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:Wiki isn't censored, and you all know that. I'm fine with the image, no matter how shocking or whatever. Would you complain if [[autofellatio]] was featured? [[Special:Contributions/70.149.136.2|70.149.136.2]] ([[User talk:70.149.136.2|talk]]) 01:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::I would, and I'm about as against wiki-censorship as it is. As has been constantly mentioned above, the main page /isn't/ part of the encyclopdia, so a bit of restraint isn't a bad thing. I love the April Fools thing, as it helps show we're not all serious business (like [[WP:ODD]] for instance). It's not so much appropriate or not, more of...how to put it...it's just asking for trouble. That said, if autofellatio actually managed to get to FA level, I would be the first one to clap. [[User:Melodia|♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫]] ([[User talk:Melodia|talk]]) 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another vote for removal here. Let's have some consideration for our users, and not plaster disturbing pictures on our front page. [[User:Axlrosen|Axlrosen]] ([[User talk:Axlrosen|talk]]) 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A disturbing image of a child covered all up in bloody bruises is as disturbing as a man gapping out his anus. I would believe it's still an April Fool's prank. CHANGE IT PLEASE. [[Special:Contributions/200.115.154.74|200.115.154.74]] ([[User talk:200.115.154.74|talk]]) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:Whats the problem with showing a image of the virus instead of this? At the least, we are not free advertising for that girl and her parents cause. Just put a normal, better quality photo and live with it. [[User:Matty|Matty]] ([[User talk:Matty|talk]]) 03:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::Well, for starters, we don't have such an image. Or, to be more precise, we don't have one that's usable. At 100 pixels wide, [[:image:Neisseria meningitidis.jpg|the picture we have]] would be a meaningless pink blob. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I believe the current one is completely fine, but if it does need to be changed, how about this [[:File:Symptoms_of_Meningitis.svg|symptoms diagram]], which is surprisingly not in the article? [[User:Mfield|Mfield]] ([[User_talk:Mfield|Oi!]]) 03:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Well if i'm not mistaken, isn't the picture in the article showing gangrene? [[User:Matty|Matty]] ([[User talk:Matty|talk]]) 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::The red parts are meningitis rash; the black parts are places where it has progressed to necrosis/gangrene. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

::::The text on that pic is illegible when scaled to 100px, and without the next it's just a picture of a naked guy. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've never complained about a main page article, either. This is a really unnecessarily graphic image to have automatically pop up on the main page of Wikipedia. A good image if you're ready for it, but not if you're casually surfin' the web. Get some tact, people... I just ate, for cryin' out loud. ~<font face="Verdana">[[User:Pesco|<span style="color:#009">Pesco</span>]]</font><sup><small>''[[User talk:Pesco|So say]]•[[:Special:Contributions/Pesco|we all]]''</small></sup> 03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


== "[[:Mian Page]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
The child was sick, not dead. Graphic? yes. Inappropriate? Not imo. She has an incredible survival story. The point becomes moot soon enough with the next front page article to replace it.--[[User:MartinezMD|MartinezMD]] ([[User talk:MartinezMD|talk]]) 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
:This argument is unacceptable. If 90-95% of people are unimpressed by the featuring of this picture, rather than ignore their concerns as irrelevant because they differ from yours, how about give them the benefit of the doubt?[[Special:Contributions/203.56.22.126|203.56.22.126]] ([[User talk:203.56.22.126|talk]]) 04:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mian_Page&redirect=no Mian Page]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Mian Page}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


==Add number of editors in the topmost banner==
You all know as well as I do that if I were to get Goatse featured on the main page the image would be removed. There has always been a double standard with main page images and it's gotten to an unacceptable level. This is similar to the time someone tried to get a huge picture of a spider put on the arachnophobia article because it "illustrates the article's subject," when in reality the user was just seeing how far he could toe the line. [[User:ShadowUltra|ShadowUltra]] ([[User talk:ShadowUltra|talk]]) 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest this addition for the following reasons:
* It encourages people to become editors via argumentum ad populum.
* It is a interesting fact about the scale of Wikipedia
* It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Wikipedia
* It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".
I suggest formatting it like this:
<br/><div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]] active editors · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div><br/>
[[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


*I strongly support this addition. ''[[User talk:Cremastra|Cremastra]]'' ‹ [[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]] › 00:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I strongly oppose removing/replacing the image. As graphic as it is, we're supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, as many have noted earlier in this thread. A serious encyclopedic article on meningitis should be equal to that of a medical paper in terms of comprehensiveness, no? &ndash;<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
*''"100 or so admins edit Wikipedia" factoid actualy just statistical error. average admin does not edit Wikipedia. [[Spiders Georg|Sockpuppets Georg]], who lives in cave & passes RfA 10 times each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.''{{pb}}But yes, this seems like a great idea! <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:There is a slight difference between removing the picture completely and removing it from the main page. Toning the main page picture down might be the loving thing to do for the majority of people who aren't expecting and/or happy to see it. How about a warning that says "some people may find the following pictures on this page disturbing"? How about assuming that other people's feelings are worth something? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.56.22.126|203.56.22.126]] ([[User talk:203.56.22.126|talk]]) 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Because, per [[WP:NOT]] (official policy), Wikipedia isn't censored. &ndash;<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
*I shall lend my support as I like this idea. It ties in well with the post on social media by the Wikimedia Foundation (earlier today, yesterday?) about "Wikipedia in numbers". '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color:var(--color-base, #202122);">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work: <div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFEDITS}}]] total edits · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]] active editors · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div> <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]])</span> 09:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::So your freedom of speech is more important that others feelings? I'm not denying you have the RIGHT to display disturbing images, I'm saying that maybe you could use your rights to love those with less of a stomach than you, rather than use it to offend people. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.56.22.126|203.56.22.126]] ([[User talk:203.56.22.126|talk]]) 04:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I can't see any downside of adding the number of active editors, which is an impressive number given that the count is just for the last month. The number of edits seems a bit meaningless since it is a huge number that is hard to grasp and since what constitutes an edit is so variable. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::And what has censorship to do with warning people they may find content distressing? I believe that an encyclopaedia should be true to the subject, but should also be sensitive to the feelings of people. The main page is the first thing people see, and with no warning they are forced to see something they could find incredibly distressing. Please give those people a choice, rather than force your anti-censorship onto them.[[Special:Contributions/203.56.22.126|203.56.22.126]] ([[User talk:203.56.22.126|talk]]) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
*Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. '''[[User:J947|<span style="color: #1009bf;">J</span>]][[User talk:J947|<span style="color: #137412;">947</span>]]''' ‡ <sup>[[Special:Contribs/J947|edits]]</sup> 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I think it's a great illustration. So what if they find it distressing? Maybe it will help get more kids worldwide vaccinated. In any case, it's not an encyclopedia's role to protect you from the real world. (Nor is it an encyclopedia's role to encourage you to make positive changes - that's just a possible side effect.) Get over your squeamishness - encyclopedias should not represent a sanitized version of life. In my view, hiding the truth of something like meningitis is just as bad as outright lying about it. It's a real disease, and that's what it can do. [[User:Newsboy85|Newsboy85]] ([[User talk:Newsboy85|talk]]) 04:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
* Good idea; I like the model that {{u|CanonNi}} proposes above. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'll say it again. I'm N O T saying change the article's page. I'm N O T asking that the feature article of the day be changed. Let people go to the page, make a choice about whether they want to view the image, learn about the dangers, and make good decisions about vaccinating their children. What I A M saying is that the main page is first thing that people see, and that taking away the right of a person to choose whether they see a distressing image is a violation of a persons rights. Your motivations sound grand, but I don't believe that the end justifies the means.[[Special:Contributions/203.56.22.126|203.56.22.126]] ([[User talk:203.56.22.126|talk]]) 05:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
*I like Ca's suggestion of just including the number of editors. I'm not super keen on adding the number of edits as it is fairly meaningless to most casual visitors. Also, it will always be off because of caching (and I don't want us to get useless reports of "I made an edit but the number didn't go up!"). —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And still nobody has answered my question. Why can't there be an infobox at the top of an article stating that people may find images within the article offensive or distressing? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.56.22.126|203.56.22.126]] ([[User talk:203.56.22.126|talk]]) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*:Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color:var(--color-base, #202122);">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Per [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]]. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
* The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::[[WP:NOTCENSORED]] applies to articles, but it really is stretching it a bit far to have it apply to the Main Page. I'm a fervent supporter of the notcensored policy, but that's because if people choose to go to the autofellatio article, or [[sex]], or [[syphilis]] or any others with disturbing images, that's their choice. However, a kid going to the main page to look up flowers and bunny rabbits for school should not be presented with an image of a baby with necrotised arms. For that matter, many adults would not want to be presented with it. Can we at least err on the side of caution given that it's the Main Page we're talking about? —[[User:Vanderdecken|Vanderdecken]]∴ '''[[User talk:Vanderdecken|∫]][[Special:Emailuser/Vanderdecken|ξ]][[Special:Contributions/Vanderdecken|φ]]''' 10:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
*:Maybe just a comma to separate them. [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::It’s a list of two counts [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


:Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I will put what many others have said in my own words. Can this image and article be found in an encyclopedia? Yes. Does said encyclopedia use this image on their cover? No. That's all. --[[User:Alexbarrow|Alex Barrow]] ([[User talk:Alexbarrow|talk]]) 10:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::The wikilink to [[Special:Statistics]] already provides an explanation. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree. There's a lot of fair use images in Wikipedia, and just because we could probably legally put them on the main page, it doesn't mean people think they belong there. The main page has always been different... it's seen by hundreds of thousands of people a day, what's appropriate for an article isn't automatically appropriate for the main page. Personally I don't tend to read health articles because I realize that, this being a serious encyclopedia, there might be medical pictures and very disturbing descriptions of symptoms and procedures that I just don't want to encounter. WP:NOTCENSORED means that content can be put in the article if it's relevant, but it is just talking about articles and I don't think it means we have to be confronted with it on the main page, where people aren't opting in to the content by searching for it. --[[Special:Contributions/74.138.229.88|74.138.229.88]] ([[User talk:74.138.229.88|talk]]) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The number of articles link also goes to [[Special:Statistics]], though. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::How about linking the number of active editors to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians]], where it is explained? [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*This appears to be [[WP:BIKESHED]] problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I suppose you could say something like, "[[Special:Statistics|6,925,100]] articles in [[English language|English]] written by [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|<nowiki><number of users that have made >0 undeleted mainspace edits></nowiki>]] editors" to be maximally precise. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::What I'm saying is that the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> is certainly way more than the {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}</nowiki>, and that the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki> certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::"by over" maybe.... — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Wikipedia). — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? [[User:ApteryxRainWing|ApteryxRainWing🐉]] | [[User talk:ApteryxRainWing|Roar with me!!!]] | [[Special:contribs/User:ApteryxRainWing|My contributions]] 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== April 2 ==
::Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Wikipedia's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Wikipedia began, although not a priority in my opinion. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Jmchutchinson|Jmchutchinson]] Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well [[User:ApteryxRainWing|ApteryxRainWing🐉]] | [[User talk:ApteryxRainWing|Roar with me!!!]] | [[Special:contribs/User:ApteryxRainWing|My contributions]] 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I don't see the point in this, or the relevance of this number to readers. It might make sense on a page intended to be viewed only by editors, but the Main Page is for readers. None of the bullet points are convincing e.g. I've never heard anyone suggest that there are only 100 editors. It's a only minor bit of clutter but would serve no useful purpose. Besides, it's not clear what constitutes an 'active' editor - the very different numbers quoted above suggest this could be seriously misleading. [[User:Modest Genius|<b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:[[Special:Statistics]], where the number comes from, defines it as "any editor that has performed an action in last 30 days", which appears to include IP editors as well. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It is labeled Active <em>registered</em> users - of which IP editors are not. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for the correction; when the language is set to Spanish, it just reads "active editors". I wonder if it is possible to get a count of all editors, including IP editors. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, that was a problem I imagined; though I do not want to discredit the work of IP editors, they are hard to keep track. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
* I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1261895671], so yes I would support it. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
===Next steps===
I see a broad consensus for including the number of active editors, but there seem to be a lot of discussion on the finer details, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should I make a RfC for this? [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Yes, most of us want the number of edits/active editors in the banner, but an RFC might help figure out the smaller details we keep arguing about [[User:ApteryxRainWing|Apteryx!🐉]] | [[User talk:ApteryxRainWing|Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲]] 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
April Fools' Day is over...so why is DYK still hillarious?! ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]][[User:AstroHurricane001/U|U]])</sup> 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:I've switched DYK back to serious mode. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 02:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


===Informal RfC===
== You 'forgot' the word militants ==
{{Archive top|status=Minimal participation|result=Despite the RfC being open for 16 days and pinging previous participants, it attracted only two respondents, showing the lack of interest in this topic. I will assume most people did not see an issue with my original formatting suggestion when they !voted "support" and submit an edit request. This close does not preclude any future discussion about the formatting or new additions to the proposed text. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Five questions to decide on the formatting. Note that this doesn't preclude any further changes in the future.


====Which figures should be added to the current text?====
The page says on this day - "2002 – Operation Defensive Shield: Approximately 200 Palestinians fled advancing Israeli forces into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, starting a month-long standoff." You might wish to mention that they were Fatah militants, as acknowledged in the article it links to: [[Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem]]. Failure to do this appears very POV, since it suggests that 200 were civilians [[Special:Contributions/141.166.227.7|141.166.227.7]] ([[User talk:141.166.227.7|talk]]) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
# Active editors (original proposal)
:The article says no such thing. It says 'Dozens of militants, [[Fatah]], [[Hamas]], [[Palestinian Islamic Jihad]] and [[Palestinian Security Forces]] men fled into the church to fortify, along with forty monks and dozens of other Palestinians who arrived at the site for different reasons.' To call all these people Palestinians is accurate. To call them all militants would grossly misrepresent the article. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 11:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
# Active editors and total edit count
# Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
# Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)


*'''Support 4''' if possible, '''support 1''' as a lower-effort but still effective alternative. '''Oppose 2 and 3''' per the concerns raised above that it would create confusion among new editors/readers who would not realise that the count cannot update immediately. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== Can we not have the horrific picture of a deformed baby on the main page? ==
*'''Prefer 1, then 3'''; dislike total edit count and all-time editors as too large numbers, with no sense of what is happening now. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


====Which symbol should be used as the separator? ====
It doesn't appear in the headline meningitis article. How can anyone have let that go up? It's awful, and children read this. It's not necessary for the subject. The more appropriate picture is that in the main article. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
:The image was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Meningitis&diff=281256586&oldid=281250232 removed] from the article about 7 minutes before you posted, apparently due to concern that the picture was visible on the front page. While I don't think it's a great illustration, it's worth noting that the child depicted - Charlotte - survived, and became famous for surviving. I'm not sure I accept the "children read this" argument - partly because Charlotte's story is quite uplifting, partly because Wikipedia isn't censored, and partly because the image is tiny (which is why I don't think it's a great illustration). Cheers, [[User:This flag once was red|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red|deeds]]</sub> 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
# Use comma


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Lack of censorship is justified when people are adult and know how to exercise self restraint and decency. Even if the girl had survived, it would not be decent. This wasn't about censorship really though, it's about conscience. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::What do you mean, 'even if the girl had survived'? She lives to this day. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please can you remove that picture of that poor disfigured child. There is absolutely no need to put that on the front page of your website. If you're trying to be sensationalist then you've succeeded, i hope you're ashamed of yourselves. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rcclh|Rcclh]] ([[User talk:Rcclh|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rcclh|contribs]]) 11:25, 2 April 2009


====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? ====
Seem to have gone now - thank you! --[[User:Rcclh|Rcclh]] ([[User talk:Rcclh|talk]]) 11:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
# Use line break
# Use comma


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
(UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:OMG! That image is terrible! Do we really want that to be the first thing people see when they visit Wikipedia? I know [[WP:WINC|Wikipedia is not censored]], but that picture sickens me, and I wasn't expecting it to be there. Can we please have a picture of the organism that causes meningitis (the virus/bacteria/whatever) instead? [[User: Densock|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#999FFF">Den</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:Gainsboro">sock</em>''']]|<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Dendodge]]</small><sup>in public</sup> 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


====How should it be ordered?====
It's now been removed; and good riddance. Before anyone adds it back just because "Wikipedia is not censored", remember that it's also gone from the article too for some reason, so restoring it just to the main page but not dealing with why it's been removed from the article is pretty much just going for shock value. --[[Special:Contributions/74.138.229.88|74.138.229.88]] ([[User talk:74.138.229.88|talk]]) 11:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
:<s>It was removed from the article in the apparently mistaken belief that it would simultaneously disappear from the main page. Cheers, [[User:This flag once was red|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red|deeds]]</sub> 11:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)</s><small>Striking comment, see clarification below. [[User:This flag once was red|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red|deeds]]</sub> 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)</small>
# Bigger number(s) first
::The removal of the image from the article appears to have been done because the user contested the relevance of the image, it's disputed on the talk page. I removed the image from the Main page due to the rough consensus above not to include the image. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 12:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Cool, thanks for the clarification. I've struck through my comment, above. The removal from the article seems to be based on an incorrect belief that the photo's subject didn't suffer from meningitis, but this isn't the right forum to address that (and I note that it has already been addressed on the article's talk page). Cheers, [[User:This flag once was red|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red|deeds]]</sub> 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


* '''Support 1 or 2.''' ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I added the image of a bacterium that can cause meningitis. I'm sure no one is going to dispute that said bacterium is irrelevant to meningitis, or complain that the image is too boring. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] ([[User talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]]) 12:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:It provides no useful information or encyclopedic value, at least at that resolution. I'd rather go with no image. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 12:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


====Wikilinks?====
::I disagree with the new image, i cant see what its meant to be, it looks like a pink square with dots! atleast bring back the other picture, i dont whant the same thing to happen when wikipedia got black listed for having supossedly child porn in one of its articles this is getting silly.--[[User:Lerdthenerd|Lerdthenerd]] ([[User talk:Lerdthenerd|talk]]) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#Wikilink all of the numbers to [[Special:Statistics]] (original proposal)
#Wikilink only the first number to [[Special:Statistics]]
#Wikilink "active editor" to [[Special:Statistics]]
[[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2 and 3. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I never thought we'd have no image for a non-CVG/music/movie FA. Sigh. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] ([[User talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]]) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support 1''', unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


====Discussion====
: ah great now there is no image! this is getting silly, wikipedia is not censored!! It will never be now get over it a put the image back!!--[[User:Lerdthenerd|Lerdthenerd]] ([[User talk:Lerdthenerd|talk]]) 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Ca|Ca]] Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?
:If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question {{green|Should this be added at all?}}; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. [Personally, I think it's a great idea. But all changes to Wikipedia face incredible opposition, so a stronger consensus would be helpful in overcoming that.] <span style="font-family:cursive">[[User:Ypn^2|<span style="color:green">''ypn''</span>]][[User talk:ypn^2|<span style="color:blue;font-size:90%;vertical-align:12%">^</span><span style="color:purple;vertical-align:45%;font-size:75%">2</span>]]</span> 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? <span style="font-family:cursive">[[User:Ypn^2|<span style="color:green">''ypn''</span>]][[User talk:ypn^2|<span style="color:blue;font-size:90%;vertical-align:12%">^</span><span style="color:purple;vertical-align:45%;font-size:75%">2</span>]]</span> 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Good idea [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as {{u|xaosflux}} suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "{{green|... created by {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} editors}}"). [[User:Alexcalamaro|Alexcalamaro]] ([[User talk:Alexcalamaro|talk]]) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've added it, but using <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Pinging participants: @[[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] @[[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]] @[[User:Schwede66|Schwede66]] @[[User:CanonNi|CanonNi]] @[[User:Jmchutchinson|Jmchutchinson]] @[[User:J947|J947]] @[[User:Stephen|Stephen]] @[[User:UndercoverClassicist|UndercoverClassicist]] @[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] @[[User:Lee Vilenski|Lee Vilenski]] @[[User:Joe Roe]] @[[User:Xaosflux]] @[[User:ApteryxRainWing]] @[[User:Modest Genius]] @[[User:Some1]] @[[User:Ypn^2]] [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* I've added my replies/thoughts under each individual item, which might help to keep/make consensus visible despite the many moving parts. There's a very large danger of [[WP:BIKESHED]] here! ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Just to confirm, did you receive the ping? I'm afraid this RfC is going to flop. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't think this is the best format for reaching consensus on relatively minor details. Maybe try just proposing a version based on the feedback above and iterate accordingly. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I believe the lack of engagement here shows general apathy for the formatting. I don't want to try to wrangle in RfC after RfC, wasting community time. I plan to simply submit an edit request with the original proposed formatting if this RfC gets less than five responses. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I think that would be wise: [[WP:EDITCON|consensus can be tacit]], after all, and it seems reasonable to suggest that many editors who have seen this and not commented have done so because they have no strong opinion on the points of "contention". ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Yes. I think for once Wikipedians' ability to bicker over a comma has disappointed you. ''[[User talk:Cremastra|Cremastra]]'' ([[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]]) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
===Edit request===
{{edit request|ans=y}}
Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following


<nowiki><div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div></nowiki>
::Apparently this happens every time some disease FA gets featured. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/November_18,_2007&action=history Lung cancer] comes to mind. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] ([[User talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]]) 12:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


with
:::I guess it's something to keep in mind the next time a disease gets FA'd - make sure there's a Main Page-friendly image ready. On the plus-side, I've learned that I'm not as squeamish as I thought ;-) Cheers, [[User:This flag once was red|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red|deeds]]</sub> 12:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


<nowiki><div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]] active editors · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div></nowiki>
::unfortunately im not an admin so i cant add it back, who ever changed the image should change it back!--[[User:Lerdthenerd|Lerdthenerd]] ([[User talk:Lerdthenerd|talk]]) 12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle (
:::Censorship is the attempt to keep information out of people's hands. Do you seriously think that I'd argue for the removal of the image because I'm trying to keep people from getting information about meningitis? Or is it more likely that I'm being empathetic to people and trying not to gross them out?
[[Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css]]
:::For example, at the Boston Globe's web site, graphic images have a disclaimer, and are blank unless you click to see them (e.g. image #11 here[http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/04/recent_scenes_from_afghanistan.html]). This is not censoring anything - you can still see the picture - but it lets the user decide whether to view it or not. By putting a graphic image on the front page, you don't give users any choice. (I would vote for a user-decides system like this for both the front page and for the article itself!) [[User:Axlrosen|Axlrosen]] ([[User talk:Axlrosen|talk]]) 13:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
), which I am not how it'd be implemented. ChatGPT gave me a potential solution of using a ID'd span tag on the interpunct and hiding it on smaller screens, but I have limited CSS knowledge and can't verify if it would work properly. I know this is a technical request so I will be grateful if a technically-oriented admin can help out. Thanks! [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Illustration is, in my opinion, essential to a comprehensive encyclopedia. I must say I'm rather disappointed that the image was removed, but I seem to be in the minority at this point... &ndash;<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:: Yay, win for [[Wiktionary:egoism|egoism]] over common intellect. If we can't force a perfectly relevant medical image depicting symptoms of an illness off the front page, simply for the fact that a few people dislike gore, what ''can'' we do? [[User:Nigholith|Nigholith]] ([[User talk:Nigholith|talk]]) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I think it's appaling if that image remains removed! It was a brilliant illustration of how dangerous this illness is and the damange it can do. Maybe it would go some way to alerting parents to this fact. But no, just because a few people piss and moan about it being 'graphic' the political correctness police take it down! Amazing! It's the same stupid argument every time something out of the ordinary is on the main page! Frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing birds and insects on there which I always ignore ... THIS picture made me go look at the main article, I imagine it's done the same for many other people! --[[User:LookingYourBest|LookingYourBest]] ([[User talk:LookingYourBest|talk]]) 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::::That's the worst thing Juliancolton; you're not in the minority, it's just the fact that all the people who don't mind that image there or acutally find it EDUCATIONAL will simply read the article, add to their knowledge-base and happily go on their way! A few people come on here and kick off and all hell breaks loose! Unbelievable! --[[User:LookingYourBest|LookingYourBest]] ([[User talk:LookingYourBest|talk]]) 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::::I thought the image was fine, but if we can accommodate readers who didn't, then so much the better (I take on board [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]]'s reasons for removing the photo, and [[User:Axlrosen|Axlrosen]]'s comments re: "censorship"). The photo was of [[Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman]], and her story is fascinating and uplifting, in my view, and I'm tempted to suggest that the Main Page could still benefit from a photo of Charlotte ''as a survivor''. Cheers, [[User:This flag once was red|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red|deeds]]</sub> 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Reminds me of when the human eye or something was on the main page a few years ago and there was this terrifying picture of the eye being held open with those tong things.. heh my girlfriend nearly vomited when I showed her the (suprinsingly very high resoltion) image :P &mdash; [[User:Deon555|Deon555]]<sup><font color="purple">[[User_talk:Deon555|'''talk''']]</font></sup><sub><font color="brown">I'm [[User_talk:Deon555/Back|BACK!]]</font></sub> 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


:I've created a mock-up of your proposed changes at[[Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(editable)]] and [[Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/styles.css]] (based on the code at {{tl|hlist}}). I'll hold-off actually making the changes since I don't actually see a RfC (only two informal discussions) and I'm unsure a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS|local consensus]] is sufficient to change the main page. [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(1deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: [[WP:ENC|This is an encyclopedia]], for crying out loud. We're not here to tell harrowing stories, we're not here to put a brave face on things, and we're ''not'' here to sweeten the truth. We're here to present the '''facts'''; and what could be more factual and relevant to non-medically inclined readers than the ''symptoms'' of a condition? [[User:Nigholith|Nigholith]] ([[User talk:Nigholith|talk]]) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for the mock-up! It works perfectly on my end. The Localconsensus issue was also a concern of mine. However, this discussion has been open for almost a month and in a dedicated forum for proposing main page edits. The participants include a wide variety of experienced editors, with very solid consensus for its addition (13 to 1). A more widely attended discussion would be very unlikely to change the results. The consensus for the current wording was achieved back at 2006 redesign of the main page, and I didn't see any mention of the active editor count in the discussions. So I don't think this proposal overrides any previous consensuses. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: We can do all those things. But we can also do them in a way that is ''kind'' and ''sensitive'' to the reader. BTW, as with most disagreements, egoism is a matter of viewpoint. To me, the egoism here is: "I am not disgusted by this image, so therefore nobody should be." [[User:Axlrosen|Axlrosen]] ([[User talk:Axlrosen|talk]]) 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(1deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::So where is this "kind and sensitive"? policy? The main page's featured article is a representation of the article within, and to censor any representation of the article is to censor the article itself. There are bound to be many things on the main page, from time to time, which, whether text or image, will disgust or shock the reader, and they are all representing the encyclopedia's content. To censor the main page is to censor the articles' content, and that is against Wikipedia policy. [[User:Haipa Doragon|Haipa Doragon]] ([[User talk:Haipa Doragon|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Haipa Doragon|contributions]]) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Seems good to me. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::"Where is the kind and sensitive policy? It's called [[WP:CIVIL]]. [[User:Lovelac7|<span style="font-family:times new roman, times; color:#000064;">Lovelac</span>]][[User:Lovelac7|<span style="font-family:times new roman, times; color:#AA0000;">'''7'''</span>]] 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::No, WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to content. &ndash;<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color:var(--color-base, #202122);">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks good. ''[[User talk:Cremastra|Cremastra]]'' ([[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]]) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*To whomever removed that graphic image from the main page, '''thank you'''. [[User:Lovelac7|<span style="font-family:times new roman, times; color:#000064;">Lovelac</span>]][[User:Lovelac7|<span style="font-family:times new roman, times; color:#AA0000;">'''7'''</span>]] 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Looks good to me too. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think this is at least second such discussion I see (first was about cancer showing picture of tumor) - now I don't find such images disgusting, but I know others do, so just out of curiosity - wouldn't it be more sensible to make a decision not to put such images on Main page ? If someone reads article about sex or disiese they expect that there could be such images and can turn off images (my browser at least gives such option), but, if someone comes to Wikipedia to look for some other information there mostly is no way for them to know what's the featured article of the day. You can't just always blindly follow the rules you know [[Special:Contributions/87.110.124.8|87.110.124.8]] ([[User talk:87.110.124.8|talk]]) 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
{{done}}. Just a small additional comment. "English" is an everyday word and probably does not need linking to [[English language]]. But that's a separate discussion &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


: If the baby picture can't be used, then why isn't the pink image being used? Sure it can't be scaled to 100px, but since the item of interest is ''less than 100px anyway'', why not just crop it? That would look fine. Better than no image at all, anyway[[User:APL|APL]] ([[User talk:APL|talk]]) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' I just saw this editor count on the main page and wanted to come by and say I love it. Not just an interesting statistic but a reminder to all visitors that this is a volunteer project not just a faceless and hegemonic Establishment entity. Nicely done everyone!! Proud to be one of the 116,430! [[User:Jengod|jengod]] ([[User talk:Jengod|talk]]) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Bye Bye Jimmy Carter, hello "the PDC World Darts Championship"? ==
::Why so much anger here? I submit the following (loose) definitions as they seem, IMO, to apply to TFA selections:
Sorry, the PDC World Darts Championship is just not important, period.
::* Censorship: removing, hiding, or suppressing information by making it unavailable or obscure.
Jimmy Carter doesn't even appear in recent deaths as of 2025-01-06...<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheRealJohnea|TheRealJohnea]] ([[User talk:TheRealJohnea#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheRealJohnea|contribs]]) </small>
::* Sensationalism: adding information intended to shock an audience for purposes of drawing their (perhaps morbid) interest, OR being as shocking and offensive as possible to get noticed.
:{{u|TheRealJohnea}} It's not a reflection of importance, just turnover. The usual complaint we get is that there isn't enough turnover, not too much. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::To those whose knee-jerk response is to accuse the picture-removers of committing censorship on this uncensored website... you apparently fail to take into account a few considerations. First, unless the baby's image is removed from the actual article, how can you call it censorship? Decisions may be made for aesthetic reasons without "censoring" anything. Second, aesthetic motives are perfectly acceptable reasons to remove an image from the Main Page, as it is the first part of Wikipedia seen by the general public.
:Carter died 10 days ago, the world has moved on. [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::On the other hand, to those whose knee-jerk response is to accuse the picture-supporters of sensationalism... be careful. I don't think anyone's intent was to be shocking and offensive. The first "definition" of sensationalism that I offer ''might'' apply... it ''could'' be that someone got overzealous in their desire to "hook" people's attention into reading the article... but ''getting people to read the articles'' is what the Main Page is all about.
:Looks like Jimmy Carter did appear in In The News. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&oldid=1266643957 Here's a snapshot of In The News on January 1]. It's been a week since it happened though so the news item has fallen off and been replaced by newer news items. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 22:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::My personal opinion is that, perhaps, the editor who chose the image may have brushed the line dividing "interest-grabbing" from "shock value"... but it is a very fine line at times, and I can't see that such emotionally-charged responses '''from either side''' are really justified. Information that was present on WP about meningitis 24 hours ago is still here... no lasting censorship has occurred... and viewers who were bothered by the image no longer have to see it if they don't want to. [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:: Carter was there for a week (29/12 to 04/01). And even if the darts didn't exist, would have been removed by the Trudeau posting today. I suspect the OP simply doesn't understand how ITN works. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I hope "so much anger" wasn't directed at my post, the indentation makes it look as though you're replying to me. I didn't intend any anger in my post, and have no opinion on whether or not the baby image should be on the front page. I was simply trying to point out an alternative solution that appeared to have been missed. [[User:APL|APL]] ([[User talk:APL|talk]]) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


== Proposal: delink "English" ==
:::@APL: Done. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::: Neat. Thanks. [[User:APL|APL]] ([[User talk:APL|talk]]) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Looks good. &ndash;<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::Wait, what is the rationale for ''not'' using the baby image? [[User:Haipa Doragon|Haipa Doragon]] ([[User talk:Haipa Doragon|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Haipa Doragon|contributions]]) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't expect to see the baby, but I wasn't "disgusted".
[[Special:Contributions/216.79.193.59|216.79.193.59]] ([[User talk:216.79.193.59|talk]]) 16:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Propose to remove the link from "English" to [[English language]]. This is an everyday word and per [[WP:OVERLINK]], we should avoid linking everyday words. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
First the people who thought that the April 1 articles on the front page were made up (something that two clicks or, for that matter, picking up a newspaper now and then would have disproved) and now this. Wikipedia needs to implement some sort of anti-moron captcha for Talk:Main Page. Something that asks a simple question like "What is 2 + 3?" or "Do problems cease to exist if no-one openly discusses or displays them?" and anyone who answers incorrectly is directed to the Daily Mail message boards instead. --[[Special:Contributions/86.156.134.242|86.156.134.242]] ([[User talk:86.156.134.242|talk]]) 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:"morons"? Who, with regards to the image matter, are you implying to be the morons here? Let's not devolve into [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. [[User:Haipa Doragon|Haipa Doragon]] ([[User talk:Haipa Doragon|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Haipa Doragon|contributions]]) 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


:I can't find the previous discussions on this, but the main page isn't an article, and it doesn't seem an overlink to link to the language the encyclopedia is linked to when introducing the encyclopedia. We [[WP:SEAOFBLUE]] "free" and "encyclopedia" too, it's a limitation of the format. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
(outdent) <s>Howcheng</s> APL (whoops), forgive my sloppy (lazy) formatting. No, I wasn't responding to your comment; I was mainly responding to anyone who has leveled charges of "sensationalism" or "censorship" at the editors.
::"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Wikipedia that doesn't know what English is. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, [[English language]], which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside [[encyclopedia]] and [[Wikipedia]]. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:[[English Wikipedia]] might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Haipa Doragon, the rationale for ''not'' using the image is that it is sufficiently emotionally disturbing for a wide portion of our audience that the "interest-grabbing" effect of the image seems to be crossing at least marginally into "shock value," which I don't think Wikipedia as a whole has ever been interested in. The information conveyed by the image is not ''essential'' to a basic understanding of the topic or its importance, so why should so many readers' first view of the Main Page be a strongly negative experience? [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 17:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
*Oppose removal, per [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]]'s excellent points. It's a good link to have, and there are probably quite a few people who make their first edit as a result of clicking through it. [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 22:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Oppose'''. 'English' can have multiple meanings; our [[English]] article is itself a disambiguation page. This is not an encyclopaedia about England, or English people, or any of those other meanings. The link to [[English language]] is necessary to clarify how the Main Page is using that word. [[User:Modest Genius|<b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I happen to know such a child myself, an adopted boy from friends. And I was also disturbed, I don't think such a picture should be on the Main page. It has it's place on the meningitis page itself, to show the possible complications, just like pages about other diseases show pictures. So if you want info on meningitis, you will be fully informed. But the Main page in my view should be slightly more open, welcoming, neutral, ... whatever you want to call it.
In addition, if I am well-informed, also medical textbooks nowadays try to avoid head-to-toe pictures of recognisable undressed patients/children with strange diseases or disabilities. Not necessary, and degrading. The fact that the parents of the girl in the picture have made her a show-case is worth another discussion, but would also not justify having her on the main page.[[Special:Contributions/80.60.102.202|80.60.102.202]] ([[User talk:80.60.102.202|talk]]) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:Again, claims of "it's disgusting", etc., but where is the policy to back it up? Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state nothing about removing content due to any form of shock value. This is encyclopedic content and therefore needs to adhere to all policies, including [[WP:NOT#CENSORED]], therefore makes arguments about shock factor, disgustingness, etc. irrelevant. [[User:Haipa Doragon|Haipa Doragon]] ([[User talk:Haipa Doragon|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Haipa Doragon|contributions]]) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::Did I say it is disgusting? I am a medical biologist, I am not easy to disgust and I can deal with pictures like that. I just think they have no place on the main page, as opposed to the meningitis page. And as even the medical profession appears to have guidelines on how to deal with pictures like this, I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different.[[Special:Contributions/80.60.102.202|80.60.102.202]] ([[User talk:80.60.102.202|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:28, 9 January 2025

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Main Page error reports

Shortcuts

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 03:26 on 10 January 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
  • Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
  • Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(January 10, today)

Monday's FL

(January 13)
Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

"Mian Page" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mian Page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2 § Mian Page until a consensus is reached. Ca talk to me! 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add number of editors in the topmost banner

I suggest this addition for the following reasons:

  • It encourages people to become editors via argumentum ad populum.
  • It is a interesting fact about the scale of Wikipedia
  • It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Wikipedia
  • It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".

I suggest formatting it like this:


116,430 active editors · 6,938,000 articles in English


Ca talk to me! 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilink to Special:Statistics already provides an explanation. Ca talk to me! 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of articles link also goes to Special:Statistics, though. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about linking the number of active editors to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, where it is explained? Ca talk to me! 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Wikipedia's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Wikipedia began, although not a priority in my opinion. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmchutchinson Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

I see a broad consensus for including the number of active editors, but there seem to be a lot of discussion on the finer details, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should I make a RfC for this? Ca talk to me! 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of us want the number of edits/active editors in the banner, but an RFC might help figure out the smaller details we keep arguing about Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informal RfC

MINIMAL PARTICIPATION
Despite the RfC being open for 16 days and pinging previous participants, it attracted only two respondents, showing the lack of interest in this topic. I will assume most people did not see an issue with my original formatting suggestion when they !voted "support" and submit an edit request. This close does not preclude any future discussion about the formatting or new additions to the proposed text. Ca talk to me! 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Five questions to decide on the formatting. Note that this doesn't preclude any further changes in the future.

Which figures should be added to the current text?

  1. Active editors (original proposal)
  2. Active editors and total edit count
  3. Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
  4. Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)

Which symbol should be used as the separator?

  1. Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
  2. Use comma

Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins?

  1. Use line break
  2. Use comma

How should it be ordered?

  1. Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
  2. Bigger number(s) first

Wikilinks?

  1. Wikilink all of the numbers to Special:Statistics (original proposal)
  2. Wikilink only the first number to Special:Statistics
  3. Wikilink "active editor" to Special:Statistics

Ca talk to me! 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?
If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question Should this be added at all?; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. [Personally, I think it's a great idea. But all changes to Wikipedia face incredible opposition, so a stronger consensus would be helpful in overcoming that.] ypn^2 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. Ca talk to me! 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? ypn^2 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Ca talk to me! 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as xaosflux suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "... created by 48,528,350 editors"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it, but using {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. Ca talk to me! 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. Ca talk to me! 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants: @Cremastra @Tamzin @Schwede66 @CanonNi @Jmchutchinson @J947 @Stephen @UndercoverClassicist @Kusma @Lee Vilenski @User:Joe Roe @User:Xaosflux @User:ApteryxRainWing @User:Modest Genius @User:Some1 @User:Ypn^2 Ca talk to me! 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following

<div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div>

with

<div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]] active editors · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div>

The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle ( Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css ), which I am not how it'd be implemented. ChatGPT gave me a potential solution of using a ID'd span tag on the interpunct and hiding it on smaller screens, but I have limited CSS knowledge and can't verify if it would work properly. I know this is a technical request so I will be grateful if a technically-oriented admin can help out. Thanks! Ca talk to me! 15:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a mock-up of your proposed changes atWikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(editable) and Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/styles.css (based on the code at {{hlist}}). I'll hold-off actually making the changes since I don't actually see a RfC (only two informal discussions) and I'm unsure a local consensus is sufficient to change the main page. Sohom (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the mock-up! It works perfectly on my end. The Localconsensus issue was also a concern of mine. However, this discussion has been open for almost a month and in a dedicated forum for proposing main page edits. The participants include a wide variety of experienced editors, with very solid consensus for its addition (13 to 1). A more widely attended discussion would be very unlikely to change the results. The consensus for the current wording was achieved back at 2006 redesign of the main page, and I didn't see any mention of the active editor count in the discussions. So I don't think this proposal overrides any previous consensuses. Ca talk to me! 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. Sohom (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. Schwede66 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Cremastra (u — c) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Just a small additional comment. "English" is an everyday word and probably does not need linking to English language. But that's a separate discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just saw this editor count on the main page and wanted to come by and say I love it. Not just an interesting statistic but a reminder to all visitors that this is a volunteer project not just a faceless and hegemonic Establishment entity. Nicely done everyone!! Proud to be one of the 116,430! jengod (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye Jimmy Carter, hello "the PDC World Darts Championship"?

Sorry, the PDC World Darts Championship is just not important, period. Jimmy Carter doesn't even appear in recent deaths as of 2025-01-06...— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJohnea (talk • contribs)

TheRealJohnea It's not a reflection of importance, just turnover. The usual complaint we get is that there isn't enough turnover, not too much. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Carter died 10 days ago, the world has moved on. Stephen 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Jimmy Carter did appear in In The News. Here's a snapshot of In The News on January 1. It's been a week since it happened though so the news item has fallen off and been replaced by newer news items. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Carter was there for a week (29/12 to 04/01). And even if the darts didn't exist, would have been removed by the Trudeau posting today. I suspect the OP simply doesn't understand how ITN works. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to remove the link from "English" to English language. This is an everyday word and per WP:OVERLINK, we should avoid linking everyday words. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the previous discussions on this, but the main page isn't an article, and it doesn't seem an overlink to link to the language the encyclopedia is linked to when introducing the encyclopedia. We WP:SEAOFBLUE "free" and "encyclopedia" too, it's a limitation of the format. CMD (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Wikipedia that doesn't know what English is. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. CMD (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, English language, which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside encyclopedia and Wikipedia. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    English Wikipedia might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 'English' can have multiple meanings; our English article is itself a disambiguation page. This is not an encyclopaedia about England, or English people, or any of those other meanings. The link to English language is necessary to clarify how the Main Page is using that word. Modest Genius talk 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=1268370981"