Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 204.98.2.43 (talk) at 15:16, 6 December 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

i am the real beyonce.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured picture

  • Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
  • To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.

Main page discussion

  • This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
  • Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.

Template:Main Page discussion footer

"Plurality" in the news

first item

The Socialist Party gains in Dutch elections, while Jan Peter Balkenende's (pictured) Christian Democrats retain their plurality

is it plurality or popularity ?--Pixel ;-) 12:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+plurality Rafy 13:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok--Pixel ;-) 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plurality means that its still the largest party. Its just the stupid article being too fancy. Why can't they make it simple and say "Christian Democrats remain the largest party"???
Plurality is a well understood English word with a specific meaning when it comes to elections. This is the normal English wikipedia, not the simple one. Do you suggest we give up on all words and just don't communicate? Nil Einne 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it is not well understood: I also would not have been sure of its meaning in this context. This might well be the "normal English" wikipedia, but that does not mean that informaiton should not be presented clearly. Bazza 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who don't understand the term should have clicked on the link on ITN at the time and read the Plurality article. This should be clear and concise enough. -- PFHLai 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 Words

When someone types in words related to and then the word it should come up with a list of at least 10 words.

Can you please elaborate? I don't really understand what you are saying. Nishkid64 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think s/he means that Wikipedia should include a spelling correction feature in the search (like Google has), which is not such a bad idea (British spelling is not accepted in most cases, for example, and some nonstandard romanizations of names are not redirected to the main article), albeit may be hard to implement cleverly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.108.189 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Erotic picture/article

NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.89.146 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Is someone asleep at the switch, or just tone-deaf?? While we don't want to bowlderize the encyclopedia, we need to keep the front page clean and above reproach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.207.128 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. --Madchester 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it our responsibility to decide for people what they should see? We're not forcing anyone to click on the thumbnail, and at its resolution, the thumbnail is illegible. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 03:12Z

I predict this featured article will see a record number of vandalisms. Carcharoth 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As featured article go, it's actually receiving shockingly little vandalism. I think Bulbasaur was one of the most vandalized FAs of all time, and it got *WAY* more than this one has. Raul654 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously all the vandals are looking at the pictures instead! :-) Carcharoth 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What can vandals do, add "penis" to the article? --Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you guys thinking?! User:Madchester, apparently you are used to having to say that. So bluntly put. Wikipedia has become a very public site. User:Brian0918, thats what porn is. Kids don't have to click the link, but apparently they are. The thumbnail should either be smaller, or not there at all. And if your right, that its too small to see, what stops them from just clicking to see what the picture is? The link to this article shouldn't be here. Sure, this is an encyclopedia, right? The article should stay, they have this in the encyclopedia books. But to put it on the front page, kids WILL see this. This maybe put on the news. Little extreme, right? But parents do go that far, good parents. This is indeed promoting it. Saying erotic art is ok. If that's ok, what about pornography? Kids might think that's a minor step, so they look at pornsites. Maybe that's not real enough, they'll try this with their friends. STDS, early pregnancy, etc. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degredation in our country. -69.67.230.47 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What stops kids from clicking on links that their parents might find inappropriate for them to be viewing? Hopefully, their own parents are stopping them. It's not our responsibility to decide for parents how their children should be raised. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 06:03Z
Wikipedia is an international project and can not follow national or religious intolerance. In my country children are expected to learn about sex and are free to look for information on the Internet. If you feel, that the Internet or Wikipedia should be censored, take the issue to your government. They can enforce censorship on the Internet or even build a Great Firewall of China around your country. Wikipedia is however not the place to enforce censorship. So please, do not bring your complaints here! -- Petri Krohn 08:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is opposition to the general philosophy behind Wikipedia to intentionally hide behind ignorance in the context of controversial material. The FA is fine and should stay. [[User:Topher0128|Topher0128] ] 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It is one thing for Wikipedia to contain articles on erotic art and another thing to actually parade them on the front page. There are certainly enough qualified articles that we don't need to use pornographic or expletives-laden ones where any visitor is subjected to them. Is there any reason to showcase this particular article?? Madman 05:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a featured article, in the cycle of featured articles shown on the main page. Do you have objections to the factual accuracy or comprehensiveness of the article? These are the only valid objections. See WP:NOT for more details. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 06:05Z

Please understand the difference between a wall painting in ancient pompei and a DVD of Debbie Does Dallas. --Monotonehell 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Does Dallas is porn, if a sex scene was drawn on a wall would it still be porn or art? Would there be a difference then? -69.67.230.47 05:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BOTH are porn. Please understand the differnece between an ANCIENT artifact and a lame porn flick made in the 70's. --Monotonehell 12:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Come on! You're stressing me out! I've been told that I would have gray hair at 20 at this rate. The war in the middle east, the politics in this country, porn being called art, I'm going to die at 20. Please, gain common sense! This is porn. It was 2000 years ago, but its porn. They considered it art, but they promoted sex with whoever. It's porn, it's porn, it's porn, no matter what. -69.67.230.47 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claim it's porn. Ok? Is there a copyright issue with the image? Is the article not comprehensive, or factually inaccurate? Do you have any valid objections? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 06:07Z
I think everyone who objects understands the difference. What we are concerned about is this appearing on the Main Page. There are some articles and images which should never appear on the front page. Madman 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YES! This is one of them! Thank you! -69.67.230.47 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia policy/guideline is your statement based on? Why didn't you complain about this article any time in the last week, when it has been waiting in the queue? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 06:07Z
I am not referring to any policy, but rather to a sense of proportion and decorum based on societal standards. For example, I would not include explicit images of:
  • Certain body parts,
  • Any sexual act, or
  • Detailed violent acts (e.g. a photo of a lynching).
Are there any images or any words that you would not place on the Main Page?? I would be interested in knowing. Madman 06:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that societal standards are different everywhere. As for my personal view, I'll examine each situation as it presents itself. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 07:22Z
In my society we call it art, place it is museums, and arrange school field trips to those same museums. You think it is bad for children to be exposed to this? Well, thank you for your opinion, but I think that most Wikipedians disagree with you. And yes, there are plenty of things that won't appear on the front page, because they lack serious educational/artistic value and wouldn't be in Wikipedia to begin with. Dragons flight 07:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"There are plenty of things that won't appear on the front page, because they lack serious educational/artistic value". You mean, like an article on the Bulbasaur?? Madman 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure plenty of adults gained valuable insight into what their children were fixated on by reading that. As to inappropriate, basically any appearing in http://www.uncyclopedia.org/ would be examples of content unbecoming a real encyclopedia. Dragons flight 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:TFA, there is a list of Featured Articles which won't appear on the Main Page. Also, this article has been set up to be on the Main Page for about a week, providing plenty of time to present opposion before it ever made it here. Timrem 05:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind any FAs appearing on the Main Page, but this does make me curious about what articles are on the list of FAs that won't. I'd have bet dollars to donuts that this would have been one of them. --Maxamegalon2000 06:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is one of them, if it ever gets featured. I'm willing to bet the list is very short (on the order of just a couple), but I don't know why it isn't public. It should be. zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask Raul654 - I'm fairly sure it's not a secret even if it isn't on Wikipedia. I know there's one article which is too technical for the front page - though it meets all the critieria, understanding it requires too much background knowledge for it to be front-page, or something like that. Unfortunately I can't remember which. There certainly aren't any featured articles disallowed because a political grouping objects to them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The unacceptable FAs for the Main Page were Wikipedia-referencing ones. Wikipedia was once an FA (it is no longer), and it was on that list. There was considerable controversy about Bulbasaur going on the Main Page because it was known from the beginning that it would be vandalised constantly, but it went up.
The point that must be understood is that, if we refuse to have History of erotic depictions on the Main Page, then we also have to reopen all of the related debates such as at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, which would be absurd. We do not censor Wikipedia for anyone's sensibilities, period, end of story. —Cuiviénen 13:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you would put the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy on the front page, along with an image of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban? Madman 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not in that case, since the image is copyrighted and copyrighted images are only put on the Main Page alongside featured articles if there is no other option. However, if the images were free and the article was featured, yes. In fact, I think we had them on the Main Page for a few days in ITN when it was big news. —Cuiviénen 17:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the problem is is that kids may be researching on school computers, perhaps with a teacher over their shoulder, and what will the school think of Wikipedia then? Just not right. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this caused some controversy in other areas of media. Even Uncyclopedia has a parody article of it already- [1] BMG2 01:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they think "My God! This site isn't safe for children!", then they're right, and we've never pretended otherwise. We've had plenty of controversial front page articles before, I doubt this one will attract any particular attention - Unencyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia, so it's hardly a case of 'even Unencyclopedia has noticed it' - they're practically the first people we'd expect to do so. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they think "My God! This site isn't safe for children!", then the school is most likely in Saudi Arabia!. There is nothing in the article History of erotic depictions that would make it unsuitable to use as educational material in schools. --Petri Krohn 09:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War picture/article

NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at guys holding guns, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Homicide, suicide, are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal guns, shoot each other while quail hunting, and then finally start leading armies of moral destruction. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How dare you pose that argument! Clearly, murder and violence are preferable to pleasure and reproduction. ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 06:10Z
"Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." WP:DISRUPT --Haizum 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments made on a talk page are not disruption (and are the reason why talk pages exist), and are neither intrusive nor change the content of articles or state of Wikipedia's content system WP:DISRUPT falsedef 09:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary repetition is disruption - I guess I'm guilty too. It's either that or simple vandalism via spamming. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no bad pics on the war page.

The Battle of Waterloo is not "bad", but naked people are? I think that violence is a far worse thing to portray and/or glorify than sex. 4.247.62.107 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic picture/article

NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at mountains, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Erosion, diagenesis, earthquakes , are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal rocks and survey equipment, dig holes, and then finally start leading armies of moral destruction. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." WP:DISRUPT --Haizum 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educational picture/article

NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at guys learning, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Learning, free thought, empowerment, are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal books, and visit even more free thought websites. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." WP:DISRUPT --Haizum 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of common sense

OK, people here on Wikipedia have evidently completely lost the plot, and put ideology before rationality and common sense. What alternate Universe are you people living in to think that it will be acceptable in this world to have such an article as the main page FA? You may be diametrically opposed to excluding such articles from selection there, but who are you to not take account of your audience? It is not a matter of being asked to exclude content from the encyclopaedia. zoney ♣ talk 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please translate the above comment into English? Andrew Levine 09:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Ew, naked people!" --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zoney's point, and IMO a very valid one, is that even though these topics should be covered in an encyclopedia, there is really no need to have it on our welcome mat. We are used by schools and small children, and this just puts people off. --Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 11:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is also that it is arrogant and disconnected from the real world to just ignore the large numbers of readers who are what many here would call "prudes". It's not just a matter of "think of the children", or "this is porn", or such. It's a matter of social responsibility, *particularly* where the bias of the project is against those who would object to such content (i.e. I'm reasonably sure that most people contributing to Wikipedia, myself included, are "liberals"). It is childish and irresponsible to put such content on the front page when the likely objections are known in advance. This is not self-censorship (you are not deleting the article), it is merely exerting tolerance and respect for the views of a substantial section of society.
zoney ♣ talk 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Zoney. Most folks here seem to be proud that they are so "mature" that they can place such an article and image on the Main Page (not to mention make snide and sarcastic comments at those who would urge some restraint). I would instead suggest that it is more mature to have the ability to place such articles and images on the Main Page, but to take into account the sensibilities of the entire user population of Wikipedia and decide not to. Madman 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an analogy, would you ask a museum to move all nude figures into a storeroom whenever a class of children were due for a tour? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, but I neither would I put a sculpture of a sex act on the street in front of the museum's main entrance with a banner saying "This way to erotic art". Madman 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"it is merely exerting tolerance and respect for the views of a substantial section of society"...auh...why would hiding these pages from having occasional high priority status be any different? We are just here to build a good and complete encyclopedia. Any well sourced, informative, complete and moderatly long page can be featured and displayed. Just because a faction of American politics (mainly religions) and some people from some other regions, such as the Middle East, may have problems with it, does not mean we have to bottle it up. This site may be in English, but it is for the world. We don't have to be an encyclopedia for children either. Certainly nigh unanimous percieved "decency" is a factor in image use and page links, but if the sourcing/importance/quality are on the other side then that reason alone will not hold it back.Voice-of-All 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of Muppets

What muppets! FA on erotic art, how very bold of you! How risque! Thumb your nose up at the prudes!

I don't mean in any way to argue that "erotic art" cough*porn*cough shouldn't be in wikipedia - it certainly should. However the front page it not like other pages. Many schools have it set up as the home page on all their computers. Kids are major users of wikipedia, and many parents (right or wrong) wish to shield the kids from "erotic art".

You see, all other pages you only get to because you choose to. The main page is a default page that takes 5% of all wikipedia traffic.

This act has simply caused a small amount of needless damage to the popularity of wikipedia. Never mind. User:Juicifer

Do you want to cite your sources for that last item? If people are put off by a well-written, comprehensive article on a legitimate academic topic, I'm not sure they'd be the type to benefit from Wikipedia in the first place. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What arrogance. zoney ♣ talk 10:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a remarkably fine and scholarly article on the history of erotic depictions. If the Venus of Willendorf, black figure pottery, wall paintings from Pompeii, Japanese shunga and 17th and 18th century prints cause you offence, look away and avoid museums and art galleries.
The thumbnail on the Main Page is stunningly effective at making it clear what is going on while showing nothing. An ancient example of the Hays Code - it would not be too difficult for one to even have her feet on the floor. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. There are children's encyclopaedias available which deliberately limit their subject areas which parents and teachers can use instead. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


We have had main page featured articles illustrated with Nazi film posters and KKK activities, both of which I find far more disturbing than a 2000-year-old painting of two people doing what comes naturally. If we're going to make sure the main page is always totally inoffensive to everyone, we need to start getting fluffy bunny rabbits up to featured quality. -- AJR | Talk 14:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. To be honest, IMHO Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 16, 2006, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2006, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 22, 2006 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2006 are more disturbing concepts and pictures for kids, or should be. Also, while Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 5, 2006 is a medical concept and so shouldn't be disturbing to anyone really, the picture is likely to cause a greater amount of distress then the painting. Nil Einne 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of Mr McGregor and all cultivators of vegetable gardens everywhere, I find your suggestion of featuring an article on those promiscuous carrot-eating pests you call "fluffy bunny rabbits" extremely offensive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The End of Western Civilization

Wikipedia, through their promotion of filth and depraved pornographic smut, should be ashamed of itself. Kids have no idea what sex is, and if they happen to come to Wikipedia (because coming to wikipedia to learn things is the hip, cool thing every teen is doing to shock their parents these days) then upon seeing sexual depictions their eyes will fall out and they will be scarred for life. Kids should stay on wholesome things, like movies that involve an action hero killing Arabs, or eating at Taco Bell.

Now I'm not saying we should censor Wikipedia. Gracious no. I merely mean we should impose a strict set of moral standards so unsuitable subjects like faggots or Calvinism so they don't get discussed. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.33.78 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is sex 'dirty'? I never understood why people thought that. Apart from me and 20,000 others (IVF!!!) how d'ya think you were made? *waves arms* Lady BlahDeBlah 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that we should impose your strict moral standards. Sex is a totally natural and beautiful thing. Kids are going to learn about it sometime. You can't protect them anymore.
P.S. I hope you understand my message way back in the forties! codu (t/c) 12:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That post is absurd, abstaining from making a personal attack, I'll say those comments were made by a Troll. Kyle sb 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point where satirists are reviled as 'trolls' really will be the end of Western Civilisation, or at least democracy.
Anyway, even worse than kids' eyes falling out, they might get keratoconus. For those who weren't here in June, the choice of that article for the main page with this as the picture was the occasion for much "Children/teachers/frail womenfolk should not have to look at that" rhetoric. I noted at the time that those who believed that we should be considerate to the sensibility of certain readers seemed oddly unconsiderate of what people with the disease might feel like to have others going "oh my God, that's disgusting" at the sight of them in public. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have an inkling that 144.139's post is satirical. "...Kids should stay on wholesome things, like movies that involve an action hero killing Arabs, or eating at Taco Bell." --Monotonehell 12:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also got that impression Rafy 13:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd rather my kids knew about porn than furry conventions, but whatever. Quarma 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for that inviting pink cloud within which stars are conceived and born... -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually running around Midwest FurFest's disco with another fan's 2-year-old daughter the week before thanksgiving. She was having a whale of a time. That picture of the furry games? One of the things you don't see is a 9-year-old boy who was participating, and actually won one of the events. Kids love furry conventions, because they get to dance with wolves! GreenReaper 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a furry convention like Disneyland? ;) --Monotonehell 04:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously should not be an FA, since it doesn't meet the high quality of FA's we normally use here at Wikipedia. Wasn't there a Gwen Stefani song that could have been featured instead? Or a random performance by a third-rate comedian? ("Carrot Top's 2006 Performance at the Laff Riot Bar in El Guano, California" or something?) Or maybe a Pokemon? 69.175.141.106 14:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a related comment at Wikipedia talk:Pornography#Erotica on main page. — Alan✉ 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would rather have "young adults" lead in pages like this than "many" of the entries Uncyclopedia (and see my comments on this talk page a while back about "medical images" and the front page).

Perhaps there should be a "WikiYoungPersons front page" to deal with such matters - or "click here for non-vanilla version front page" (covering the more exotic articles).

There will always be some front pages which cause controversy.

(Anyone care to establish the "save the cyber trees - do not argue too much about such articles" group?) Jackiespeel 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just remind to users,that wikipedia is not just in sweden or denmark,but also in pakistan and saudi arabia.So ignore the prudes,porn is good and children have a sexe too.We will not get hostage by medieval mentalities.--Pixel ;-) 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite obvious the remark was satirical. It appears to come from an Australia, so you do have to wonder :-P But given that Australian's don't have Taco Bell, it's fair to say it's satirical. Besides that, please don't like to articles like furry conventions, you just invite vandalism which has already occured... Nil Einne 17:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of that article (GreenReaper) was the one to submit it for consideration for DYK, so it's kinda odd to say we shouldn't feature it to spare them the work of keeping it clean of vandalism. It probably had the most vandalism I've seen hit an article on DYK, but it's nothing compared to what even the most innocuous FA goes through, and what vandalism there was was quickly reverted. It didn't receive that many improvements while it was on, but that's not overly surprising given it was already of a fairly good quality. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism was no real problem. We've had to deal with worse on a daily basis at WikiFur. When you've had Tor-based scripts registering accounts and making 100 edits a minute, you learn to deal with such stuff. I'm 100% sure that far more people read the article and didn't vandalize it, which was the objective. :-) GreenReaper 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people are so concerned why do they not take part in nominating and voting for features articles rather than complain when those that they disapprove appear.82.153.153.125 21:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestion - when an article is replaced because it is perceived as inappropriate for the front page, an article of the same category is substituted (and certain categories of topic do not have an associated picture on the front page.

As there are several reasons why "certain articles" might be deemed as inappropriate for the ordinary front page (could I add "accessing Wikipedia in a public library" as another), how difficult would it be to set up a parallel "non-vanilla article" entry point (ie equivalent to the Simple English page) which deals with such topics. Perhaps signing in required (to discourage vandalism) - but "you know what you are letting yourself in for." (Before anyone tells me so, I do accept that this idea probably involves a lot of work - I am just putting the idea as one solution for consideration) Jackiespeel 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I would certainly accept this as an alternative way to keep a non-offensive (but still rock solid) face to the public. Madman 22:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could include any "inappropriate" or "offensive" material in the main page; when some conservative complains, we bash him mercilessly until he's red in anger and defenestrates his computer.--

cloviz 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to try and avoid the above scenario. (Would you like to develop the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells page btw?)

There will always be some topics which will cause much heat and light and squabbling - some aspects of ordinary human life, certain medical topics, certain political/cultural topics, topics which might cause problems if accessed from libraries, schools and cultures which have a particular viewpoint. Probably #most# cultures or states (and persons within cultures in general) have some topics which are regarded as particularly sensitive but which are viewed with indifference elsewhere. I am suggesting a way of catering for such preferences, and also allowing others to look at things which be seen as sensitive.

The motto should be "don't complain - suggest a solution."

Inappropriate. Anyone here who says its not inappropriate lacks morality. There are damn kids on this site. Parents don't know that this site has this. Who cares about erotic pictures anyways? Its a sad disgusting reality of Human life. Why don't you put an article about axe murderers or history of criminals? Kids are far more use to that with Batman and other cartoons. The articles that are suppose to be put up as featured articles are supposed to be neutral. However, this article as a featured article is extremely offensive to many religions and to women. It is far from neutral. AND WHO CARES ABOUT EROTIC PICTURES (attack removed)
It's a sad disgusting reality of human life that you are still complaining about this article, which, no matter how much you complain won't be removed. By the way, please read WP:CIVIL and this. Thanks. --Majorly 23:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was amusing that in two or three of the above comments I couldn't work out if they were for the 'censor the main page' proposition or anti. The poster who wanted to add "accessing Wikipedia in a public library" might want to have a look at the books that libraries often provide as a side service to their computer pools. Several of them may actually contain the subject of the history of erotic depictions in art as well as illustrations. Next you'll be burning books (again). Evolve. --Monotonehell 12:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if someone said this, as I've only read a few comments. The comments relating to the concern for small children is invalid. Most kids know of sex by the time they're 10. Which leads me to think that most have googled it out of curiosity and so this probably isn't that big of a deal. Also most kids ages 6-9 wouldn't read for fun so that age group probably aren't regular users anyway. There's also a lot research out that basically says the sooner a kid experiences the shock of discovering sex the better.Mike92591 03:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! I can't believe how much fuss people are making about this! It's not as if we had anything truly explicit on the front page, just a cave-painting style picture. Even I wasn't offended by it, and I'm probably one of the most prudish, old-fashioned and easily scarred people around. It's not as if it was actual photographic porn, after all (I'll admit that I would be uneasy if that was put on the main page). It was just some very old artwork. Besides which, I can think of plenty of more offensive things - those Muhammad cartoons, for instance. The point is, it was a good encyclopaedic article, and therefore suitable featurable material. Wikipedia is not censored for minors - a policy I am not 100% supportive of, but am willing to accept because the alternative would basically destroy everything the site stands for: NPOV, worldwide view, encyclopaedic etc. The article is now longer on the main page, so I think now would be a good opportunity to end the discussion, right?
On a largely unrelated point, I don't know where you're getting your info Mike92591, but I found books entertaining before I could even read, and anyway, this is an encyclopaedia, not a novel. Good day all. RobbieG 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main points probably are:

The front/main page serves, inter alia, to bring topics that they might not otherwise have considered to the attention of the viewer.

Some cultures are more conservative than others/prefer certain topics to remain in the private domain. Some people think that certain topics should not be brought to the attention of children before they reach the stage that they go looking for them (this might well include eg war-related topics). There are some topics - probably different for most cultures/countries/groups - which are found distasteful/likely to cause unpleasantness, some of which they are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to (a vegetarian might accept a link to "how a carcass is jointed, an atheist to a religious page etc). In a library we choose which books to look at - and those put on display by the librarians tend to be the more anodyne ones. Many library computers have blocking policies (some of them slightly irrational) and the screens are visible to passers by. There is, probably, on these and other grounds, a level of courtesy in keeping the main page somewhat more anodyne rather than "more exotic." This is why I suggested that there could be a separately accessed "interesting article" page, where the viewer chooses to go. Those of us who are willing to be intrigued by such topics can then choose to do so and everybody is happy. (And there will be some topics which, while fairly tasteful in themselves, will generate long discussions on their acceptability.) Jackiespeel 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not even read most of the comments here, but I am disgusted by what I've seen. People, this is not a children's site. That is something you have to deal with. Wikipedia is not censored, for good reason. If this was some sort of children's reference site, and that picture was put up, bring on the protests, but you have to remember that their are adults here to, and not to mention people who don't think sex is a bad thing. Come on; face it, over 60 % of teenagers are looking at porn. What with television and the general American culture, pretty much everyone knows what's going on. If some 8 year old sees it, I doubt he'll even understand what it is. If he's mentally shattered, I blame the parents for not censoring their computer. It's a damn good article; just because the subject's "offensive" to some doesn't mean we can't recognize it as one of Wikipedia's best. DoomsDay349 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a picture of a woman's private part...

Why is a picture of a woman's private part in the "Did you know"? This is ridiculous. BhaiSaab talk 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's called education. 58.178.23.191 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any such image. It was probably a case of vandalism that has been taken care off. Jeltz talk 01:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you thought that Image:Elden Mountain, USGS.jpg resembles a women's "private part". --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 08:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really squint your eyes... Titoxd(?!?) 08:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn't it. The picture was there for 30-45 minutes and then I think some admin replaced it with text before that mountain picture came. BhaiSaab talk 21:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only change on the mountain update was to add another entry for length. There were three changes to the one before that, but two were just fiddling with the image caption, rather than the image itself, and the third was a grammar fix. Both images were deleted after being c-uploaded, but I can tell you from looking at the deleted versions that at no point were they replaced by an offensive image. There were also no replacements made over the Commons versions of the two images. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many reports of various pictures which no one else seems to have seen. Sometimes it may be the case a wikimedia and/or user computer bug causes the wrong image. Sometimes it may be vandalism which was quickly picked up so no one else saw it and the admin who fixed it didn't say anything. Some cases it may simply be people who are mistaken and/or trolling. Personally I suggest we ignore reports which don't at least include a screenshot (although that's easy to fake). I'm somewhat doubtful that a picture of a vagina could be on the main page for 30-45 minutes without anyone else noticing so I would suspect it was either my first suggestion or my last Nil Einne 08:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30-45 minutes could have been caused by his web browser cache. It could have really been there but obviously not for that long. Jeltz talk 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me, if you say an image was there for 30-45 minutes it means it wasn't in the cache i.e. you've accounted for the cache. If I find something strange, I usually open a different browser to at least account for browser cache (it's easier then alternatives). This obviously doesn't account for ISP transparent proxies so I usually mention that I haven't accounted for them (I could tor but I don't bother) 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

fork wikipedia over fair use policy

I just want now how it's receaved the idea of forking because of some recent developments with the way fair use rule is interpreted.If your not awhare of the isue see thies three link's to make an opinion.--Pixel ;-) 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All_images_with_no_fair_use_rationale All_replaceable_fair_use_images talk:Fair_use

This is the wrong place for posting this and I don't think that those links would help the uninitiated get any idea of the complex and problematic fair use. Jeltz talk 22:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you think ther's a good place too post this?--Pixel ;-) 23:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village pump is where you want to be. howcheng {chat} 03:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Number of FAs mentioned as well as total number of articles, please!

See also: Talk:Main Page/Archive 79

I realise that this is not the first time this has been raised but... In the light of the recent 1.5million milestone, Jimbo's comments about quantity/quality, discussion on WP Weekly podcast, etc. Could we please get the number of Featured Articles and/or Good Articles listed on the front page alongside the total number of articles in English??? I'm not suggesting removing the count of the toal number of articles, just a small addition, so it would read something like:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 1,513,706 articles in English, 1175 of which are Featured Articles.

Thanks for your consideration, Witty lama 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The people we'd want to impress with the FA-count are those new to Wikipedia. But such people aren't going to know why it would matter whether an article is Featured or not, or why or how it's decided that an article gets the status. So the only people it'd benefit to have the count up are experienced newbies, who are kind of difficult to find. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want to target only newbies? The number of FAs is a hundred above the last time I checked. I find that interesting. Besides which, there are certainly any number of items on the Main Page that have niche audiences, such as the two templates meant to direct readers to other languages. I would support adding an FA count for the reasons laid out by Wittylama. - BanyanTree 01:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too! Wittylama is absolutely correct. Nishkid64 02:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought we should favor quality over quantity, so we are making more FAs than better FAs? How about including other "featured" content too? --Howard the Duck 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? An FA is quality. If we are making more FAs then we are making more quality. --Monotonehell 04:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A greater quantity of quality is better than a greater quality of quantity. Whatever that means – Gurch 04:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HA! That's an interesting way of putting it Gurch! Having a quantitative measure of of quality would not be the same as a measure that promotes quantity for its own sake. This would not decrease the quality level of FAs. Witty lama 04:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea, as long as I'm not the one who has to do it, and it doesn't interfere with the way WP:FA works (e.g, with the actual numbering scheme). Raul654 04:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, this graph makes me very sad and anything that can be done to turn it around would be a welcome change. Raul654 04:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the marginal rate of decrease is decreasing... which means we're starting to catch up. Perhaps an FA drive advertised on the Main Page would help... somehow? Titoxd(?!?) 08:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support this if other "featured" content also gets to be mentioned, like there 167 FLs, 668 FPs, etc. --Howard the Duck 12:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia has lower standards for FAs/EAs than we do, though. Most particularly, they don't require inline citation. I'm currently translating the runner-up to the recent writing contest, Friedrich V. (Frederick V), and it does irritate me slightly that this 'best of the best' would still require major work to become a featured article here. I expect that the German Wikipedia is still better at quality than we are, but the gap isn't as big as it looks from that graph. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the main arguement of the previous airing of this idea (listed at Talk:Main Page/Archive 79) - that having a FA count would be either "self-congratulatory" or "editor centric" (as opposed to reader centric), I would argue that the total-article counter is both of these things already. Surely if we can justify having the total-count listed then we can justify having an indicator of quality as well. If the casual visitor does not know what "Featured Article" means then he need only click on the link to find out. It is a wiki afterall! Witty lama 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should think about what we want the main page for. If it's just to impress visitors, the current setup more or less works, and a FA counter inside the FA box (like replacing "more featured articles" with "all X featured articles" would be an improvement. If, OTOH, we want the main page to attract new contributors and channel them into doing useful work, we should resurrect the project box on the main page and list collaborations and open tasks. Zocky | picture popups 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of the "all X featured articles" rather than "more featured articles". Spebudmak 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign in) 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me three. Witty lama 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FA-count inside the FA box? Briliant idea! Carcharoth 12:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt a noob

I wonder how hard it would be to create a program like this, like Mechapixel did. Just have a list of all the unadopted new users, and let the experienced ones, (say, 2 months joined), choose one to mentor. They would answer any questions the user had, one on one, using email, or their respective talk pages or IM screennames. This way, a new user wouldn't have to wait so long to get that burning question answered. Just a thought.
WiiWillieWiki 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User already does this on a volunteer basis. —Cuiviénen 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not related to MainPage at all. Please be reminded to make use of Wikipedia:Village pump for suggestions like this. Thanks. --PFHLai 10:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"On This Day" for Dec 4th

in "On this Day" for Dec 4th, it says "1639 - English astronomer Jeremiah Horrocks made the first observation of a transit of Venus (pictured)." Taken literally this might be interpreted that this picture is an actual photo taken by Horrocks. Could that get clarified? Spebudmak 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The confusion stems from the fact that astronomers typically call data which they take "observations", which in many cases are photos. Spebudmak 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out, Spebudmak. I've typed in "(2004 picture shown)". Hope it's clearer now. Next time, please use WP:ERRORS. Service is usually quicker there. --PFHLai 10:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Spebudmak 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLA

Hey, never discussed the front page b4, but I think that the most recent news article, "At least 300 people are killed in clashes between the army of Sudan and the People's Liberation Army in the southern Sudanese town of Malakal," ought have its tag changed to say "the Sudanese People's Liberation Army." When I first read the tag, I was all "WTF is China doing in Sudan?!"

Hopefully, this was the right place to post this. If not, sorry.

--Adam (http://www.ifobos.com) 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. But the Chinese army is suppling weapons to the Sudanese government now that you have mentioned it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
fixed Borisblue 07:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news obvious headline....

Wikipedia is usually the first for info. I found out when Steve Irwin died here first. Amazing... However, right now In the news is missing possibly the largest news story today; Fiji's military coup. Heck I found out from the 6 o'clock news - Wikipedia must really be lagging lol... ;) Spawn Man 08:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITN was being updated at the same time as Spawn Man was typing here. The 2006 Fijian coup d'état plot is now on MainPage. --PFHLai 10:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. Wikipedia and ITN is not a news ticker, despite the name. Also, check out Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page where you can learn how to make suggesstions (although the coup had already been suggested a while back) Nil Einne 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A third, for anyone else new reading: If it's the biggest story of the century, but our article on it sucks, don't count on seeing it on the main page. We only link to articles that have be significantly updated. -- Zanimum 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that, but I was just commenting as I usually tend to find out all the big news stories from here first, so was shocked when I didn't see a biggie on the section... Spawn Man 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page length

It is getting rather long (the discussion on a previous FA probably accounting for a significant fraction): can someone archive please (and "clean up" and "expand" pages). Jackiespeel 17:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can move things from this talkpage to the Archive. I've just moved some of the older discussions to Archive 84. I've left some old sections intact as some conversations appear to be still on-going. -- PFHLai 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you think such, be bold and do it. If there's any discussions that people want to resurect they can drag them back out of the archive if they so wish. --Monotonehell 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for festive season/New Year

"Adopt and develop an orphan cleanup/expansion etc for (cheerful festive celebration of choice)" New Year's Resolution - ditto.

Or a "Random article needing development" link.

Jackiespeel 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this has to do with MainPage.
You'll probably get a better response from more people at Wikipedia:Village pump. --PFHLai 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What would it take to...?

Hello. What would it take for this article to be featured? Maghen Abraham Synagogue. Currently, it is a stub, but assuming if it has been perfected already. - Qasamaan 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the featured article criteria – Gurch 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the image

Are there any strong objections to my changing the picture illustrating Down syndrome on the main page? Some have brought up the point on the image talk page that this picture does not really do a good job of illustrating the condition. It just shows a child drilling a table. I think Image:Down Syndrome Karyotype.png would be a much better replacement as this scientifically illustrates the cause of the phenomenon. I don't object to the use of Image:Drill.jpg in the article, but I think the other one is simply more appropriate for our main page. Irongargoyle 01:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure that the karyotype will look anything more than random black lines once shrunk to thumbnail size. Borisblue 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I also think a lot of people unfamiliar with karyotypes or biology in general would know what the new picture was. Nishkid64 01:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the thumbnails. I think I'll go look for a better image on commons. Irongargoyle 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This might do it: Image:Brushfield.jpgBorisblue 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about these pictures from the turkish wikipedia? [2], [3]. Borisblue 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those look good. How about we give it a shot? Nishkid64 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those images apparently were uploaded to the Commons with invalid licensing information (and should be deleted). The phrase "All rights reserved" appears on both Flickr pages: [4]/[5]. —David Levy 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Down Synrome Karyotype yeah it doesn't work particularly well as a thumbnail but how about this? Down Synrome Karyotype showing only chromosomes 20-22 Nil Einne 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. That should be used. --Descendall 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the karyotype is useless as a thumbnail. As Borisblue says, at 100 pixels wide, it's just meaningless black lines. Raul654 19:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More dignified user list

Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#A_more_dignified_User_list

Semi-Protection of the Talk Page

Is it possible to get this talk page semi-protected? It has an awful amount of vandalism, recent ones include "ben was here" "penis" and "we". I mean, come on. DoomsDay349 19:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we also receive a fair number of good comments by anons and new users. The "don't protect pages linked from the Main Page" argument applies doubly here, since the only people who click here are those who are interested in editing the site (one way or the other), rather than just browsing. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree I think it would be nonsensical to block this page. — Seadog (Talk) 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism that occurs here is usually reverted within seconds. There's no real need to protect the page. Titoxd(?!?) 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFTER THREE EDIT CONFLICTS :) OK- I was just saying there was a lot of vandalism. DoomsDay349 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a pain in the rear. But no semi-protecting apges is against the philosophy of Wikipedia. Please note in future that "I mean, come on." and "...I'm just saying." are not valid points of argument. [;) just jokes ;)] --Monotonehell 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in an ad

I saw Wikipedia an ad for some communications company, I think Cisco. It was a little girl on a laptop visiting Wikipedia, and it's not that hard to see. --Bears54 02:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And...? — ceejayoz talk 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that commercial also! But the part showing Wikipedia was only 1-2 seconds long. You make it seem as if the commercial was about Wikipedia. Did you notice which article she was viewing?--75.20.218.46 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Africa? I don't know. --Bears54 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See foundation-l. --Slowking Man 13:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another related thread in foundation-l for those interested in viewing the ad. BTW, this has nothing to do with MainPage. Wikipedia: Village pump may be a better place for further discussion on this. -- PFHLai 14:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the wiki code of Main Page, can't find how the link was added. 219.234.136.51 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clever javascript hack to the interwikis. I have no idea how it was performed but here's the discussion as it was created. --Monotonehell 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=92468458"