This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | → | Archive 100 |
Instead of barking at every user who posts a message in the wrong place (just look at everybody who gets "yelled" at for posting something which doesn't belong here, or the bold black message at the top, or the GIGANTIC RED MESSAGE above it), you should think about reducing the huge number of places where people can post. There are literally hundreds of places to post messages, one for each little thing. How can people possibly know where to post if there are so many? Plus, the naming of each of these places, full of initials and silly puns, makes everything even more complicated. Think about it. Think about what new users are thinking. You're scaring everyone! And don't even dare to tell me that I've posted this in the wrong place, or I'll tell you where this message REALLY belongs! -- Matei Tache 15:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could abandon the WP:ERRORS page, and use Talk:Main page for talking about the main page, instead of redirecting people to WP:ERRORS several times a day. Zocky | picture popups 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Zocky's idea makes sense to me. What legitimate purpose does this page serve that couldn't be served better by a merge with WP:ERRORS? General discussion of the Main Page as a concept (as opposed to specific discussion of what happens to be on it at the moment could go to a subpage. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and proposed that WP:ERRORS be merged into this page, per the suggestions above. Please discuss. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
I think it's obvious that the straw poll shows a consensus for a change. I'd like to hammer out consensus for the details of the move. As far as I see there's the following options; -- Monotonehell 03:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Just merge - Merge WP:ERRORS back into this page with none of the current WP:ERRORS layout. Make this page a free for all discussion again. Remove the current header, or perhaps just replace it with a simpler version with only the redirects to WP:Questions and the pump.
2. Separate and swap - Swap the complete WP:ERRORS format to this location. Move the highly technical & informed discussions and general consensus building discussions to a sub page where fly-by !votes won't be an issue. Leaving this page for general help, suggestions and errors.
3. another option, to move WP:ERRORS, with more or less its current format, to this page, and have a section at the bottom of that page reserved for other topics that don't fit that format: this would include the "highly technical and informed" discussions, as well as (inevitably) innocent questions by clueless newbies (whom we will all, of course, endeavor to treat with respect and kindness). I'm not sure which of these three options is best, but I'm leaning towards #2 or #3. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
on 2007-02-19 16:40
on 2007-02-19 19:26
4. Transclusion Is it a good idea to transclude WP:ERRORS on Talk:Main Page ? Perhaps onto the header ? I am not around the wiki that much these days. But when I am around, I usually check my watchlist to see if anyone has posted anything, which often includes things that require an immediate admin response, on WP:ERRORS. Merging WP:ERRORS here means admins who monitors MainPage will lose this convenient tool, as Talk:Main Page gets too much other postings. Transcluding may avoid this problem, and yet keep the error report in a more visible / easily found location. But then again, I am not around that much these days. If no admins are using WP:ERRORS anymore, never mind. Perhaps a link to WP:AN may be useful on WP:ERRORS for the time being. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and implemented the suggestion, since discussion has slowed to a still and the few objections have been mostly rebutted. Can we all live with this for a while and see how it goes? The header is intended to be substed from Template:Talk Main Page errors header each day to clear the old errors. But they can still be removed as fixed if we prefer. I'm sure there was one more thing I had to do... but I can't remember it now X( -- Monotonehell 08:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So rather than checking for error reports on a short page, like WP:ERRORS, I have to wade through the comments here? Great. :( -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How about making the "Errors" section a subpage that is merely transcluded here? For those who want to keep "Errors" on their watchlist, they could just use the subpage (e.g. Talk:Main Page/Errors). For those wanting to post comments, they would come to the Main Page talk page and click on the appropriate [edit] link at the top (just like it is now, with no difference in appearance). And to be honest, that could be done with a couple other pages (like WP:ITN/C, which many do not know exists) making sure to put <noinclude> tags around parts that don't need to be visible on Talk:Main Page. Not to further complicate the situation... -- tariqabjotu 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A much better idea. Well done. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Guess it can't hurt to try. If it doesn't fix the problems from before, we can always move it back here.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! i think the main article should be something... well... way more interesting! the main article should be something that catches someone's eye... and i dont think thats happening! im not so sure what would catch someones eye but.. if you have any ideas, please reply back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juicy FUN1 ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
but who cares if theyre high quality, they need interest for everyone, not just one person, i mean not many of them caught my eye!
Thank you! i totally agree! --Juicy girl 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Question: How can I know how many times the 'featured article' has been accessed while it was featured? Maybe that way we can tell if it is interesting to people in general or not? I know that interest is not the main point, and being well-written is the main point, but it would still be interesting to have this statistic.
I realise that someone has already raised this issue, but the Did you know section is there simply for the sake of it. Well ofcourse there were Greek settlements in Bulgaria dating the 7th cnetury BC. Considering the Minoan dynasty was destroyed by Greek Dorians from Bulgaria before the 7th century BC it would be very reasonable to simply assume that they had settlements to live in. Try to post things not just new to Wikipedia but new to the academic world. And if that means theres nothing new, then theres nothing to write about! If you got nothing new to write about, don't write it! Tourskin 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The academic world works in the exact way that I stated. If there is nothing new to write then they don't write it. Scientists don't write papers on theories universally accepted as if they were new. I see that DYK is not like that and that it is not feasible to make it a news service. Instead, we could insert random interesting facts. Like did you know that a few thousand Greeks held of 100,000+ Persians for three days? Did you know that the drug used to combat malaria, widely believed to be found in only a few places is a weed easily found in the US? And so on. Tourskin 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I should indeed! But one must question how they define interesting - and no, I did not know that a wheel is used to irrigate water in Australian farms. Thats interesting? Tourskin 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
How have you stopped WerdnaBot from archiving the ERRORS section? Simply south 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we have the number of featured article constantly displayed along with total articles? -- Nirajrm talk ||| sign plz! 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh how times change ;) 84.71.158.191 12:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way for a non-administrator to redirect a page which has been prevented from recreation to another relevant aticle? Randomfrenchie 00:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think on the Main Page there should be a featured question. What do you think? Ahadland 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
omg! i totally agree! its sooooo boring, no offense! a question would be good maybe someone would have another good idea too!
-- Juicy FUN1 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
yeah i just had another idea about the main page......... more and BETTER pictures should be there to catch peoples eye. the picture of the day today is cool (scroll down) because it is just cool. see you can have cool pictures if there is a cool topic! yeah man! --Juicy FUN1 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this might be more appropriate at the Wikipedia:Community portal, perhaps as a semi-weekly bulletin board notice? -- Quiddity 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not the front page, it would help promote the reference desk, and encourage people to use the site? Ahadland 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
So, tell me what the difference in encyclopedic value is of having a news section and a featured question section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
We already have a featured question, they're even 8 sometimes... -- Howard the Duck 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What with it being an image of citrus fruits and all, the caption really should mention vitamin C - Jack · talk · 01:54, Monday, 26 February 2007
i hate lemons they taste sour lol! is it lemon day today? User:Lerdthenerd Lerdthenerd 11:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Should they be incorporated into the news section of this Main Page? If not, why not? [1]-- Sarcha 45 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The original author of this discussion wishes to advize that he is satisfied with the response/answers to this issue and considers it resolved. |
Well.. having seen Today's Featured Article on the main page, expounding on the "fascinating" subject of a species of tree native to Australia, it struck me how often Australian articles are listed as the Today's Featured Article.
So I've gone back and counted the number of articles about Australian things that have featured on the Main Page.
Note: this is not a count of all articles that simply mention 'Australia', these are articles about Australian things, that have this mentioned in the opening of the article:
In 2007:
1 so far in February '07 (
Banksia integrifolia - a species of tree)
1 in January '07 (
Yarralumla - a suburb in Canberra)
2007 monthly average: 1 per month
In 2006:
2 in December '06 (
Banksia brownii - a species of shrub,
Green and Golden Bell Frog)
0 in November '06
1 in October '06 (
Al-Kateb v Godwin - courtcase)
1 in September '06 (
Emu)
2 in August '06 (The
O-Bahn Busway,
Cynna Kydd - an Australian basketball player)
0 in July '06
0 in June '06
2 in May '06 (including the
Flag of Australia,
short-beaked Echidna)
0 in April '06
1 in March '06 (
Canberra)
2 in February '06 (
Sydney Riot of 1879,
Yagan)
1 in January '06 (
White's Tree Frog)
2006 Total: 12
2006 monthly average: 1 per month
Other listings excluded from this list that mention Australia but aren't Australian include: Rugby World Cup, Antarctica, and Cane Toad
Results:
This results in a total of 3.28% of Today's Featured Articles being Australian articles - or the equivalent of 1 a month or 1 in 30.
Compare this with other countries? How many articles about New Zealand, for example? Or Russia? Or the UK?
There are approximately 245 countries in the world - perhaps we need to see a bit more of them being featured?
Rfwoolf
05:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Country/Region | Date of Statistics | Population (millions) | Percentage of Total |
---|---|---|---|
USA |
2007 Estimate |
301.233 |
71.8 % |
U.K. |
2006 Estimate |
60.6 |
14.45 % |
Canada |
2007 Estimate |
32.8 |
7.82 % |
Australia |
2006 Estimate |
20.555 |
4.90 % |
New Zealand |
2006 Census |
4.143 |
0.98 % |
Total: |
. |
419.331 |
100 % |
Per WP:CSB, the population of English Wikipedians does not reflect the world population. Wikipedians tend to write what they know or what affects them, thus the body of articles is substantially skewed, notably in that they write about things in the countries in which they live. As for if this a result of the percentage of Australian articles in total FAs or some pro-Australian craziness from Raul, go to WP:FA and look at the markup. A bot marks each item once it has been Main Paged, so you can actually see the limited options he has when scheduling. If you're going to run an analysis of populations to FA presence, please add the PRC, Nigeria, Indonesia and Brazil, as ignoring the non-English speaking world would be blatantly biased. Some numbers on how favored English-speaking countries are would be interesting and should be added to WP:CSB.
Seriously, I'm not even sure that there is a dead horse to beat anymore. The high point for me was when someone accused the Main Page of favoring Sierra Leone over Bahrain (or some other countries in those regions). It's since gone way past the point of being repetitive. Perhaps a FAQ post would cut down on these or at least could be referred to instead of starting yet another full-blown discussion. - Banyan Tree 13:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A new section should be added in the
Template:Wikipedialang:
-- Wittkowsky 14:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the featured article needs to be locked while it is featured on the Main Page. The article Banksia integrifolia has been vandalized several times today. This should probably be a standard policy. Squad51 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
..doesn't go in line with linked articles on it being less edit protected than more hidden articles. double standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.72.129 ( talk) 05:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
Why is "Delete file" not in the toolbox ?
Tsi43318 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | → | Archive 100 |
Instead of barking at every user who posts a message in the wrong place (just look at everybody who gets "yelled" at for posting something which doesn't belong here, or the bold black message at the top, or the GIGANTIC RED MESSAGE above it), you should think about reducing the huge number of places where people can post. There are literally hundreds of places to post messages, one for each little thing. How can people possibly know where to post if there are so many? Plus, the naming of each of these places, full of initials and silly puns, makes everything even more complicated. Think about it. Think about what new users are thinking. You're scaring everyone! And don't even dare to tell me that I've posted this in the wrong place, or I'll tell you where this message REALLY belongs! -- Matei Tache 15:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could abandon the WP:ERRORS page, and use Talk:Main page for talking about the main page, instead of redirecting people to WP:ERRORS several times a day. Zocky | picture popups 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Zocky's idea makes sense to me. What legitimate purpose does this page serve that couldn't be served better by a merge with WP:ERRORS? General discussion of the Main Page as a concept (as opposed to specific discussion of what happens to be on it at the moment could go to a subpage. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and proposed that WP:ERRORS be merged into this page, per the suggestions above. Please discuss. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
I think it's obvious that the straw poll shows a consensus for a change. I'd like to hammer out consensus for the details of the move. As far as I see there's the following options; -- Monotonehell 03:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Just merge - Merge WP:ERRORS back into this page with none of the current WP:ERRORS layout. Make this page a free for all discussion again. Remove the current header, or perhaps just replace it with a simpler version with only the redirects to WP:Questions and the pump.
2. Separate and swap - Swap the complete WP:ERRORS format to this location. Move the highly technical & informed discussions and general consensus building discussions to a sub page where fly-by !votes won't be an issue. Leaving this page for general help, suggestions and errors.
3. another option, to move WP:ERRORS, with more or less its current format, to this page, and have a section at the bottom of that page reserved for other topics that don't fit that format: this would include the "highly technical and informed" discussions, as well as (inevitably) innocent questions by clueless newbies (whom we will all, of course, endeavor to treat with respect and kindness). I'm not sure which of these three options is best, but I'm leaning towards #2 or #3. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
on 2007-02-19 16:40
on 2007-02-19 19:26
4. Transclusion Is it a good idea to transclude WP:ERRORS on Talk:Main Page ? Perhaps onto the header ? I am not around the wiki that much these days. But when I am around, I usually check my watchlist to see if anyone has posted anything, which often includes things that require an immediate admin response, on WP:ERRORS. Merging WP:ERRORS here means admins who monitors MainPage will lose this convenient tool, as Talk:Main Page gets too much other postings. Transcluding may avoid this problem, and yet keep the error report in a more visible / easily found location. But then again, I am not around that much these days. If no admins are using WP:ERRORS anymore, never mind. Perhaps a link to WP:AN may be useful on WP:ERRORS for the time being. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and implemented the suggestion, since discussion has slowed to a still and the few objections have been mostly rebutted. Can we all live with this for a while and see how it goes? The header is intended to be substed from Template:Talk Main Page errors header each day to clear the old errors. But they can still be removed as fixed if we prefer. I'm sure there was one more thing I had to do... but I can't remember it now X( -- Monotonehell 08:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So rather than checking for error reports on a short page, like WP:ERRORS, I have to wade through the comments here? Great. :( -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How about making the "Errors" section a subpage that is merely transcluded here? For those who want to keep "Errors" on their watchlist, they could just use the subpage (e.g. Talk:Main Page/Errors). For those wanting to post comments, they would come to the Main Page talk page and click on the appropriate [edit] link at the top (just like it is now, with no difference in appearance). And to be honest, that could be done with a couple other pages (like WP:ITN/C, which many do not know exists) making sure to put <noinclude> tags around parts that don't need to be visible on Talk:Main Page. Not to further complicate the situation... -- tariqabjotu 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A much better idea. Well done. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Guess it can't hurt to try. If it doesn't fix the problems from before, we can always move it back here.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! i think the main article should be something... well... way more interesting! the main article should be something that catches someone's eye... and i dont think thats happening! im not so sure what would catch someones eye but.. if you have any ideas, please reply back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juicy FUN1 ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
but who cares if theyre high quality, they need interest for everyone, not just one person, i mean not many of them caught my eye!
Thank you! i totally agree! --Juicy girl 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Question: How can I know how many times the 'featured article' has been accessed while it was featured? Maybe that way we can tell if it is interesting to people in general or not? I know that interest is not the main point, and being well-written is the main point, but it would still be interesting to have this statistic.
I realise that someone has already raised this issue, but the Did you know section is there simply for the sake of it. Well ofcourse there were Greek settlements in Bulgaria dating the 7th cnetury BC. Considering the Minoan dynasty was destroyed by Greek Dorians from Bulgaria before the 7th century BC it would be very reasonable to simply assume that they had settlements to live in. Try to post things not just new to Wikipedia but new to the academic world. And if that means theres nothing new, then theres nothing to write about! If you got nothing new to write about, don't write it! Tourskin 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The academic world works in the exact way that I stated. If there is nothing new to write then they don't write it. Scientists don't write papers on theories universally accepted as if they were new. I see that DYK is not like that and that it is not feasible to make it a news service. Instead, we could insert random interesting facts. Like did you know that a few thousand Greeks held of 100,000+ Persians for three days? Did you know that the drug used to combat malaria, widely believed to be found in only a few places is a weed easily found in the US? And so on. Tourskin 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I should indeed! But one must question how they define interesting - and no, I did not know that a wheel is used to irrigate water in Australian farms. Thats interesting? Tourskin 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
How have you stopped WerdnaBot from archiving the ERRORS section? Simply south 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we have the number of featured article constantly displayed along with total articles? -- Nirajrm talk ||| sign plz! 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh how times change ;) 84.71.158.191 12:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way for a non-administrator to redirect a page which has been prevented from recreation to another relevant aticle? Randomfrenchie 00:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think on the Main Page there should be a featured question. What do you think? Ahadland 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
omg! i totally agree! its sooooo boring, no offense! a question would be good maybe someone would have another good idea too!
-- Juicy FUN1 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
yeah i just had another idea about the main page......... more and BETTER pictures should be there to catch peoples eye. the picture of the day today is cool (scroll down) because it is just cool. see you can have cool pictures if there is a cool topic! yeah man! --Juicy FUN1 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this might be more appropriate at the Wikipedia:Community portal, perhaps as a semi-weekly bulletin board notice? -- Quiddity 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not the front page, it would help promote the reference desk, and encourage people to use the site? Ahadland 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
So, tell me what the difference in encyclopedic value is of having a news section and a featured question section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
We already have a featured question, they're even 8 sometimes... -- Howard the Duck 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What with it being an image of citrus fruits and all, the caption really should mention vitamin C - Jack · talk · 01:54, Monday, 26 February 2007
i hate lemons they taste sour lol! is it lemon day today? User:Lerdthenerd Lerdthenerd 11:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Should they be incorporated into the news section of this Main Page? If not, why not? [1]-- Sarcha 45 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The original author of this discussion wishes to advize that he is satisfied with the response/answers to this issue and considers it resolved. |
Well.. having seen Today's Featured Article on the main page, expounding on the "fascinating" subject of a species of tree native to Australia, it struck me how often Australian articles are listed as the Today's Featured Article.
So I've gone back and counted the number of articles about Australian things that have featured on the Main Page.
Note: this is not a count of all articles that simply mention 'Australia', these are articles about Australian things, that have this mentioned in the opening of the article:
In 2007:
1 so far in February '07 (
Banksia integrifolia - a species of tree)
1 in January '07 (
Yarralumla - a suburb in Canberra)
2007 monthly average: 1 per month
In 2006:
2 in December '06 (
Banksia brownii - a species of shrub,
Green and Golden Bell Frog)
0 in November '06
1 in October '06 (
Al-Kateb v Godwin - courtcase)
1 in September '06 (
Emu)
2 in August '06 (The
O-Bahn Busway,
Cynna Kydd - an Australian basketball player)
0 in July '06
0 in June '06
2 in May '06 (including the
Flag of Australia,
short-beaked Echidna)
0 in April '06
1 in March '06 (
Canberra)
2 in February '06 (
Sydney Riot of 1879,
Yagan)
1 in January '06 (
White's Tree Frog)
2006 Total: 12
2006 monthly average: 1 per month
Other listings excluded from this list that mention Australia but aren't Australian include: Rugby World Cup, Antarctica, and Cane Toad
Results:
This results in a total of 3.28% of Today's Featured Articles being Australian articles - or the equivalent of 1 a month or 1 in 30.
Compare this with other countries? How many articles about New Zealand, for example? Or Russia? Or the UK?
There are approximately 245 countries in the world - perhaps we need to see a bit more of them being featured?
Rfwoolf
05:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Country/Region | Date of Statistics | Population (millions) | Percentage of Total |
---|---|---|---|
USA |
2007 Estimate |
301.233 |
71.8 % |
U.K. |
2006 Estimate |
60.6 |
14.45 % |
Canada |
2007 Estimate |
32.8 |
7.82 % |
Australia |
2006 Estimate |
20.555 |
4.90 % |
New Zealand |
2006 Census |
4.143 |
0.98 % |
Total: |
. |
419.331 |
100 % |
Per WP:CSB, the population of English Wikipedians does not reflect the world population. Wikipedians tend to write what they know or what affects them, thus the body of articles is substantially skewed, notably in that they write about things in the countries in which they live. As for if this a result of the percentage of Australian articles in total FAs or some pro-Australian craziness from Raul, go to WP:FA and look at the markup. A bot marks each item once it has been Main Paged, so you can actually see the limited options he has when scheduling. If you're going to run an analysis of populations to FA presence, please add the PRC, Nigeria, Indonesia and Brazil, as ignoring the non-English speaking world would be blatantly biased. Some numbers on how favored English-speaking countries are would be interesting and should be added to WP:CSB.
Seriously, I'm not even sure that there is a dead horse to beat anymore. The high point for me was when someone accused the Main Page of favoring Sierra Leone over Bahrain (or some other countries in those regions). It's since gone way past the point of being repetitive. Perhaps a FAQ post would cut down on these or at least could be referred to instead of starting yet another full-blown discussion. - Banyan Tree 13:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A new section should be added in the
Template:Wikipedialang:
-- Wittkowsky 14:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the featured article needs to be locked while it is featured on the Main Page. The article Banksia integrifolia has been vandalized several times today. This should probably be a standard policy. Squad51 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
..doesn't go in line with linked articles on it being less edit protected than more hidden articles. double standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.72.129 ( talk) 05:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
Why is "Delete file" not in the toolbox ?
Tsi43318 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)