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 |
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 23:54 on 17 May 2024) 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, determined not to be an error, or the item has 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.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Today's FA
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Current DYK
"... that the Golden State Valkyries are the first expansion franchise in the WNBA since 2008?"
- "Expansion franchise" is an Americanism and will not be familiar to most people who don't follow US sports. There is no article named that either, although Expansion team is linked about half way through the article. Also, isn't this whole article a bit WP:CRYSTAL? Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've linked it for the time being. We need to consider this a little more when reviewing nominations, though. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- As far as WP:CRYSTAL goes, that policy guides against
collect
[ing]unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions
but does not universally disallow articles about topics-in-development that are significantly covered and verifiable (e. g. the sentenceIt is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced
). I've looked over the list of five particularly egregious situations to avoid for WP:CRYSTAL, but I don't see how Golden State Valkyries fits any. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)- Yes, I'm not terribly convinced by either of these complaints, sorry BK... Re "expansion franchise", that is standard terminology in the world of US sport and this article is specifically about that subject. It's certainly a good call to link it, but per WP:TIES and other guidelines it's fine to write articles using a reasonable amount of game-specific jargon. I think this very point has come up at FAC before and it applies to association football articles I've written in the past too. If you have to cater for the lowest common denominator of understanding in every topic and explain every point in detail you're going to end up with badly written prose that doesn't serve the purpose of Wikipedia as well. As for CRYSTAL, it has been confirmed by the WNBA that this team has been added to the league, it's cited as such in reliable sources, and there is no undue speculation at all. If all articles on future events are to be banned, then things like Next United Kingdom general election and 2026 FIFA World Cup will have to go too... I don't think that's the intention of WP:CRYSTAL. — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh no, there's nothing wrong with the article as such, I would say though that the hook says "they are" when it should probably be written in the future tense ("they will be"). I stand by the language issue, though - very few people outside North America are going to know what that term means (especially when it's not linked, and the article Expansion team isn't massively helpful as well). Black Kite (talk)
- Courtesy pings @AirshipJungleman29, BeanieFan11, and Gonzo fan2007: Bruxton (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Would changing it to "expansion team" be better? BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's less an Americanism than it used to be because of the the use of the franchise model in cricket, such as the Indian Premier League, Pakistan Super League, Big Bash League, etc. I think there's a good chance more people understand it than lollipop lady, for example. Don't think anything needs fixing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy pings @AirshipJungleman29, BeanieFan11, and Gonzo fan2007: Bruxton (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh no, there's nothing wrong with the article as such, I would say though that the hook says "they are" when it should probably be written in the future tense ("they will be"). I stand by the language issue, though - very few people outside North America are going to know what that term means (especially when it's not linked, and the article Expansion team isn't massively helpful as well). Black Kite (talk)
- Yes, I'm not terribly convinced by either of these complaints, sorry BK... Re "expansion franchise", that is standard terminology in the world of US sport and this article is specifically about that subject. It's certainly a good call to link it, but per WP:TIES and other guidelines it's fine to write articles using a reasonable amount of game-specific jargon. I think this very point has come up at FAC before and it applies to association football articles I've written in the past too. If you have to cater for the lowest common denominator of understanding in every topic and explain every point in detail you're going to end up with badly written prose that doesn't serve the purpose of Wikipedia as well. As for CRYSTAL, it has been confirmed by the WNBA that this team has been added to the league, it's cited as such in reliable sources, and there is no undue speculation at all. If all articles on future events are to be banned, then things like Next United Kingdom general election and 2026 FIFA World Cup will have to go too... I don't think that's the intention of WP:CRYSTAL. — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Next DYK
Next-but-one DYK
Errors in "On this day"
Today's OTD
- 17 May Top line item Sanja Matsuri is orange issue tagged (original research, added Feb 2024) - it is therefore ineligible per No 4 of WP:OTDRULES? JennyOz (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Removed. Apart from anything else, it's undersourced for an article appearing on the Main Page anyway. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- 1954 In Brown v. Board of Education item, the link for landmark case would be better piped to List of landmark court decisions in the United States (on which Brown appears)? JennyOz (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've just removed the link completely. It's pointless when everyone is just going to click on the bolded link anyway. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Tomorrow's OTD
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Friday's FL
Monday's FL
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
Today's POTD
Tomorrow's POTD
General discussion
Main page?
What is main about this page? Should it not be called the Front page or Cover page instead?--ProperFraction (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure if "Front" and "Cover" are any better. The page is not in front of nor covering anything, besides what's inside your monitor. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- A load of electronic bits I think!--ProperFraction (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Front page would cause a lot of disambiguation issues with Frontpage, and wiki is not paper. ffm 19:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe "First Page"? --Howard the Duck 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't there some talk of moving it out of the WP:main namespace entirely? I can't find it under perenniel proposals. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Its never really been put forward as a serious proposal, but there has been many, many, short discussions on the topic, the three major ones that occured are in archives 87, 89 and 90.
- All this is easily found in the information box at the top of the page btw :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I dont really see whats so bad about "main page" anyway. It links too all the portals witch links to basically the whole encyclopedia--68.205.238.207 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
As you are or should be well aware of the first page in any internet site is comainly refered to as the main page..a newspaper would be refered to as the front page...wikipedia is electronic not written in an ink based form...Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryncrndll (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that the topic regarding the Main Page's name, or it's being in the article namespace, comes up often, and the discussions don't normally go anywhere. To be honest, and I think that this has been said before, changing the name or namespace of the Main Page would cause more trouble than it's really worth: for starters, we'd have countless Wikilinks to fix, and many external websites that link to the Main Page would have to update themselves accordingly. It's better off as it is. Acalamari 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- The German Wikipedia is currently moving the Main Page out of the article namespace (more precicely, several admins currently have an edit war about it). --Sven Eberhardt (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Although I use the german Wikipedia nearly every day, I haven't notice until I read it here :-) I'm glad we have some "brave" admins there who did this on the de.wikipedia.org. So for me it seems, that there are no problems at all doing this. Since there is a redirect from the old main page, I can't see that there will be problems with links to the old main page. And it's just a matter of time until the new main page name is used exclusivly by external sites. Anyway it does make a lot of sense moving the main page out of the article space. I hope the german decision will be an example for the english wikipedia! --Omit (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the previous response - the only other description I can consider would be "starting page" (since other suggestions have already been addressed), but then the rest of the site would have to be updated with any change, so, as Acalamari said, it's better to leave it as is. Allstargeneral (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Allstargeneral
- Well I think 'Front Page' would be a lot better that main page. its mor descriptive--ProperFraction (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- How descriptive? It's not really in front of the rest of the wiki. Do you mean deceptive? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Deceptive , descriptive... who cares? Obvously not you!--ProperFraction (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this discussion should be merged with the redesign proposal here as it might be a good idea to do both together. I'll make a section there about the renaming. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
If there was a "front page" to Wikipedia is this not it? Should the "Main Page" not be called the Home Page or First Page? Gavin Scott (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Why should the Main Page not be called the Main Page? It welcomes you, it has an article count, it provides links to portals, it has all those featured sections like In the news, and Today's featured article and Picture etc, it has links to other Wiki projects... Basically it gives people who are not deeply involved with Wikipedia a convenient introduction to the website. It also acts like a little pulse of the site, in a way. To me all of this seems pretty "main". MrPMonday (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Featured template?
Just an idea to have templates featured on the main page to show the diversity of work that is done on Wikipedia. I don't know what the criteria would be, but as a person who does a lot of work on templates, they could be shown some small appreciation. - LA @ 09:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Before it goes live on the main page, perhaps the work might be mentioned in the community portal, first. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds of separate projects of the type and scale you mention. If the mentions of these projects start as a trickle, and then swell into a flood, your efforts might then be seen for what they are, which might then build support for their appearance on the main page. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it is not very useful to the reader. ffm 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it is not useful at all to the reader. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it is not even understandable to the reader. —David Levy 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- {{oppose-because-not-for-readers}} -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- (but it may be a good idea for the Community portal.) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Good thought. Might be worth a shot there. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- (but it may be a good idea for the Community portal.) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Daily Kitten
- I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it contains insuffecient cats. Suggest we create a daily kitten feature () instead. Ceiling Cat (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Kitten of the Day proposal. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support with change - How about a main page subpage with all the funny features. :) -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the kitten idea, just hope we have enough kitten pictures! And oppose the template on the main page idea. Yamakiri TC § 07-9-2008 • 18:20:42
- Support. :) Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: User:Raul654 is a sockpuppet of User:Ceiling Cat; this is a violation of WP:SOCK. howcheng {chat} 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Meow MessedCat 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Mow. 86.144.151.47 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Meow. Now it's just time to wait for Kitty and all the have cats shown up. EvilCat (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Try Portal:Cats.Geni 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't stray out of topic. :-D (Support, by the way.) Waltham, The Duke of 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I support Geni's suggestion to redirect the Main Page to Portal:Cats. - BanyanTree 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It should include those adorable hairless cats:
How could anyone say no to a face like that? Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait! Shouldn't a proposal like this be made at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal? SpencerT♦C 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agree Partially I think that there should be a "animal of the day" instead of a "cat of the day". Imagine all the cat lovers, dog lovers , and (put your favorite animal here)lovers would think about that. It also could have another page, showing the 10's of today animals. or it can be divided into the 10 more popular animal pictures. Raupi (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support: As long as basement and other subterranean cats are well represented. Lucifer Cat (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- On the condition that this doesn't happen at the expense of upper-class cats... Waltham, The Duke of 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
What about the bird lovers?
While I have no problem with a daily kitten, a cursory inspection of the Main Page history shows that the true demand is for images of cocks, tits, and boobies. Why not respond to the real demands of the community? --Allen3 talk 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- That made me laugh quite heartily. Again, please see Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. SpencerT♦C 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Garden of Earthly Delights image
I created a sharpened version (as the original seemed to be suffering softness as if it had been downsized without resharpening). It's switched in the article, if anyone wants to change the version on the main page, the sharpened version is commons:Image:GardenED edit1.jpg Mfield (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- At 100px, they appear to be the same to me. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you really want to switch, post a request at WP:ERRORS. You may get a quicker response from an admin there. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well sure you aren't going to see a difference in the thumbnail, the point was rather that people are likely to be clicking on the thumbnail to view the full size with something like a painting and if they do this they will not be viewing the improved version. The difference at full size is very apparent. Mfield (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
In the news picture
Pardon me if this has been brought up before, but I have to say that I find the picture placement for the "In the News" section disconcerting. It seems that the picture is rarely placed next to the news item it accompanies. I realize that news item that accompanies the picture has the "(pictured)" caption, but I still don't like the aesthetics of it. Usually I just bite my lip, but I had to say something after I momentarily thought we were saying that Salman Rushdie had been crowned Miss Universe.
My suggestion is that the news item with the picture should always be on top.--Kubigula (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. Please also note that items at ITN are listed chronologically. If you want this policy regarding the order of the news headlines on ITN changed (I don't like it, either), please go to Template talk:In the news and start a discussion there with the ITN crowd. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks - very helpful response. I'll take a stab at it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Don't be surprised if the reaction is somewhat negative. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 12:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks - very helpful response. I'll take a stab at it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Kubigula is correct, we look collectively stupid every time the headline associated with the picture slips, and the lazy counterargument is that there are several infrequently-seen pages that would be affected in some way by fixing it; and no editor has the energy (including me) to get off their ass and fix it. I'll give you $1.00 US if you do. I'll note that the French Wikipedia handles this correctly. Tempshill (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll note that I've asked for a defense of this last assertion at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Main Page#French Wikipedia image alignment against evidence to the contrary, and have yet to receive a response. - BanyanTree 07:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yet another copyvio which was on the main page
Please see the log for commons:Image:Morgan_Tsvangirai.jpg, it has been deleted as a copyvio (it can be seen here amongst other websites), yet it was used on the main page on the 5th of June rev. Adding to the previous 2 this makes quite a lot in one month. Please be cautious if you find a low resolution press looking photo. Especially if it was uploaded by a user with many copyvio warnings as it was in this case. Jackaranga (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
GH3?
OK, I know that half of Wikipedia users are nerds or computer geeks, but this has completely gone out of control. Guitar Hero 3 is featured?! Oh my god, this is outrageous! Have you ever seen an encyclopedia covering video games? That's what gamespot is for, but an encyclopedia is not the place to post video game reviews. Please, go read gamespot and stop posting video game content in Wikipedia! Oh, and here's the link: [1] J.C.(talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC).
- Okay, I'll go first: Guitar Hero is featured, not Guitar Hero 3. Now the next person will point out a flaw in your reasoning, then another person will have a crack at it, and so on. It's an interesting routine, to be sure. Nufy8 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Free encyclopedia, it's notable, yada yada. —Animum (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Any topic that is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia is notable enough to be a featured article and therefore to be on the Main Page. (There are some very small exceptions; Wikipedia was at one point a featured article and was classed among FAs that would never be on the Main Page, but that was to avoid self-aggrandizement.) —Verrai 01:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia can cover anything notable. The demographic is also interested in games. That's just a coincidence. Marlith (Talk) 04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here's an idea. GET INVOLVED. Go and comment about featured article candidates! Ɔrassic (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Surely MXER is being sarcastic here? At least, I hope so... Dreaded Walrus t c 04:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here's an idea. GET INVOLVED. Go and comment about featured article candidates! Ɔrassic (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia can cover anything notable. The demographic is also interested in games. That's just a coincidence. Marlith (Talk) 04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Any topic that is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia is notable enough to be a featured article and therefore to be on the Main Page. (There are some very small exceptions; Wikipedia was at one point a featured article and was classed among FAs that would never be on the Main Page, but that was to avoid self-aggrandizement.) —Verrai 01:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Free encyclopedia, it's notable, yada yada. —Animum (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so Dreaded Walrus, you're right. I'm being sarcastic. When I saw the Guitar Hero on the Main Page, I was going to write telling you that you should be ready for criticism, but then I decided to complain. But I was really close to taking my complaint seriously.--190.137.224.112 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Link to Wikipedia
On the Welcome to Wikipedia the Wikipedia is a redirect, can this not be changed to a direct link, or is there a reason for it going through the redirect? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to be going through the redirect so that it can be protected. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Set up to track internet traffic? ... Can someone put this in the Main Page FAQ, pls? The question keeps getting asked. --76.64.77.19 (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The redirect has only existed since 8 July. And the redirect isn't protected. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. 76.64... is right- it was created so that it could be judged how much traffic was going to the article on Wikipedia from the main page. It's part of the main page redesign proposal- links used a lot are more likely to stay, links barely used will probably be axed. I forgot about that. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, I couldn't see a lock. Makes sense now. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Locks are added manually after the protection- it's not an automatic thing. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- See the conversation at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_124#Changing_links_on_main_page for more information about the link changes. SpencerT♦C 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- It should be automatic, though. I've often come across protected pages which were not marked as such; it is at least confusing and at most misleading. I've had half a mind to propose such an automation, but haven't acted on it yet. I posted a thread in the Village Pump some weeks ago, but there was very little feedback. Waltham, The Duke of 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
DYK Bird eye image
Is it just me, or is that picture really freakin' creepy? Can we change it to Image:Hawk eye.jpg? And yes, I'm fully aware of that "not censored" stuff, I just wanted to ask if it could be changed. bibliomaniac15 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, the DYK text is talking about the eyelids which are not illustrated by your suggested image. And the image currently there, I find excellent. Tempshill (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal: Move main page to Wikipedia namespace
Copied from Wikipedia Talk:Village pump (technical):
I would like to propose that we move the Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page. This would offer a number of benefits, including:
- Causing the top-left tab to read "project page" instead of "article"
- Making it easier to make a mass-copy of Wikipedia's articles without picking up project-specific pages like the main page
There would of course be a redirect from Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page, and we could even hide the "redirected from Main Page" notice using CSS, making the transition virtually seamless. The German Wikipedia has actually already moved their main page to the Wikipedia namespace and it is working great for them. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I find illogical that the Main Page be in the article namespace, too, but wouldn't this proposal belong to Talk:Main Page? --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! 09:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
--A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! 09:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Been propopsed many times the answer is no.Geni 11:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see no harm in discussing it again. I've been hanging around this talk page for a long time, and, personally, I've never really seen a great argument either way. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hungarian (Magyar) Wikipedia
The 100,000th article has just written in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Please move it to the correct section. Thanks! Quisczicza (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done. —David Levy 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)