| Revision as of 18:37, 27 January 2007 view sourceSophie means wisdom (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,822 edits →James Field (in DYK?)← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:53, 27 January 2007 view source 12.214.53.181 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 251: | Line 251: | ||
| Can someone please move the obscenity from the section of the lead article that appears on the main page? ] 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | Can someone please move the obscenity from the section of the lead article that appears on the main page? ] 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :That's a direct quote and wikipedia is not censored (]) ] 15:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | :That's a direct quote and wikipedia is not censored (]) ] 15:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Notability== | |||
| Hello. I am a filmmaker, and I was wondering that if I showed an administrator a local newspaper article that includes a photograph of myself and another local celebrity filmmaker and a summary of my film, would that be enough to have my own Misplaced Pages page for biographical purposes. I also have a website for my film production company, Gonzo Films, on which you can view the films that I have made. I believe my friends in The River Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/The_River_Company) got their own page in the same manner. Thank you in advance. ] 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:53, 27 January 2007
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 | Template:Main Page discussion header is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see ] instead. |
This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Misplaced Pages 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 article
Did you know...
|
In the news
On this day...
|
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
- Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Main Page
- Preview tomorrow's Main Page at Main Page/Tomorrow. To report an error on tomorrow's Main Page, leave a note at the Error Report.
- If you want to start a new article seek help here.
- If you see something wrong with a particular article, raise your concerns on that article's own discussion page, or fix it yourself. Do not talk about other articles here.
- Misplaced Pages running slowly? Check the server status.
- If you have an opinion, comment, question or are looking for help regarding Misplaced Pages in general, find the place where your post will get the most attention here.
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
Requested move
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
Super-short summary
All the arguments for moving/keeping appear to boil down to this:
- Move: The fact that the Main Page is not an article but a portal is a wart on an otherwise clean design. Warts can cause problems.
- Keep: The secondary effects of moving the Main Page will require some effort to fix. Any benefits are not worth the effort.
Monotonehell does an excellent job of breaking things down into objective fact, theories, ideology, etc., but I think this is a good introduction to the debate. —DragonHawk (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Monotonehell's analysis
As a bipartisan wikipedian (I'm willing to be swayed either way) I offer my summary of how I've seen this discussion so far. Firstly I'll cover any technical reasons for the move, then ideological reasons, then cost verses benefit...
- On technical reasons
- Actual arguments (points with some merit)...
- Main Page is included in database dumps of articles, which means that various software features (such as Special:Contributions and 'cite this article') and external websites (such as Wikiseek and the top-100-articles list) consider it to be an article when it isn't.
- Granted. I can't argue with that.
- In the event we ever need Main Page for an article (who knows?) we will either need a disambig in the Main Page or need to rush through a sudden reasonably major and will not be able to redirect Main Page to Portal:Main Page for long unless we continue to disambig
- I suppose it is possible that the next big Youtube type project, political newspaper or similar thing that has wide reaching influence may be named "Main page" and would require an article. Right now it's not that case, but this is a slightly compelling argument to be forward looking. Even though a different solution could be found in the current paradigm, eg "Main Page (newspaper)" but this would require a disambig on the top of the main page.
- The number of links and redirects that will need to be fixed 'won't' be too high, and bots can carry out that sort of fixing anyway.<
- The number of links and redirects that will need to be fixed 'will' be too high.
- Neither of these arguments are quantified. Neither side has offered any proof.
- Actually, if you look back at what got archived in the first archiving (it's in archive 89 at the moment, I think), I presented a list of all the mainspace pages linking to Main Page; it wasn't excessively long in my opinion, and you can look at the current list yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=backlinks&titles=Main%20Page&blnamespace=0&bllimit=100 (which will query the database directly); it contains all the redirects, and also some articles with disambiguation headers pointing to the Main Page. There are 38 articles on the list at the moment, which I'm pretty sure an admin could fix by hand in less than 15 minutes (some of the pages are protected), or less using AWB. --ais523 09:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Right you are, I've moved this into arguments with some merit. --Monotonehell 02:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look back at what got archived in the first archiving (it's in archive 89 at the moment, I think), I presented a list of all the mainspace pages linking to Main Page; it wasn't excessively long in my opinion, and you can look at the current list yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=backlinks&titles=Main%20Page&blnamespace=0&bllimit=100 (which will query the database directly); it contains all the redirects, and also some articles with disambiguation headers pointing to the Main Page. There are 38 articles on the list at the moment, which I'm pretty sure an admin could fix by hand in less than 15 minutes (some of the pages are protected), or less using AWB. --ais523 09:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Points with no point (arguments that offer no proof)...
- Many link to and have bookmarked the main page.
- No evidence many people link to en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page
- Neither argument offers evidence. They just contradict each other (That's not an argument).
- (I'm the author of the second one and I argue it doesn't need evidence. Simply stating the fact that so far no evidence has been provided by the other side who brought up the "many people link to" argument. If people want to make the argument they need evidence. Never tried to argue that many people didn't link to, simply that there was no evidence that many people link) 203.109.240.93 14:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Supporting arguments (Not actual arguments in themselves but support the above)
- There is no technical reason why the move cannot be made.
- The second point seems to support the first, but perhaps the en.wikipedia experience will be different? I need more evidence.
- This contradicts the previous argument that the article is needed for another topic. But okay if it's temporary.
- Most of the large number of incoming links to the Main Page are templates, and so can be easily changed to the new location (and redirects would take care of them, anyway).
- Moving the main page won't create any lasting extra load on the servers.
- Not quantified, I need evidence on how the proposed redirects would affect server load.
- On ideological reasons:
- Actual arguments...
- De facto, it's a portal. The Main Page is a contents page, and therefore not in the body of the encyclopedia. WP:PORTAL uses the Main Page as an example of a portal.
- Granted.
- Arguments which have no "correct answer"
- Having a portal in article space contradicts policy - Policy is not the final word. (Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules, Rules can be ignored if they get in the way of writing an encyclopedia.
- It is a historical artefact and one of a kind - WP:CCC says that tradition is not necessarily binding.
- None of these arguments are compelling since they can be contradicted. --Monotonehell 02:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Having the Main Page outside the article namespace would help people find out about the logic of how Misplaced Pages works earlier.
- "Portal:Main Page" and similar would seem overly complicated to the visitors.
- No supporting evidence of how this would affect visitors. Since the main page's title is hidden by server voodoo both points seem to be moot anyway.
- Most other Wikimedia wikis have their main pages at Main Page.
- Not sure if what everyone else is doing matters that much. What matters is the cost verses benefit of such a move.
- Why fix something that isn't broken?
- Even if something isn't broken, fixing it can be a good idea.
No one has really focused on the actual costs verses the actual benefits as yet. Some have been offered, but they haven't been quantified.
- People have offered the following on cost verses benefit reasons;
- What difference will it make to the common Wikipedian?
- It will be a lot of work for no real benefit for the readers. (How much work? How much benefit?)
- Time could be better spent on doing something else. (How much time? Have we already spent more time debating then the actual move will take?)
- Well yes those are questions that need to be answered.
- The only problems that this might cause would be short-term, whereas the benefits would be long-term.
So that's where we are at the moment. None of the arguments from either side are particularly compelling in themselves. There is not a weight of argument for one case or the other in total. The only thing left is to quantify the costs of the move verses the benefits and apply some kind of utilitarian judgement after all the evidence is collected.
So what are the benefits? What are the costs? Please don't just throw an unquantified opinion in here, we need hard numbers and facts if we are to weigh them against each other... --Monotonehell 06:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- You forgot that giant uncyclopedia:Nobody cares I put up a few days ago. That must count for something – Qxz 08:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. I'm sure some people had a laugh over it, but your remark doesn't make any sense considering the lengthy discussion we've already had. So if you don't care, just look for some other things to do. Piet | Talk 12:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think there was something to that. ("When a thing is funny, search it for a hidden truth.") I expect most people really don't care, one way or the other. They're here to read or write an encyclopedia, not argue the fine points of Wiki design. Further, I would guess that most Wikipedians don't care that "Main page" is the wart that it is, or something would have been done before now. I can't back that up with hard proof, of course, but it's something to think about. (Note that the fact that most people don't care doesn't necessarily mean the wart should not be fixed.) —DragonHawk (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're probably right that a lot of people don't care. However a lot of people don't care about most things that happen on wikipedia. As in all cases, we only tend to consider the views of those that do care. If you don't care either way, well it shouldn't matter to you what we do 203.109.240.93 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Benefits
- Moves article from article space, correcting the most viewed articles, cite this article --HamedogTalk| 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC
- I've split these benefits into two points. Okay that's a benefit. Can we quantify the affect of this? How much will the statistics be changed? Is this change going to affect the counts a great deal? A little?
- (and most importantly) keeps the most viewed page inline with Misplaced Pages policy.--HamedogTalk| 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC
- I disagree that "keeps the most viewed page inline with Misplaced Pages policy" is the most important point. Indeed, I would say that is the least important of reasons. Remember: Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules. Policy exists only to help us write an encyclopedia. It does not exist as an end in itself. Do not worship at the altar of policy. The rest of your points have merit; I suggest focusing on those. —DragonHawk (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, assuming that most policies are intended to be descriptive in nature, this page probably doesn't violate anything. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keeping the attack on the argument's wording aside, who does this benefit? How does this benefit them? What's the affect of this benefit? Define, quantify.
- Allows for someone to eventually create an article about main pages (i.e. the primary page on a website, sometimes homepage). The article should probably be a protected redirect for quite sometime to allow search engines and people to update their bookmarks. falsedef 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Small benefit here, we free up a possible article title. How would redirecting the page alert people to the need to update bookmarks? This sounds like a cost (adding below). --Monotonehell 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also the reason I mentioned a protected redirect is because the article space for main_page will be quite sought after for both vandals and glory seekers. falsedef 09:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- So is that another cost? --Monotonehell 11:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- While I can't quantify the cost, the relative cost here must be on the side of moving. If we ever need the Main Page article then it is rather likely we would have needed it in any case. Ergo, whatever decision we make, if this issue ever arises, we will have to confront it. If we've already move the main page our options are likely to be greater hence the cost would be lower. 203.109.240.93 14:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also the reason I mentioned a protected redirect is because the article space for main_page will be quite sought after for both vandals and glory seekers. falsedef 09:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Costs
- ais523 claims above that 38 articles in article namespace links to Main Page. Jeltz talk 15:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- How is this a cost? --Monotonehell 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think Jeltz was trying to quantify the amount of work in updating double-redirs after the move. --ais523 13:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. I thought that the purpose here was to try to quantify costs, and I listed on that already has been quantified even if it happens to be minimal. Jeltz talk 13:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah I see now. So it's a small cost then. Thanks people. --Monotonehell 02:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. I thought that the purpose here was to try to quantify costs, and I listed on that already has been quantified even if it happens to be minimal. Jeltz talk 13:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think Jeltz was trying to quantify the amount of work in updating double-redirs after the move. --ais523 13:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The move may upset people's bookmarks. One possible solution proposed was to redirect. But how would this alert people to the change?
- Again we need to quantify this point. Every user who arrives via the old main page URL will need to be alerted and redirected if the page is intended to be reserved for an article. If not we need a soft redirect, this would add approximately 10% load to the servers on top of requests for the old main page. Either way people need to be alerted of the change. --Monotonehell 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Quantification is necessary. However we need to remember it's extremely speculatory beyond a day. There's no knowing how long it will take people to update their bookmarks 203.109.240.93 14:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Is that a 10% extra load for every request through the current main page url? Surely that's not acceptable? Then it could not be a redirect, but it would have to be a message "The main page moved to ... " so the lazy visitors too update their bookmarks. That would be a cost, although small and short-term. But are you sure about that 10%? If the page is cached on the server, it seems to me the only extra cost is the extra line "redirected from ...". Piet | Talk 14:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've linked the VPT discussion above. It's a real but negligible extra load on the servers, it seems. --ais523 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- User:Simetrical said in that disccsuion that "Redirects don't add noticeable load." 10% would definatly be noticable load so it is much less than that. Jeltz talk 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah okay, the 10% was based on the relative size of a page with only the sidebar, other menus and etc verses a whole page of text. The idea being that the server has to effectively serve one small page and one big page instead of just one big one. This would only be additional to requests for the main page, not a 10% increase on the servers over all. But according to the VPT discussion this small increase would not be a big load. --Monotonehell 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Is that a 10% extra load for every request through the current main page url? Surely that's not acceptable? Then it could not be a redirect, but it would have to be a message "The main page moved to ... " so the lazy visitors too update their bookmarks. That would be a cost, although small and short-term. But are you sure about that 10%? If the page is cached on the server, it seems to me the only extra cost is the extra line "redirected from ...". Piet | Talk 14:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Quantification is necessary. However we need to remember it's extremely speculatory beyond a day. There's no knowing how long it will take people to update their bookmarks 203.109.240.93 14:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Three MediaWiki pages (MediaWiki:Mainpage, MediaWiki:Common.js, and MediaWiki:Monobook.css) will need to be updated as a result of the move (changing MediaWiki:Mainpage to the new location, changing all mentions of the Main Page to the new name in common.js (and 'ca-nstab-main' in that section, meaning article-space, to 'ca-nstab-portal'), and changing the page-Main_Page selectors in monobook.css to read page-Portal_Main_Page (or the equivalent of this if a different title is selected)). This shouldn't be too much trouble, but the Main Page will act oddly until the change has been made, and the move should probably be made by a technically-minded admin. --ais523 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
featured
"India Standard Time"???? Is that the best featured article we can use for the main page? There must be some better choice for the main page featured article. I can't say the same for the pics, though---they are good. Seldon1 18:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- What's the problem, almost every FA eventually appears on the Main Page — people have worked hard to bring this to FA standard, and I personally found it interesting, we don't often see such FAs after all. Todor→Bozhinov 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's the Battle of Cannae tomorrow. Is that better? – Qxz 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- And history of saffron is on the horizon. -- Zanimum 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- We try to get a diverse selection of articles on the main page. Not everybody agrees with what's good for the main page, pop culture? science? humanities? -- Zanimum 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose thats true. I always assumed the purpose was to have a featured article that is also important or interesting--but opinions on whay is interesting do vary. I withdraw my complaint. Seldon1 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I commented before that the function of the entries on the main page is to make people aware of topics they might not otherwise have thought of looking at. There will always be some topics that readers will think "why did they bother" - and the odd one which causes a few squawks of protest (g). Jackiespeel 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, I would argue the time 1 billion people follow must have at least some interest and importance. And I suspect other people like me still find half hour time zones a bit strange 203.109.240.93 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Try living in one, it's a pain in the proverbial. --Monotonehell 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, I would argue the time 1 billion people follow must have at least some interest and importance. And I suspect other people like me still find half hour time zones a bit strange 203.109.240.93 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can't make everyone happy, some people won't be interested in some articles, while others will not be. --Credema 07:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Picture on the main about Amsterdam
The capital of The Netherlands is not AMsterdam but De Hague! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.7.54.162 (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
- The second paragraph of our article on The Hague explains that while The Hague is the seat of government, Amsterdam is actually the capital city. Raven4x4x 08:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Amsterdam is the capital city, not The Hague, which is the correct spelling. --Soetermans 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- 194.7 spelt it the same way as you...? --Monotonehell 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nope he write "De Hauge". I missed that one too at first. :) Jeltz talk 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- De = The. The complaint was about spelling not language. --Monotonehell 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you sure you missed it? Maybe Jimbo is using his overseer privilages to screw around with your head? 203.109.240.93 13:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nope he write "De Hauge". I missed that one too at first. :) Jeltz talk 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- 194.7 spelt it the same way as you...? --Monotonehell 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Amsterdam is the capital city, not The Hague, which is the correct spelling. --Soetermans 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Navigation on left
Or an alternative title: Sandbox link
What i am wondering is, shouldn't the navigation contents bar on the left link to the WP:Sandbox? Simply south 12:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- You could always do this yourself with the addlink script (inquire at WP:US). Many users have their own personal sandboxes to experiment with rather than share a common sandbox, so a link to WP:SANDBOX might not be necessary for many users. AZ t 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages is the most unsafe place to search for information. Luckily, everybody cooperates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.170.164 (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
- How so? dposse 18:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unsafe? One might say that Misplaced Pages's information isn't always reliable, but the users are always working on that. Anyway, this isn't really the right place for such a discussion. If I were more experienced in Wiki, I would've gladly linked you to such a place. --Soetermans 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you really can't bear to see the odd piece of vandalism, Stablepedia mostly guarantees that what you're viewing is worksafe, at the cost of losing the most up-to-date information. GeeJo ⁄(c) • 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks for that link, they even have a bookmarklet, neato. :) --86.138.51.21 12:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Each page requested will require our servers to transfer at least 500 KB of data from Misplaced Pages." (FAQ) This is a good thing? - BanyanTree 17:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- My £20 donation should cover the cost of my using the service now and then for a while. What's £20 worth in dollars these days, $100? $200? :P GeeJo ⁄(c) • 19:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Less than one buck! By the way, Stablepedia's article on Moshe Katsav says he might resign. How old! Ugh! :-) | AndonicO 19:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The user of Stablepedia must understand that he is giving up most-up-to-date for stability. The service is not designed to be used as a starting point for retreiving articles. It is rather designed to use when you feel a page is vandalized, hence, the bookmarklet has been made; for switching easily. Also, regarding the bandwidth usage, Stablepedia's algorithm has been adjusted to use less bandwidth, now it uses about as much bandwidth as you will use if you opened the page directly on Misplaced Pages, the FAQ has also been updated to reflect that. Sinan Taifour 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- WTF? They just took down the notice about the 500 KBs per page load! Compare Google's cache to the current version! —Mets501 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's not digress now... I think what the anon was trying to say that anyone can add information to the articles that may be false. A vandal can secretly add an extra zero in a math related article. Also, some students receive failing grades for citing Misplaced Pages in their papers. (I learned that the hard way...) Ed Reviews? 01:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed it isn't a good idea to cite Misplaced Pages in paper for school, but it's a pretty safe people to get information from because there are a lot of people that are checking pages and reverting vandalism. In your example someone would probably notice the page on the recent changes and double check the correct number and revert the page if need be. --Credema 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Top Right Toolbar
It should be noted that as of now, (see below), whenever the cursor is hovering over one of the options such as "Log In" or "My Watchlist," the options quickly switch to the top left, as if they went from right-aligned to left-aligned in an instant. This is possible an individual error, yet is believed to be an error in the coding for the group.
- This should be examined before someone gets frustrated.
Prodigy Kid 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It works fine for me. Try Bypassing your browser's cache. | AndonicO 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Tried that. With Internet Explorer, bypassing the cache fixes it temporarily, but the second you move your cursor over it, it moves back behind the Misplaced Pages symbol. Prodigy Kid 22:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- What skin are you using? Any unusual additions to your personal .js file? GeeJo ⁄(c) • 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- No. No preference changes. I switched to a different computer and it's fine. Must be my internet options then. I'll delete this in 30 minutes since there is no apparent defect in the system. Prodigy Kid 00:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Tried that. With Internet Explorer, bypassing the cache fixes it temporarily, but the second you move your cursor over it, it moves back behind the Misplaced Pages symbol. Prodigy Kid 22:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've had that problem before. I just ignored it or refreshed the page. After a few times i have been on here it seemed to stop doing it. Simply south 15:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Same bug affected me before I switched to Firefox almost a year ago. —Mets501 (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've had that problem before. I just ignored it or refreshed the page. After a few times i have been on here it seemed to stop doing it. Simply south 15:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's a known issue, but with Internet Explorer. Bug Microsoft about it. Titoxd 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- No pun intended, I hope :). Anyway, I've had the same problem with IE 6. Sometimes, the personal JS fails completely as well. It seems to happen only occasionally, though. <shamelesspromotion>Maybe you should get Firefox!</shamelesspromotion> PTO 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- No shame in that promotion. As a web designer I constantly get annoyed with IE's foibles. And regret that I can't use a lot of the facilities that PNG provides, because IE doesn't support them properly. I just hoping that either everyone adopts Firefox or at least the Vista version of IE will be W3C compliant. --Monotonehell 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- You mean IE7? Don't hold your breath... – Qxz 10:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- No shame in that promotion. As a web designer I constantly get annoyed with IE's foibles. And regret that I can't use a lot of the facilities that PNG provides, because IE doesn't support them properly. I just hoping that either everyone adopts Firefox or at least the Vista version of IE will be W3C compliant. --Monotonehell 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- No pun intended, I hope :). Anyway, I've had the same problem with IE 6. Sometimes, the personal JS fails completely as well. It seems to happen only occasionally, though. <shamelesspromotion>Maybe you should get Firefox!</shamelesspromotion> PTO 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hugs to wikipedia
--69.54.27.40 07:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages hugs you back -- Misplaced Pages 07:22, Saturday 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, User:Monotonehell hugs you back. Misplaced Pages is not sentient – Qxz 10:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not yet, anyway... 31337 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I for one welcome our encyclopedic overlords. FirefoxMan 14:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually you're both wrong. Have you actually seen Jimbo Wales recently? No? Don't you wonder why he only directs from 'on high' (User:Jimbo Wales) but doesn't appear in person? Incidently, if you have seen Jimbo Wales recently, please pretend that you haven't 203.109.240.93 14:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not yet, anyway... 31337 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, User:Monotonehell hugs you back. Misplaced Pages is not sentient – Qxz 10:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
James Field (in DYK?)
Um, London didn't have a police force until the 19th century... Totnesmartin
- It had parish constables and court runners and thieftakers, so I assume the term is being used in an informal sense. Postlebury 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you had clicked the link, you would have ended up at Bow Street Runners which described this force as a police force. Also, in future this kind of thing is best discussed at Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. 203.109.240.93 14:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I clicked James Field itself, which mentioned a constabulary. i didn't know about the Errors page - there are so many specialised WP pages I never know when I'm on the right one. Totnesmartin 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Obscenity on main page
Can someone please move the obscenity from the section of the lead article that appears on the main page? Postlebury 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's a direct quote and wikipedia is not censored (Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not censored) 203.109.240.93 15:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Notability
Hello. I am a filmmaker, and I was wondering that if I showed an administrator a local newspaper article that includes a photograph of myself and another local celebrity filmmaker and a summary of my film, would that be enough to have my own Misplaced Pages page for biographical purposes. I also have a website for my film production company, Gonzo Films, on which you can view the films that I have made. I believe my friends in The River Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/The_River_Company) got their own page in the same manner. Thank you in advance. Michael.m.winters 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Category: