Shouldn't the person who wrote/created the best answer of the day in the AOTD contest win money too?

I couldn't find it. The main page says that they are 6 Bulgarian nurses. In fact, the HIV trial/Libya nurses are composed of 5 Bulgarian nurses and 1 Palestinian doctor.

My plan was to submit it to Wikipedia:Bot requests, but whatever. But I wish the Main Page regulars whose names I usually see here would give me some feedback first. Is there a better place I should be advertising this?

I correct such errors several times per day, usually before they get to the Main Page, so I must be thorough if you didn't find any more. Here's two that got by everybody: 1 The bot would have caught the question mark. What's with the symbols?

What's with all the symbols on the main page? (The funny à and the € sign) --Pezzar 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Please contact via my link. Sounds like a character encoding issue.

What web browser are you using? Is it purposely now left-aligned instead of centre-aligned, or is that just a problem with my browser/cache/hairdresser/etc? If it is on purpose, what are we about to do with all that free space? Yeah, it's back to normal now.

What do you think? I like it, and personally I want it extended to OTD and DYK pictures as well. Can you help me I want to write a movie page and how can you put the title to the top of the page?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.36.228 (talk • contribs). Where's the Quickbar? What's wrong with this picture?

Maybe put some links to WikiNews articles? Just a thought, I know they are seperate projects, but in the news section, links to wikinews wouldn't hurt. Not a word about wikimania on the whole Main Page.

Win or Linux? Wikipedia.org! I shall buy tomorrow notebook.

What there to install? Win or Linux? What is exact assembly?

We have a vandal on the main page! Someone go block him! Oh, I see the Kriegsmarine already did, indefinitely.

Joking as anathemic to our existence. Burn the jokes. Is there a vandal on the main page?

Does anyone know why these guys keep appearing on the front page? Is anyone else seeing this? Could whoever is in charge put the death notice for Ingmar Bergman on the main page news section?

He is the greatest Swedish film director of all time and made dozens of award winning films. IMO, Ingmar Bergman was arguably important enough to warrant an exception. École Polytechnique massacre is the real title.

Minor mixup by Raul here. Can we get an admin to change it? The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Every Article is important in some way. It's really simple. "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is already perfect.

It claims that anyone can edit, and they can. Anonymous IPs can edit (as did the individual who first posted here). New user accounts can edit.

Administrators can edit. I can edit, I'm doing so right now. The point is, anyone can edit.

It doesn't say anyone can edit anything. If I said, "Anyone can eat", I'm not implying in the least that anyone can specifically eat the pizza that is being delivered here right now. The encyclopedia is free and anyone can edit at least some portion of it, so the statement is completely true.

What say you to this idea: You know where it says the catagories up at the top? Howabout we make them into pictures instead, each representing the respective catagory, lie 2 rows of four, and 1 large one for "all portals", just to give the main page a little colour and make it more interesting at first glance. I know that it would prob make making the box its in a little larger, but I think it would be worth it, what do you think?

Can someone put a page improvement blog in because http:http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page the star wars wiki has one and I think it improves the overall site. Coincidence that a featured Simpsons article coincides with the opening of the movie? My God, a hurricane article!

Is Wikipedia advancing the NOAA agenda? Is Wikipedia advertising hurricane protection equipment? Or worse yet: Does Wikipedia support hurricanes and all they have done in the history of humanity?

Wow guys, so a bridge and an incident with the Taliban is up there but the Russian submarine story isn't? Even when the latter's importance is greater in both scientific and international interest than either of the two? I mean, I even remember a story about an old museum boat that burned down a few months ago being on the wikinews.

Think about it: An old boat and bridge that an amazingly tiny percentage of the world care/know about vs. a controversial land-grab by a country with already shoddy relations with other world powers that is getting people all over the world in a fit. And if your delicious American bias still isn't sated enough: This is the White House's #1 short-term alarming issue. So do put it up there, it's ridiculous what does goes up and what doesn't.

Can anyone explain why there's something about an unusual fish species, usually a catfish, in the Did You Know? Section so frequently? Is someone in the process of cataloging obscure fish species?

It seems oddly disproportionate. I wonder, has anyone compiled a list of topics that people have complained appear on the main page too often? Does anyone want to give a catfish barnstar to User:MiltonT?

Don't hate on the catfish, they can be rather interesting indeed. ;) I suppose technically I am in the process of categorizing obscure catfishes, because if they weren't so obscure they would perhaps already have articles. If it makes you guys feel better, most of my articles are actually about catfish genera, of which there are only about 500, rather than catfish species, which number over 3000.

Even I don't have enough time on my hands to think of doing all catfish species, but I have thrown in a few in the process of writing genera articles. I suppose it's funny that a student with too much time on his hands can change the face (or main page, as the case may be) of Wikipedia. Could one of the administrators please add Norwegian (Nynorsk) to the "In other languages" section on the Main page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)?

Who makes this Main page? The Main Page is made up mostly of templates (Did you Know, Featured Article, In the News) which are edited by administrators. The photograph illustrating Mauna Loa is a bit blah.

Can't we have one of the more interesting ones from further down in the article? I usually see Holy Days listed here on the main page (major ones, anyway). As the Transfiguration is one of the 12 Great Feasts, and it is celebrated today by both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, should it not be listed here (compare the listing of a civic holiday)?

I'm proposing adding it in. How comes this keeps dominating the news area? Last time I checked, it was just above the highway bridge accident.

Now, it is just above 2007 foot-and-mouth. I'm sensing some galaxocentricism going on here. Yea well it's just my style to jump in on a joke only after it's worn out and not funny anymore, so live with it :P.

Just kidding, just kidding. With William T. Sherman on the main page, Wikipedia is once again showing its well documented anti-slavery bias.

That could have been handled a little better. Now we have a troll who's been blocked and gone off with magnified conspiracy theories regarding Wikipedia. It would have been better to let their comments stand and answer them.

They had a major misconception (which btw is discussed above in errors) that The Wide World Web equals "online". Simply pointing that out would probably have put an end it it. Perhaps there's a bigger issue here.

Of course we don't have time to deal with every misinformed troll brutalizing this talk page, but perhaps there is a legitimate motive to his/her agenda. Is there some kind of Wikipedia public relations program that could explain to these people that this whole project is a constant work in progress, a perpetual battle between truth and falsehood which we (for the time being at least) are winning? I usually can shrug off these naysayers, but what (s)he said kind of hurt me deep down inside.

...ah, the wonderful irony... X. Never thought I would see the day. Way to go WP.

You just promoted one of the biggest competitors. To be fair to them, the Britannica article on Wikipedia is actually fairly true. This isn't exactly an error with the Main Page, and I did not want to report it as one, but the Banner of Poland (featured in the Did You Know section) is indeed a national symbol.

The article says itself it is used in the nation's Presidential Jack and in its Coat of Arms. This leads me to wonder if Admins read the articles they select for the DYK section. I understand that Admins select from an extremely large volume of articles for the DYK section, but it is unfortunate that mistakes like this slip through.

We probably won't hit 2 million for another 3 to 5 weeks. Fair use image on the main page? I thought it was bad form to have fair use images on the front page.

Was there discussion to make an exception today? This is ridiculous. If an image is good enough to have on Wikipedia in the first place, it's good enough to be on the main page.

Someone put it back please. The appropriate replacement image for this sort of thing would be a photograph of Bacon himself. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any published examples that have fallen out of copyright yet—a 1928 shot by Helmar Lerski in Berlin is the closest I could find.

And nothing on Flickr, either. The route therefore would be to write to people who have been in contact with him, to ask them to donate an old photograph. Fair use was allowed when it was the only choice for the main page FA for a long time.

Then a few months ago Jimbo removed a fair use image saying to keep fair use off the main page, and since then that's been the precedent. As is my understanding. For the record, I think that this is a prime example of Wikipedia allowing the free-culture ideology to harm the mission of being an encyclopedia.

Yes, Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia", and yes, both parts of that are important — but when you can't include an image of a painting in the summary of an article about that painting, it should be patently obvious that an image of that painting is worth including, whatever its copyright status. I came here to work on an encyclopedia which would be free (gratis) to anyone who wanted to use it. That it is also free (libre) is an added bonus; I'm not here to demolish the cultural and legal construct of copyright.

I also live in a country in which the ability to use images under fair use in circumstances like this is uncontroversial; Wikimedia's servers are also located in that country. "Downstream users" who use the front page, if they exist, will almost certainly be using them in the same circumstances (therefore allowing the same legal justification). What exactly is the point of omitting this image?

Idiotic - an article about a famous visual artwork with no visuals! Also, people keep talking about this "policy" that fair use pictures aren't allowed on the main page. I'd like to see where this policy actually is.

Whether a relevant free image can be found for the main page should be part of WP:FAC discussion. I see no such mention at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion. A few people, including myself, have tried to improve Lee Smith (baseball) to featured article status but sans a free image, it hasn't even been nominated.

Please, someone put the image back. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit for advocating the virtues of free media. If I'm wrong, then perhaps it's time for someone to start an encyclopedia.

This is dumb. We have the pic sitting in the article itself where tens of thousands are going to click through and view it. And the logic for keeping it off the main page is what?

That hundreds of thousands will view it there? Is there some order of magnitude threshold for when an FU image becomes really dangerous? Either the pic should be removed from the main page and the article itself or it should be acceptable for both.

I don't understand the supposed compromise. Ew, that text link is horrible. Also, it's a bit unfortunate that One, though informed of this discussion, decided to participate in the image war without participating here.

I say put the photo back on the main page. The explanatory text on Wikipedia:Main page image just makes me go 'huh?', I don't want to think what someone who's never heard of the free information movement will think. This is even weirder than not having a photo at all, because it draws attention to the strangeness of the situation.

Here's why I approve of using the link -- it's a suitable settlement between including the image and not including the image. They call this a Condorcet winner, where the winner is neither of the choices but a synthesis of the two. I like using them to solve edit wars, and One made an excellent decision in coming up with it.

This is rather embarassing, LOL... revert war on the Main Page?! Jimbo has, in the past, removed images from the Main Page explicitly saying that fair use on the Main Page is unacceptable. Whether or not this is against the letter of some rule somewhere, this is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia.

I don't understand the case for omitting the image. If it is to make an ideological point to our readers shouldn't we then at least explain that point to them somewhere? The legal case for using the image on the main page is solid.

The editorial case for it is overwhelming. I don't see a compelling ideological case against it. What are we trying to say?

No, we're not trying to say that because it's not true. No, that's not true either so that can't be what we're saying. Exactly what point are we trying to make and is that point actually getting across to anyone?

The arguments being made here are indeed very confused. Most people are just using the slogan "the free encyclopedia" as justification - but that's not what people who really understand this would say. We obviously do have some fair use in articles, and we always will... so the reason to keep it off the main page isn't simply because we don't use any fair use on the "free encyclopedia", we do use some.

When that argument has failed they've said "Well but Jimbo decreed it", which might be a fallacy, especially considering there was (sort of) a free alternative that time. But it's easier to wheel war in defense of the philosophy, it's hard to overcome them, even though they don't have consensus. Also, there was never a consensus to actually stop using fair use on the main page FA... we did for years, then Jimbo made that one revert, and since then it's all been different.

This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen. A main-page featured article about a painting, without the painting? Words cannot explain how ridiculous this is.

As for "fair use" paranoia, if its ok to have the picture with the article, then its ok to put it on the main page. Is someone going to find some licensing problem with the beagle? User:Pharos reverted the change which I felt was supported by consensus on this page.

His edit summary was "you're misreading it; there has to be a consensus to -change the policy on MainPage images- not a majority of opinion in a parrticular instance". I don't see that in the current wording of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions, which says "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy." "Case-by-case basis" would seem to refer to exactly this sort of situation: in this case there was a consensus to keep the image. "Case-by-case" doesn't refer to broad categories of articles or namespaces — it means case-by-case.

Policy is formed by practice; this is the sort of case which causes policies to be altered. It's clear that this discussion will not end when we move to the next TFA, so I've (re-)started the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#TFA/Main Page exemption, revisited. Everyone is encouraged to chime in there.

So, why is it a bad thing to use FU art on the main page? From what I've seen, the argument is that WP users might take that art and go do stuff with it, like put it on web pages or try to sell it or something. So if that's the argument, then why allow FU art on articles?

Surely someone who's out looking for art to steal, and makes it to the main page of Wikipedia, is going to be able to get to the article page too... Another argument I've read is "Jimbo says so." I've looked at Jimbo's revert on the Scooby Doo article referenced above. What I haven't seen is a rationale from Jimbo as to why FU art is acceptable in articles, but not on the main page.

So if appeals to Jimbo's authority are the argument, let's hear from the man himself - Jimbo, WHY can't we use FU stuff on the main page? The main page certainly looks drab without a Featured Article image, and if a fair use rationale can be made to include an image at all, then that same rationale would seem to extend to the main page. I hope I'm proven wrong, but with this precedent we probably never going to see FAs with FU-only images ever featured on the main page in future.

Since the issue of a fair-use image on the main page seems to be causing so much trouble, I've gone ahead and created a derivative work based on the painting in question: Image:Three studies interpretation.PNG. I've released this work into the public domain, and I propose that, as the only free image that resembles the painting in question in any way, it should accompany the blurb on the front page. Sure, it may lack some of the subtlety and power of the actual work, but it's free!

I realize this is probably a joke, but you can't release derivitive works into the public domain without the permission of whoever holds the rights to the work of which it's a derivative.