Talk:Main Page

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi! Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, the central media repository site. This page is for discussion of the Main Page only.



Import a file button

Hi,

The link to upload a file is buried in the left menu. I suggest adding a more direct way to do it using {{Upload a file}} − see on the French main page.

Jean-Fred (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please make this happen. Contributors are valuable and we should strive to remove unnecessary barriers. With the upload wizard new users will get a short tutorial on free content. I hope nobody repeats that old "It should take effort to contribute, otherwise lazy people and morons will upload stuff"-argument... --Dschwen (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support—not just for new users but old ones who don't like searching for tiny links too—Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done —Mono 19:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thank you Mono
@Dschwen: I was more worried of seeing the argument "We should rather revamp completely the main page including a GuidedTour etc." - while I certainly look forward more advanced stuff like that, it does not hurt to take low hanging fruits when possible :-) --Jean-Fred (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, if it is that blue button on right. Jee 02:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rotate PotY high rankers?

Not to detract from Steffan's achievement in the light-bulb pic, I wonder whether we could have some rotation of the most highly ranked images? One year—was it 2012?—the astronomical telescope winner stayed on the main page for soooooo long ... months, was it, till I made comments here. From the readers' point of view, a more dynamic rather than static approach would be appreciated, I'm sure. Tony (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POTD 29 April 2014

The caption of File:Sunrise at viru bog.jpg reads "Sunrise at Viru Bog, Estonia". But i can't actually see the sun rising. Should the caption be "Morning at Viru Bog, Estonia"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise can also refer to a fairly specific time of day. The light on the grasses appears to validate this description. --99of9 (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the photo was taken at the moment of sunrise. So the sun is there and rising even if you don't see it. Current filename ok. -Htm (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No! I wasn't asking for change in the filename but only..... whatever! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media of the day for May 8, 2014 - Buchenwald

It's in bad taste to have the video for Buchenwald on the front page showing the stack of dead bodies. Can you please find some way to change that keyframe or to remove it from such public display? -- Fuzheado (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snapshot of Buchenwald video as MOTD May 8, 2014, frozen frame on dead bodies

Are there reliable sources, how many visitors do view the Main Page in this ↑ resolution? On my machines it looks exactly like this:(410px)

--BR, Jan ·S· (media) 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jan ·S·. I reduced the original preview size. Jee 16:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's captioned to clearly put it in context, and you do realise that MOTD has a thumbnail option you can set to whatever you want, right? If you think it a poor time to show, choose another time. Commons:MOTD#8, under advanced options. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead bodies?

Christ, per the principle of least astonishment, do we really need to use a still frame of dead bodies in today's media of the day? Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 19:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this movie on the front page. Now if we could change the keyframe, and add a warning that the movie may be disturbing, then good. Sometimes it is necessary to diffuse this kind of material, it has a high educative value. It is not too bad to remember that this really happended. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: My comment was pretty clear in referring to the still frame of the video, which showed dead bodies, as opposed to the video as a whole... Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 00:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. May be ask the person who uploaded it? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already pinged Slick and Pristurus for opinion in a relevant thread at COM:AN. Jee 05:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started a discussion about the choice to feature this video in this way on the frontpage of Commons on Wikimedia-l. Posting here so that interested Commonites can join in. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kevin Gorman: I don't see the point in discussing this on the mailing list. Discussions should happen here. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Kevin Gorman: I understand that as an English Wikipedia regular, you just couldn't resist saying: "Additionally, I'm not sure that meaningful change can come from the current Commons administration without outside pressure, so I've started a discussion here". If there is the worst path to meaningful change, you're on it right now. odder (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • My comment had very little to do with the fact that I'm primarily an ENWPian, and, er, a lot more to do with the combination of my previous interactions with Commons and Commons' prior track record in choosing what to put on their front page, and in general, what content to keep. I'd have to dig up the diff and have a feeling that the person in question may have since left the project, but I've previously been threatened with a block for disruption here for XfDing an image of someone engaged in a sexual act that had been uploaded quite clearly without their consent. So yes, I don't have a terribly high amount of faith that meaningful change can come from within Commons community without an outside impetus. If it were a relatively small project choices like this wouldn't matter anywhere near as much as they do, but Commons' decisions effect every Wikimedia project. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I know, there is not much admin involvement in this matter. Just discuss at COM:MOTD. Jee 08:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video is educationally useful but the choice of frame should be reviewed. It is only fair on uninformed readers that we warn them that it might shock them. Green Giant (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons:Video#Embedding_Video: “In case of Ogg Theora files, a frame from the midpoint of the video is used by default for the initial still image. To use a different frame, use the thumbtime parameter.” Jean-Fred (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See {{Motd/2014-05-08 thumbtime}} history. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm following the mailing list discussion and agree with those who say it should primarily be taking place here. On the list User:Pharos has said "maybe a simple solution to this is just having more process for which still frame to use for any MOTD video," and I agree. Personally I don't think the use was sensationalist, but a discussion should take place about anything that is likely to be contentious. Ham (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have deliberately selected this frame. And yes, it is a shocking picture of victims killed by the inhumanity of a totalitarian ideology. The frame shows exactly the result of such a belief. For me a "softer" motive would be a belittlement of the historical events in Nazi Germany. I'm sorry, but the world is often shockingly brutal, this is the reality in which we must still live (open your eyes in direction to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, South-Sudan, Nigeria and so on and so on...). --Pristurus (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put Pristurus and I couldn't agree with you more, so sure keep the frame because your comment suggests you didn't blindly follow a protocol. However, let's add a warning note to such images, because it doesn't hurt us to warn people that they maybe shocked by what they see. We want to open people's eyes, not poke them in the eyes, if you get my meaning. Green Giant (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how a warning note could possibly be useful. "The image you just saw might have been offensive. If so, please travel back in time to stop yourself from looking at it."?
  • Thank you for explaining your decision-making process, Pristurus, though I hope you appreciate that other users are likely to disagree. Emufarmers (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand your decision-making process Pris although I still disagree with your choice of a still, but did you take in to account the fact that a majority of people who use the Wikimedia projects cannot view the video in question, and contextual information was only provided in 5 languages when we run projects in quite literally 287 different languages? For a large number of people who use Wikimedia projects, putting that freezeframe on Commons' frontpage just put a grainy image of a stack of corpses in front of them with no context whatsoever - they would've been unable to play the video, and would have absolutely no context provided to them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you all for your opinions, they made me change my mind. When I first saw the still frame on my own page, I was shocked. I read the caption and was sure I don't want to see this video. Not now, not later that day. Perhaps much later. I did not watch it yet. I was thinking if it was a good idea to display the MOTD on my page and if I should change that, immediately, or later, or not. My thougts froze, my feelings too. I decided by not deciding it, so I didn't change it. I kept on wondering, if it was a tolerable choice for the Commons' Main Page, I was not sure, the whole day long. I was expecting some major discussion could start about it. And found it here, read some con's, many OT's, some positive suggestions and little pro's. Came back later and read more.
  All I knew was: I don't like the video (although I didn't see it yet). I don't want to watch it. Wrong! I don't like what happened then, and I don't want to see that. I hope that some day no more videos like this will ever be created, because things like the depicted will never happen again. But currently, violence and cruelty is still happening. All over the world. Every. Single. Day. Now I'm kind of glad to know, that this video is available here, where I feel quite sure that disgusting comments to it will be deleted. Where mostly encyclopedic texts are available, directly linked to it. Where most people discuss about it in a civilised way. I now intend to watch it. Later. Perhaps much later. Some day when my stomach is empty, and there is time to cry.
  Thank you, Pristurus, for choosing this picture. Thank you for being so reflected and so bold to do it, and to stand to your choice and explain it here, calm and well-founded amidst the storm. Thank you for choosing a very appropriate date and thank you for nominating it very well ahead for anyone to notice and react. Now I appreciate your choice beyond any question.
  Thank you all for changing my mind. (Sorry if my English should be inappropriate or offending in any way, that is not at all my intention. - I'm not a native speaker.) --BR, Jan ·S· (media) 16:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jan ·S· for your thoughtful words. A small correction. In fact, it was suggested by Slick. He chose the date too. He didn't commented here so far. The still frame was chosen by Pristurus as commented above. Jee 16:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting me, an important detail, so my thanks certainly go to Slick as well! (I think I can leave my text unchanged, as it is now clarified, or does anyone want it fixed?) --BR, Jan ·S· (media) 17:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to change as the matter is clear to understand now. :) Jee 17:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the still frame in isolation is horrifying enough that it makes you not want to watch the video, that seems like a good reason to choose a different still frame. Emufarmers (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is mostly a duplicate of what I just posted to Wikimedia-l - I put it up there as a response to those who may not be monitoring this discussion (which didn't really exist until the Wikimedia-l thread started,) but it probably belongs in both places.
I'm not upset about the fact that we have a video of the aftermath of the liberation of Buchenwald on Commons - if we didn't, I'd go find one and upload it. It's an event (and a video) of enormous historic significance, and not one that should ever be forgotten. I'm not even opposed to featuring it on Commons' frontpage - in a way that adheres to the principle of least astonishment and provides viewers with context. That's not what was done here. A still image featuring a pile of corpses was put on Commons' frontpage with any context whatsoever only provided for viewers of five languages - and we run projects in 287 different languages. More than that, since Commons only supports open video formats, a sizable majority of people who use Wikimedia projects are literally incapable of actually playing the video in question. Is there enough journalistic or educational value in displaying a still photo of a pile of corpses that links to a video that cannot be played by most people that provides after the fact context in only 5 of the 287 languages we run projects in to justify putting it on Commons front page? I'm gonna go with no.
FWIW: I would explicitly support featuring this video (or an article about Buchenwald, etc,) albeit with a different freezeframe and appropriate context provided, on the frontpage of the English Wikipedia or any other project where it was actually possible to provide appropriate context to the viewership of the project. ENWP's article about Buchenwald - quite rightly - contains numerous images more graphic than the one that was on Commons front page yesterday. They add significant educational value to the article - and they also only appear past the lede of the article, at a point when anyone reading the article will be fully aware what the article is about and will have intentionally sought the article out - rather than, say, going to Commons to look up an image of a horse and being confronted with a freezeframe of a stack of bodies from a video your browser cannot play with context provided only in languages you do not speak. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've made no case for a different freeze frame other than "I don't like it". The freeze frame was chosen specifically as representative of why this video is important. You're claiming "other people might not like it" when your true objection is really obviously that you don't like it. You're allowed not to like it, but that's not a strong basis for a claim, nor for forum-shopping (you went elsewhere before here), nor for trying to come up with new rules to enforce "I don't like it" - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh give me a break David. Both this section and the one directly above it were started by people I was actively talking to about the MOTD before I started the thread on Wikimedia-l, and both sections here as well as the one at COM:AN went without comment before I started a thread in a broader forum. The fact that I didn't explicitly post here is a pretty freaking trifling thing when those who did went unanswered. Without having started said thread on Wikimedia-l, in all likelihood the threads on-wiki concerning this would still be inactive. Do you honestly think "We probably shouldn't be showing tens of thousands of people a grainy freezeframe of black and white corpses from a video most of them cannot play while providing absolutely no context for anyone who doesn't speak the five languages that it was captioned for, since it's a drastic abrogation of the principle of least astonishment and goes against standard editorial practices and good judgment" equates to "I don't like it"? Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You guys do realize this is no longer the Media of the Day -- right? Is there any compelling reason to continue a specific discussion of this one MOTD choice, rather than instead focusing on what it will take to make better decisions in the future? -Pete F (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we realise it's no longer the media of the day. However, based on the posts of those who decided which frame to include, the argument for inclusion was "I really want people to be upset!" In other contexts, we would call that trolling. A frame selected by an arbitrary process (x minutes in, or middle frame, or whatever) would at least be defensible. Deliberately choosing a shock image for the purpose of "educating" people isn't, and it does violate a Foundation resolution. Foundation resolutions aren't optional (in fact, aside from the principle of least astonishment, they're enforced quite rigorously on this project, q.v. free use) and they apply to all projects. Commons can't opt out of it. Meanwhile, it would be interesting to know what percentage of Wikipedias use the Commons POTD/MOTD on their main page, and whether that percentage has changed over the last several years. Risker (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great -- I agree, drawing general lessons from a specific case can be useful. Do you have a suggestion for how this principle should best be expressed to future POTD or MOTD contributors, perhaps by adding a bit of text here and/or here? -Pete F (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any thoughts about what principles would apply best to tomorrow's (as opposed to yesterday's) MOTD? I would think the more important issue there is self-promotion, not the Principle of Least Astonishment. Should it be possible to put something self-promotional on the front page of Commons and many other Wikimedia sites without anybody else reviewing that choice? Doesn't seem ideal to me. -Pete F (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, how about the following:
  1. Any user, who has ever visited Main Page or the MOTD page and has done one or more edits between nomination and main page display is not allowed to complain about the chosen picture afterwards.
  2. If the still frame of a video does not show the horrifying content waiting inside, then the video description and thumb has to display an internationally human readable explicit content warning.
  • The new still frame is a grossly misleading one, making it look like a nice old family meetup film. – I hereby strongly request a change or the above mentioned international content warning. --BR, Jan ·S· (media) 22:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the entire discussions here, in the mailing list, and the notification on the AN. Let me sum up my thoughts:

One complaint (by Kevin Gorman) is that Commoners initially neglect his complaint. I don't know anybody neglected it; but please note that here people live in different time zones and I'm (UTC+5.30) living almost opposite of the US time zone. The main page is in my watch list, and I started finding the users involved and notify them about the discussions on the moment I noticed this. Pristurus who had chosen that still frame responded in a timely manner. Slick didn't respond so far; but I don't think it is important as none have a complaint about showcasing that video.
Another concern is about the selection process (mainly by Peteforsyth). POTD has a strict guideline, and any POTD must be a COM:FP. That means all POTDs are thoroughly reviewed. I failed to see any chances of "self-promotion" there as Pete complained. MOTD has no such requirements. It is because we have not many featured videos; sounds are not reviewed so far. I don't know many people care or watching those MOTDs (I didn't). Any generic discussion on improving the MOTD is appreciated. That is why I suggested (earlier) to discuss it at COM:MOTD. We can consider:
Whether un reviewed MOTD is risky and it should be either pre reviewed or abandoned?
If we decide to continue MOTD, how we can set up a review process?
How can we improve the presentation, including translating to as many languages?
It seems the main complaint is about the chosen still frame. But we already got different opinions. IMHO, I see nothing wrong in choosing the most striking frame if we decided to showcase a video. Whether or not to showcase such a video is a different matter, and the consensus seems to showcase such videos in future too.
Pristurus is a great contributor of videos on organisms, and I always appreciate his efforts and thoughtful decisions. Jee 03:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons should not be censored. While I can agree there were better thumbtimes to choose (Commons:MOTD#8, click on advanced options) - we should never come up with rules that prevent people from seeing the actual truth about history. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit shocked that people who are hardly active here, come to complain when they see something they don't like... Yann (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope yo will get over it. -Htm (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always find it funny that the people that are so against censorship are willing to let that principle trump a person's right to make a choice. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say that I welcome this discussion. I think it must also be possible here to criticize my decision in a proper and fair way. And please be careful by using the great word "censorship". It is a killer argument and not very helpful to solve such more ethical issues. Well, in my opinion the use of such extreme pictures should be possible in some special singular cases but should not be a daily event on our main page. And I don't think that any formal restriction can provide clarity for all conceivable cases. For me, a possible solution would be to discuss all new (potential) problematic cases in the forum. --Pristurus (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, nobody thinks it's worth considering the promotional aspects of today's Media of the Day (not safe for work):
Or, say, this Picture of the Day that ran a while ago:
I don't think that either of these in themselves are a horrible abuse of our processes. But they clearly point the way toward a way of leveraging the popularity of Commons to get one's image out to the entire world. Are we OK with advertising as long as we are not getting paid for it..?! This seems like a weird principle to me. How will it look when every major PR company develops its own strategy for getting photos and music videos on the front page of Commons? Do we want to be out in front of that, or not? -Pete F (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage Pete, I see everyone in wikiland getting their grubby little fingers into the grubby monetary pie, whether that be editors who are otherwise unemployable in the real world getting jobs with the WMF, or people getting a cushy paid WiR position. The time seriously has come for Commons to be monetised. I've put in a heap of free time and energy into getting very relevant materials for our projects, and haven't been compensated adequately for my time nor energy. So I don't think it will be a PR company who develops such strategies in the future, but editors such as myself who really have had enough of donating our time for free who will come up with such strategies, and sell these strategies to those companies who are willing to pay for it. I could imagine there would be quite a few corporations who would like to see their materials here on Commons; what they need is people with the expertise who can help to guide them through the ins-and-outs of our projects. Am looking for business partners if anyone out there is interested :) russavia (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both those files went through our processes and deserve to be featured. As Russ points out in a round about way... we ask people to donate high quality works and then when people work to get professionals do it we get all precious about it. That's hypocritical. I am happy for any top quality work to make it to the front pages but we shouldn't force people to see images where a reasonable person would surmise the content would be disturbing or not welcome in such venues. Editorial judgment is not a crime nor is it an assault against freedom from censorship.Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had notified it at AN; no admin respond to it. From the comment of Mattbuck I quoted there, I assume "some contents" should not be showcased on our "main page" even if they are worth to "feature" in relevant sections. But I failed to find any supporting policies; may be good to define to avoid future issues. Noted the opinion of Pristurus above too (discuss all new (potential) problematic cases in the forum). Jee 04:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Sorry for my late comment, currently I am very busy. I just suggest this video in mind of the date and the EV. I do not think about maybe shocking pictures. I am from Germany and this is a part of our history and we will remember all the day. (i.E. in school or museums). Ok, its only ~80 year ago, but what is the different so other historical images where (a lot of) dead bodies displayed? Just because it is not a painting or picture? I dont know if it possible to select another frame for preview, but thanks to @Pristurus: to solve it. Another opinion about MotD is, please check the change history of the MotD Talk page [1]. Sometimes it looks like @Pristurus: is the only one who active work on the MotD. So it is a little wonder we have a fresh video every day, thanks to @Pristurus: . So I think any suggestion is welcome and a single person can not think about all possible opinions about a video. --Slick (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an additional nice hint, the video was nominated since 2014-01-07. [2] Where was the opinions about this before it was on the mainpage? Who was interessting in this? --Slick (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slick: you are right @Pristurus: has done a fantastic job, and I hope he will continue to do so. It is, of course, disappointing that The ed17 (talk · contribs) has simply used the hard work you both have been doing as an opportunity to take an ill-formed and sensationalist swipe at Commons and its editors. Keep up the great work guys. russavia (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ill-formed and sensationalist? It's completely neutral except for the quotation from the mailing list, which is clearly marked as one user's opinion. Powers (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slick & Pristurus: I know both of you and there is not even any slight doubt about your intentions. I too hope both of you continue your contributions. Jee 12:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel quite comfortable here in our wiki-universe. Objective criticism and different opinions are part of a living community. So things must and will go on, I don´t see any reason for a resignation... --Pristurus (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TELİF HAKKI SORUNU

Her yüklediğim fotoğraf telif hakkı nedeniyle silinyor.Başka Şimdiye kadar yüklenen resimler sılınmıyor bazıları kaynak yazmamış silinmemiş.Siz benim yaptığım tasarladığım fotoğrafı bile silmişsiniz telif hakkı nedeniyle bir çözüm söyleyin lütfen.Kendi yaptığım logo'da silinmiş. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohaorhan (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

translation from the Turkish:

COPYRIGHT ISSUE

I have installed on each photo uploaded so far because of copyright silinyor.başk not delete photos I've done some sources silinmemiş.siz design has not delete the pictures I've even said a solution because of copyright logo I made was deleted at the lütfen. (automated tranlsation by Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Another Google translation: I have installed siliny Each photo is copyright grounds. Until now, some other source has not uploaded files are not deleted undeleted. You can even delete the pictures I've designed what I do because of copyright, please tell a solution. In my own logo deleted. -Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohaorh the (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC) - Added by -Htm (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=123738973"