Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.9.232.118 (talk) at 02:20, 3 September 2007 (Position of search box and searches). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

i dunno where to put this, but how can i get a wiki 4 my website?-Iluvu1991 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main Page discussion footer

16:10, Thursday, November 7, 2024 (UTC)

Sections of this page older than three days are automatically archived.

Shortcuts

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 16:10 on 7 November 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 or determined not to be an error, or the item has been 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.
Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

I suppose my 2nd concern is the same as the above ones, in that the wording for the Senate victory should include the election article for clarity. The current blurb doesn't flow well, as it is discussing two separate (but related) elections. Natg 19 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Can you (or anyone) make a specific suggestion what the blurb should be? Schwede66 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue above is that 2024 United States Senate elections does not even meet WP:ITNQUALITY with a sufficient prose update covering the results. Perhaps it's IAR-worthy as a US election, but mentioning the Senate is treating the presidential blurb as a WP:COATRACK without the ITN norm of requiring the related Senate page be up to par before mentioning it in the blurb. My suggestion remains: Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election and the Republican Party is set to take control of the Senate. —Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the senate elections from the Trump blurb. Bagumba, as you are an admin, feel free to action these things yourself. When you edit the main page boldly, you sometimes get reverted, but that's life. Nobody will chop your head off, though. Give it a go, my friend. Schwede66 07:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Admittedly, I lean more towards strength in numbers when it comes to fully-protected pages, and then moreso when broadly construing WP:INVOLVED. —Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Schwede66 07:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Presidential and Senate elections were just some of the many elections held on this day. We have an article 2024 United States elections which covers them all and that might be worth considering if we want to help readers find all the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New- new!
Suppression of a discussion - can mean, for example, embarrassment or confusion on the part of those affected.195.244.164.66 (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Nov. 6, 2024 DYK states Vivian Stranders is a "British-born Jew" who became an officer in the SS ,,, nothing in the main article suggests this Nazi was born a Jew or ever practiced Judaism. This person was an officer in the RAF who became a German intelligence asset and then a German and a Nazi officer. Again, the DYK is wrong. Better might be DYK " Vivian Stranders was a British -born RAF officer who became a German spy and a Nazi officer." —68.129.185.93 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't mind I added an "a" before "German" in that suggestion. Art LaPella (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per article "Stranders was Jewish and some of his SS colleagues suspected him of being a British spy." The ref 31 supporting has "Vivian Stranders, an Englishman who had served in the British Army [...] Astonishingly enough, this long-standing British member of the NSDAP and SS was also Jewish — a fact known to at least some of his colleagues" (no page numbers available) JennyOz (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I do find difficult to understand is why somebody thought this topic met WP:QUIRKY. RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that the embassy of the Philippines in Bucharest is the country's first mission in the Eastern Bloc?

"Was" is more grammatical here: the embassy still exists, but the Eastern Bloc doesn't, and we tend to talk about "firsts" in the past tense, even when the subject is alive (e.g. "Barack Obama was the first black person elected president".) UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(November 8, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(November 11)
Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD



Main page general discussion

Malvinas

Despite general opinions and point of views, the fact that the Falkland Island are claimed by Argentina can't be ignored in the featured picture text. Take into account that in Argentina, these islands are legally and officially considered part of the Argentine territory.--cloviz 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it has been ignored. The fact is, whilst Argentina recognizes them as their Islands, the rest of the world (more or less) recognizes them as British territory, including Britain. What other people think of the Island is largely wishful thinking. Tourskin 05:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... yeah it can. Do we say, "Taiwan, a province of the People's Republic of China..."? —Verrai 05:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.*Puts down 10 foot barge pole* --Monotonehell 06:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your arguments. We don't say Taiwan is part of China any more than we say Falklands is part of Argentina. Neither of these two is true. Tourskin 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was refering to the comment about how it can't be ignored by cloviz. Hence the "yeah it can" and his indenting at the same level as you. Atropos 11:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do say Taiwan is part of China. See Taiwan "territories administered by the Republic of China (ROC), which governs the island of Taiwan". We don't however say Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China so Verrai was quite... Nil Einne 11:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was obviously talking about the PRC too. Don't be a pedant. Atropos 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't resist given how worked up about things he tends to get and how he himself likes to nitpick. Plus the fact that he appears to be incapable of following a thread... Also I think it is important people unnderstand there is a big difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. Both claim to be the true China which is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. Failing to differentiate between the 2 can lead to silly statements (even when the meaning is clear) such as "Taiwan isn't a part of China" whereas as I've already said this simply isn't true since both the ROC and the PRC generally consider Taiwan to be a part of China. Nil Einne 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should really know better than to say that. Its a bit uncivil. Atropos 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Atropos, thats what I meant. Taiwan is claimed by PRC but its not owned by PRC. Falklands is claimed by Argentina but its not. Its owned by the UK and governed by itself. Tourskin 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this is completely irrelevant which you would have know if you could follow a thread... Nil Einne 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what u r on about Nil. My point is clear. Taiwan is de facto recognized by the world, even by the PRC as independent. The Falklands Island is recognized by the world, even by Argentina as de facto UK territory. I'm using a comparison here to show that there is no need to say what a minority believe in. Furthermoore, I would like to add that the link on the picture "Falkland Island" had a section about the War in the 80's so it can be known from there what Argentina's views on the Island are.Tourskin 01:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're all agreeing with each other! Tourskin, you are just saying exactly what Verrai said right at the top. Everything else has been people agreeing with each other in an argumentative fashion :) Why not agree to agree and leave it at that? Skittle 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never! I will immediately march back to my HQ and prepare a pre-pre-emptive defensive measure against any potential pre-emptive strike against the Falklands - HAIL RULE BRITANNIA!Tourskin 02:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because Nil Einne is being unnecessarily rude towards Tourskin. Atropos 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nil, I didn't see teh comment above , and good thing too because I would not have given the humorous reply that some users on this page have been asking me to give. I'll do my best not to let your comment get to me. Tourskin 21:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan does not consider itself a part of the PRC, if thats what you meant. When I say China, I mean the real China of the PRC, the one that is recognized by the vast majority of the world. The ROC is more commonly known as Taiwan, I know this from personal experience from personal experience in England. No one entertains any plans of Taiwan being annexed by the PRC. Thats why the US maintains a presence in the region, to stop China from getting a little to excited. Tourskin 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Puts down 20 foot barge pole*~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! I badly needed a good laugh! In this case the legal truism still applies: Possession is nine-tenth's of the law! Shir-El too 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.000.000 articles

Any forecast for when this will happen? How many articles where added since yesterday?--88.82.47.45 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing a week. When we got to the one million mark a large amount of articles were created right at the end by people trying to create the one millionth article. --Banana 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing we need is an army of unverified stubs ruining our day. Tourskin 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to stop the deluge is to abolish DYK and replace it with FLs hahaha --Howard the Duck 06:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's that page with people betting on what will be the 2000000th article? Capuchin 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool.-gadfium 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hijack this thread, I was planning to wait a while longer but since someone brought this up. Do we have an agreement yet on what, if anything we will post when we reach 2 million? It would be better to reach consensus now rather then have an edit war on that day. The last discussion fissled out without any real consensus Talk:Main Page/Archive 105#2 million article Nil Einne 11:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - we need to decide on something a little while before the 2 million point's reached. Also, would it be put up as soon as 200000 is passed, or when there is a consistent count never falling below 2 million (the same policy which stands for moving Wikipedias around in the "Wikipedia languages" section). I'm totally up for sticking my proverbial oar of opinion in. Benedictwest 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed at least 3 times in the past couple of weeks but nothing has come of it. It's not really that big a deal considering the actual stats regarding the quality and content of the vast majority of those articles. Wake me when we reach 1,000,000 FAs ;) - Oh I know, when we reach 2,000,000 articles, let's change the main page banner to read "Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 1,555 quality articles and lots of stubs." ;)

But seriously the best idea so far has been the wording on User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test --Monotonehell 14:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but I clicked "existing articles" and got an album by Donny Osmond. If you can fix that then i'm all for it. :p Capuchin 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess it will happen in one or two days from now, so we need some message to display then. Is some news article prepared for wikinews? A press release? The wording of User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test seems ok, design also more or less. I find the link for existing articles confusing and the linking from contributions to the actual contribution page should be faster. If anyone wants to read more, there is lot of information available, if not, just let him/her contribute. --Ben T/C 18:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of two days from now? One or two weeks more likely IMHO. Also what do you mean "linking from contributions to the actual contribution page should be faster"? Nil Einne 10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to relaize that not all articles are destined to become the best FA's ever. Some of these articles are very specific or are short because there simply is no material. Therefore 2 million is a big deal, just not that big a deal. I suggest what others before have suggested, just leave a not at the top like " wikipedia thanks its contributors for over 2 million articles". Someon has laready suggested this, its not boasting but its nice to know.Tourskin 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat reluctant to respond but hopefully you won't take offense since none was intended. No one said we want all articles to be the best FA ever. However the vast majority of articles should be able to reach FA status. If not, they may need to be merged with other articles. Bear in mind there's nothing wrong with an FA being short provided it is well written, comprehensive & meets the other FA requirements. Also, I think the bigger issue is not that we expect every article to be an FA but that many people including me feel there is currently too much emphasis on quantity rather then quality and that if we are going to mention the 2 million articles (a quantity statistic), we should at least encourage editors to think about quality. Note that we currently have around 1600 FAs and 2800 GA. And it's not just the small number of FA and GA but that most articles don't even come close to being resonable quality. Also I originally copied the "wikiepdia thanks..." part in the test on my page but it was changed because some editors pointed out that wikipedia doesn't thank anyone, it can't it's not a sentient entity. Nil Einne 10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just place it at the bottom to appease the quality over quantity hawks. --Howard the Duck 02:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I thought 1 million was significant, but 2 million isn't really. 5 might be, 10 certainly will be, but 2 million isn't even much of a round number Modest Genius talk 14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess its just no big deal. We're just part of a culture who enjoy celebrating reaching such large and "round" or should I say "nice" numbers. I mean, how many of you huys felt a difference between 1999 Dec 31st and 1998 Dec 31st? It was all in the mind. Tourskin 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nil, I aint offended anymore, I'm over it for now.Tourskin 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant before in my comment, the link named contributions in the box should directly go to a page, where you can contribute (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising), instead of a page telling you about contributing (Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia). If people want to contribute and click the link, don't give them all the fuss.
Then, wikipedia is growing, which is good – even though some say its big enough (though it's not paper?). Seemingly an endless discussion... To cut it short, most of us calculate in decimal systems, is a number that is round and nice and putting some notice on the main page won't hurt, I hope we can agree on this. --Ben T/C 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say linking to Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is better than a link to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising. Contributing money is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia. In fact contributing your time to improve articles is equally as important as providing funds to support the system. The page outlines all the ways one can contribute. --Monotonehell 13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everything in BOLD TEXT with IE6?

Wikipedia was fine. Today I go to Wikipedia with IE6 on Windows XP with SP2 and all current updates and ALL the text is bold. It's fine with Firefox 2.0.0.6, Netscape 8.1.2 and Netscape 7.2. The text is bold ONLY in IE6 and it is ONLY Wikipedia displaying all bold text. IE's font size is set to MEDIUM, which is the default. Far as I know, IE6 has no way to set all text to display as bold and certainly does not have site-specific font setting capability. I WILL NOT INSTALL IE7 ON THIS COMPUTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 09:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

JUST USE FIREFOX INSTEAD. IT'S BETTER -- 81.155.70.18 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHAHA, that's a little to the point, but funny none the less... -seconded KeineLust90 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal. Maybe it's fixed or I don't install all of the updates. --Howard the Duck 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, I had an image to show (Image:Bold IE6.png) but it was just my IE6's font size set to large for some reason.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you Bizzybody? Nil Einne 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The font looks like it's set to Arial Black rather than just being bold, because the normal bold text is the same weight as the text that's not supposed to be bold. I just checked with Wordpad and Word, no problem using normal Arial. Something's screwed up with IE6, causing it (and only it) to substitute Arial Black for Arial on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably Adobe Type Manager Deluxe having something to do with it. I want to use Multiple Master fonts and though XP has builtin support for PostScript fonts, it doesn't for Multiple Master fonts without ATM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I herd somthing about this. Its a general IE6 bug. get Internet Explorer 7, beats the butt out of firefox and IE6 - Download link EvilHom3r 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia for mobile devices, tiny screens and poor bandwidth

Is it possible to add a mobile device access page natively in Wikipedia? I think its ridiculous to have to go to a 3rd party provider. The initial page could consisit entirely of a tiny wikipedia logo and a search box. Content pages could use very slimmed down graphics (or links to the graphics)and minimal formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.229 (talk) 20:19, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

We already have several alternatives that might be what you are looking for. Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (PDA version) and Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (text only) both might be suitable. The full list of alternative Main Page designs is at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. Raven4x4x 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you could try Wapedia. ffm 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um isn't that precisely what 158 was complaining about? Nil Einne 08:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Wikipedia

Just relaying a note from the miscellaneous Village Pump: the Catalan Wikipedia (article, link) now has over 75,000 articles. I believe this means that they get bumped up a spot on the Main Page ;) congrats to contributors there. GracenotesT § 06:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non-controversial Main Page change

Could we list the previous five FA's rather than just the previous three? (I would even go for previous 7 but the titles would run over too many lines I think.) This would be more helpful to people who only access the net on weekends, or editors who only occasionally check the Main Page. Can we please not get into too much discussion about this, its a fairly simple suggestion that doesn't need to wait for the next Main Page redesign. Please cross-post if there's somewhere more appropriate for this to go. Zunaid©® 08:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, discussion is going to be made of it. That is the way of Wikipedia. I think 5 is a fair idea, but 7, especially if the 7 happen to each be fairly long (or even if only a couple are fairly long), would clutter things up too much. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the balance between different screen resolutions. What is too cluttered for one person may be too spread out for another. The current arrangement is presumably a balance. Carcharoth 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the small benefit of doing this outweighs the introduction of it taking up two lines on most occasions for many readers. violet/riga (t) 09:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Zunaid has a very good point here. I also think three is a bit too few, but space is, obviously, an issue; however, we could discuss using the white space available on the following line prior to the Archive/E-mail/More links. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will look strange or even ugly if we make it so the list of FA's continues onto the left of the Archive/Email/More line Nil Einne 11:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to take into consideration is that the left hand side of the page is longer then the right, a good 99.9% of the time. Do we really need to make it longer?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If listing five items threatens the left/right balance, just make the FA write-up shorter by two lines. That is the most (on a low-res screen) that the extra two links will take up so at worst we are in exactly the same place. BTW violetriga, I use a large font setting so the list is almost always over two lines for me. It does not look ugly. Can we not just trial this over a week, say, and take it from there based on how complaints do/don't come in? Zunaid©® 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this kind of the whole point of having archives? Capuchin 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my thought also. There's a link to every previous TFA, as well as a link to all FAs. Even on my 22" screen there's only a little room left on that line, I'd hate to see it at lower resolutions. Perhaps move the archive link onto the same line and rename it "Previous featured articles" Would that help? --Monotonehell 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if there were five (seven) previous listed, but in smaller type? I agree with the general thought, just pondering on how to lose a potential problem. For stats sake - I have a 17 inch CRT @ 1024x768. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image in blurb for tomorrow's FA

Non-free image in blurb for tomorrow's FA (1st September):Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 1, 2007. Hopefully this can be discussed and settled before tomorrow to avoid unseemly reversions throughout the day. Carcharoth 08:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, just use Image:Indiafilm.png. --Peta 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a little low-quality and vague to the article for the main page in my opinion. Also - its an animation. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, it's not an animation. It's pretty obviously an icon representing Indian film. Also it is better than nothing; which is the other option. --Peta 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But it not a real image, is what I mean. You can't tell me its an actual photograph of something real. I suppose it is better than nothing... I dont care either way. Whatever is decided... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know a better option! – Atropos 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think nothing is better than an uninformative or related image. --- RockMFR 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could use a photo of Gandhi, the spirit/image of whom is suggested in the blurb to be a significant part in the film, but such usage would, I think, be a bit odd and not preferred to our including no image at all (the same thinking would disfavor our using an image of Manmohan Singh, whose depiction would, inasmuch as he appears to be of only tangential relevance to the topic, be even less sensible). Joe 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should just use an image from (*gasp!*) the film itself. The notion that fair-use is not allowed on the main page is based on fuzzy precedent at best (one misinformed edit by Jimbo). There just happen to be a lot more anti-fair-use cops than there are sensible people who understand that an encyclopedia is supposed to inform its readers. But I'm beating a dead horse, as I lack the willpower to edit war over the template all day like the fair-use cops do. — Brian (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should note that I agree with you entirely with respect to the use of fair-use media on the main page; my suggestion was made only in view of the community's not yet having reached a consensus for the conferring of an NFCC exemption on the main page (and, ultimately, one hopes, for all portal pages, at least under certain conditions). Joe 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Talk:Main Page § Featured Article image

New design for page

I think we need an all-new main page design. This design has been here so long that a variant is required. Your input is requested. Laleena 13:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its a bit boring now but it is effect and simple, dont think many would agree with a change. I'd personally like to see a bit more style, a modern and slick layout --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure that change for change's sake is reason for change, look at Google's main page. If you can think of some material problems with the main page design and pose solutions for their cure that would be a different story. Bear in mind that a simple layout is required for accessibility reasons (people with disabilities, people in areas without broadband and so on) --Monotonehell 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would improve the look is if we figured out how to make the titles of DYK and OTD be exactly opposite each other, balance always improves a webpages look. Maybe use 4 divisions instead of 2?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current design was implemented in March 2006 after several months of discussion and input from the community (see the final vote). A new redesign would have to go through a similar process. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the current design is excellent. Don't fix it if it isn't broken. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? —METS501 (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats more or less what I was thinking yeah. And I think that the fact that the editable version of the pages is identicle bar the one change I suggested should say something pretty obvious.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page wasn't like that until I made it like that to show your change :-) —METS501 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, lol. But irrelevent, what do people thing of this potential edit?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't broken - don't fix it. Nothing wrong with keeping what is functional and usable. People get used to things. Okay, I'm kind of conservative. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
METS501's idea is great, very simple but it looks better. Couldnt an admin just change it like that without consensus or a vote because it makes perfect sense to have the headers lined up --Childzy ¤ Talk 17:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They could, as part of the WP:BRD cycle, but speaking for myself only, I'm happy enough with how it appears at the moment. Having three dynamic boxes allows for easy adjustments to get both halves of the page to match anyway. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's nice to have only two halves (not four quarters) to worry about, and it actually looks much worse to have a large amount of blank space in the middle of the page than it does to have it at the bottom. (I remember this from the redesign process.) We also would lose the stylistic advantage of having two thematically-related sections in each of two columns. —David Levy 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but those adjustments never happen; the main page is always out of balance, always. Now I'll admit from the offset that I find order to be the first step to perfection, but ever since I first started using Wikipedia my eyes are drawn to the misalignment between the two headers. I'm pro METS501's example as well, could we arrange for one of those Support/Oppose/Neutral votes to see what the general opinion of this is? Or better yet, just make this change and see how people react on the talk page.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, such adjustments frequently are made. The proposed setup would make that far more difficult, and something similar already was discussed and rejected during the aforementioned redesign. —David Levy 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is the main page constantly out of balance? And the tweek to the design would help, not make it more difficult, if there’s space in the box, add another item/sentence, it’s as simple as that. This is Wikipedia’s main page, its only edited by admins, a.k.a experienced editors. I'm fairly sure they can overcome any minor issues I'm not seeing, to make the first page English users will see look ordered, and hence better.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main page isn't "constantly out of balance" for most users, but it's impossible to balance it for everyone. (You seem to be under the impression that it looks the same to all users, but that isn't the case.) We do our best to make it look as good as possible, and the proposed change would make that more difficult. Right now, we can try to roughly balance the page under the average user's settings, but there always ends up being some blank space at the bottom of one column for some users. Under the proposed setup, we'd have twice as many boxes to worry about, we'd no longer be able to compensate for a long/short section by editing the one diagonally opposite (and chance anomalies of this nature no longer would cancel each other out), and some users would end up with blank space in two boxes (often in the middle of the page). —David Levy 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes blank space would still exist, that is called physics, but having a grid of boxes would mean that there would be a small amount of space in one or two boxes, instead of a chunk of space on one side, like the current page provides an example. The proposed look would mean that everyone, in any browser, on any system, on any platform, would have balance on the main page, where under the current system, almost no one has a perfect grid, I’m perfectly aware that websites look different on different systems as I move around a lot during the day in my line of work, but in my spare time at any of those locations, I read and edit Wikipedia, on the available system, and I never see it as a perfect grid.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there would be much more blank space with 5 seperate sections then with two... Also keep in mind that font size, screen size, window size, and many other factors determine how much blank space there is to individual users. Move your settings out of 600 x 800 and you'll see that it's not that bad... As for redoing the main page, that just happened 6 months ago, and it really doesn't need to happen yet again. I would be happy to see the focus go to the search box, but any further tweaks are really un needed --T-rex 01:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the current design was introduced in March 2006.  :-) —David Levy 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. You seem to be missing the point that under the current setup, a long/short On this day... section can cancel out the imbalance caused by a long/short Today's featured article section. Likewise, a long/short In the news section can cancel out the imbalance caused by a long/short Did you know... section. (And this sometimes occurs by chance.) Instead of worrying about the lengths of four separate boxes, we need only deal with two. All of that would be lost under the proposed setup. As a result, a user who currently sees approximate balance might instead see two boxes containing empty space (including one at top).
2. You must have a different definition of "balance on the main page" than I do. That's the only explanation for your statement that "everyone, in any browser, on any system, on any platform, would have" it. I assume you're referring to alignment of the heading bars, which isn't what most of us mean. (We're referring to a lack of empty space.) No one is attempting to create "a perfect grid," as the consensus (when the page was redesigned) was that a lack of wasted space is preferable (and that the current layout is more aesthetically pleasing). —David Levy 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I just restored two items to the In the news section to compensate for the long Did you know... section (which probably was lengthened to compensate for the short Today's featured article section). Under the proposed setup, none of that would be possible. —David Levy 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't use 800x600, I use 1680x1050 on two seperate screens, so I can see the page under greater resolutions that 99% of users, so could you please stop making assumptions about me, if you need to know something to make your point, ask, because your assumptions really dont seem to be on target much. Secondly, of course thats my definition of balance, why would I argue for the layout I'm trying to get corrected? And thirdly, if its impossible to balance the page under both definitions then way is the example of whats being proposed (linked above by METS501) balanced under both definitions, wheres the actualy main pages is still unbalanced on the left side?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 09:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. It would be helpful if you'd type individual replies (or at least note the names of the users to whom you're responding). T-rex implied that you were using the 800x600 display resolution, but someone reading the above might assume that you were addressing one person.
2. I wasn't criticising your definition of "balance." I was noting that it apparently differed from others' definition (to explain why there appeared to be some confusion).
3. Who said that it was "impossible to balance the page under both definitions"? Again, what you (or I) see is not what everyone sees.
For me, the actual main page's columns currently are fairly balanced (by my definition), with just a small amount of excess space at the bottom of the On this day... section [screen capture]. In the proposed layout, the heading bars line up, but a large amount of excess space is present at the bottom of both the On this day... section and the Today's featured article section [screen capture]. —David Levy 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so in others words both layouts would be more or less the same in pro's and con's, couldnt we set up one of those Support/Oppose/Neutral votes to see what a general opinion on this is, because so far only a handful of people have talked about it. With you, David Levy, and I presenting most of the arguments.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 14:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want more opinions? OK. I read websites in column format like this, which frequently fail to have the headers lining up. I don't find this a problem at all, and would support keeping the two column format rather than switching to a four quarters format. Because the main section of the Wikipedia main page is a compact set of 4 roughly equal units in two columns, it sometimes appears that the aim is to have the headers balanced, but as David points out, it isn't. The aim is to minimise wasted space at the bottom of the columns. PS. Who is the "you" you are responding to? Carcharoth 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Several cons have been cited. Are there pros other than the aligned headings?
2. Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
3. I am David Levy, so I share Carcharoth's confusion as to the identity of "you." —David Levy 16:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to get things neat & tidy on the main page is good, but don't complain too much when the two sides on the main page are off by just a little bit on one computer monitor. It's probably fine on another. It depends on font size, resolution, screen width.... etc. As long as the two sides are not grossly unbalanced, giving Wikipedia a sloppy appearance, it's fine. Don't fix things when things ain't broke. --74.14.17.10 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polling may not be a substitute for discussion, but it is an easy method for people to give their opinion without flying off on tangents, such as people’s apparent inability to recognise the use of a comma, as a short pause in a sentence, instead of just a mechanic to list elements, which I’m afraid, is not its only use, and yes, I’m well aware that a semicolon can serve the same purpose. The other pros are that the apparently unavoidable space that exists is split amongst the sections instead of one side having a large space, irrelevant of what side it is to each user, because as I've said already I view Wikipedia on several different monitors throughout my day and am perfectly aware that it appears differently from user to user . Pro number three is that the page would be guaranteed some geometric conformity and hence would be more aesthetically pleasing. Now, before anyone decides to introduce another irrelevant tangent, I referred to my second mentioned pro as number three, because David Levy already mentioned one above.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. The only "tangents" are yours. You could have resolved the honest misunderstanding by politely explaining that "you, David Levy" was a single entity. (Better yet, you could have avoided the ambiguity by instead placing "David Levy" in parentheses. Actually, given the fact that you correctly indented and addressed only one person, there was no need to specify my name at all.)
2. The excess space is not unavoidable. We usually are able to reasonably minimize it for most users, and the proposed change would render this considerably more difficult. Additionally, under the current layout, it's impossible for more than one section to contain excess space, and said space always appears at the bottom of a column. The proposed layout would enable two sections (one of which always would be on top) to contain excess space.
3. You say that you're "perfectly aware that it appears differently from user to user," but you claimed that the proposed layout was "balanced under both definitions, wheres the actualy main pages is still unbalanced on the left side" (as though this applied to everyone).
4. As I noted, previous discussion resulted in the consensus that the current design is more aesthetically pleasing (because it reduces the likelihood of wasted space and pairs two thematically-related sections in each column). —David Levy 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Im afraid that tangent would be yours, not mine, I had no part to play in you "honest misunderstanding" other then that I wrote the source material.
2. Ive already admitted that space would still exist, but under the proposed layout, that space would be cut in half by the division, so the "minimised amount" would appear even smaller.
3. I've also already said that I view Wikipedia under different aspects everday, so any opinions I give on its current appearance is based on a common element between these viewings, not a single viewing. The monitor I mentioned above is the one I use to respond to these messages.
4. The new layout would help minimise wasted space for the reason mentioned in point 2. Here is an example: [[1]] and [[2]]
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Misunderstanding what someone wrote and inquiring as to its meaning isn't a "flying off on a tangent." Berating the misunderstander for failing to understand is.
2. At best, some of the excess space would be shifted upward (resulting in additional scrolling for some users). At worst, the amount of excess space would be greatly increased.
3. And yet, you're continually citing characteristics that don't apply to everyone. You even claimed that "the left hand side of the page is longer then the right, a good 99.9% of the time."
4. Again, the new design would not help to minimize wasted space. It would hinder the effort.
In your examples (in which your red box significantly overshoots the actual excess space on the current main page), some of the excess space has been shifted upward (thereby pushing down the Did you know... section). To eliminate said space, we would need to edit two sections (instead of one). We'd have to remove text from In the news or add text to Today's featured article (most likely the former) and remove text from On this day.. or add text to Did you know... (neither of which is something that we like to do). Under the current layout, we could simply remove text from In the news (as I just did). For the reverse situation (in which the right-hand column contains excess space), we can simply add text to In the news. This is the usual course of action (because it's very easy to add/remove ITN items without interfering with the main page's overall format).
In my examples (current layout/proposed layout), the suggested change creates a large amount of excess space (because the diagonal offset has been eliminated). Instead of having a fairly balanced main page (under typical settings), we have two sections that need to be addressed. Instead of doing nothing, we have to edit two sections (including one that we prefer not to substantially modify between replacements).
And as I explained, the consensus was that the current design is more aesthetically pleasing. Even setting aside the issue of excess space, it features two color-coded columns, each of which contains two thematically-related sections. Under the proposed layout, that would be lost. —David Levy 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Gül

can we get his ugly mug off the main page? please? --24.252.52.108 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is not up to you whether his picture is "ugly" or not. Second, please request a feasible replacement if you are really dissatisfied with the picture. —METS501 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to do is get some supermodels involved in an international incident, preferably in bikinis... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because you feel that the picture is "ugly" is not good a good enough reason to remove his picture. The news still happened, and he was still involved, and we still need an image in the section. Suggest an alternative if you want a change. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget we need a photographer there to take a free photo. And let's throw in some hunks as well for all the straight chicks and gay guys Nil Einne 08:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page seems to unfailingly get a complaint whenever a picture (invariably an ugly one, of course) is on the main page for "too long" :) GracenotesT § 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could have Alberto R. Gonzales? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Why don't we have a contest: which image, when displayed on the Main Page, will bring protests here the quickest? (Besides fair use, advertising, or tubgirl.) GracenotesT § 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No porn pics, please. --74.14.16.66 04:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be very weird. I've suggested a DYK which illustrated the DYK section with the a page (with pictures) of a book of erotic fiction, and History of erotic depictions was featured on the main page last year. Atropos 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about grotesque porn photos that happen to be copyvios as well ? --74.14.16.66 05:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. International models in an international incident. Sounds like Miss World gone ugly!!!Tourskin 07:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say about such a contest is "THINK OF THE DOMIKUN!!!" Nil Einne 09:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought people were complaining about the person being ugly? How is replacing the image with an even uglier one going to help? Nil Einne 08:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (beer holder). --Monotonehell 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Miss world gone wrong will still have models fighting, so it wnt be that ugly.Tourskin 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the International Day of Peace

As far as I can see, the English Wikipedia does not even mention this on its start-page. :( Why? --87.176.133.7 10:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the International Day of Peace is September 21. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article image

Why is there no image for the Featured Article? Because it's being used under Fair Use? Is there something that stops Wikipedia from having a Fair Use image on the Main Page???--Basisplus 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is not currently acceptable on the main page, even though there is neither consensus nor a good reason for this stance. Atropos 19:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
?? Then nothing should be holding back the images! This isn't cool.--Basisplus 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last time an image could not be used due to fair use, there was a discussion about the policy, I just can't seem to find the page. The discussion did not reach a consensus though. --Credema 21:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about the policy has moved to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#TFA/Main Page exemption, revisited although it seems to have died. What is clear is that there is no consensus either way and both sides claim each side lack solid arguments. The no fair use side claims that the current policy is to disallow all fair use and so we need to reach a consensus to change it. The side that supports fair use on the main page claims that the old exemption was improperly removed and as such current policy should be to allow fair use unless we achieve consensus to remove it. What is clear is that we can't change policy without consensus either way. As such we have an uneasy stalemate which seems to have held this time that fair use is removed but those who support it claim that it should be there. Nil Einne 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Talk:Main Page § Non-free image in blurb for tomorrow's FA

Australian Equine Flu

It didnt stop all racing, so todays trivia is false220.239.20.242 02:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to specify that it was a nationwide ban (implying Australia). --- RockMFR 02:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please use WP:ERRORS next time. Thanks. --74.13.129.88 06:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

To maintain consistent quality in all our featured article, I propose that every featured article automatically be re-reviewed every year to make sure that it maintains signicantly high enough standards to keep its position —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have over 1,500 featured articles, roughly 5 a day every day, with that number increasing all the time. Reviewing them all regularly seems a tad Sisyphean to me. Would you care to volunteer for the task? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, users may post a request on Wikipedia:Featured article review, but no, there is no current system in place yet where all 1,500+ featured articles are posted there automatically each year. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, there is about 1 FAR started each day. As of this post, there are 1570 Featured articles, so far this year, there have been an average of 63 articles promoted each month. With 4 more months left, there may be 252 more articles promoted this year. if we start this process next year, we will review about 1800 articles which corresponds to 5 article reviews beginning every day. If each FAR lasts 5 days (and they can often take much longer), there may be 25 reviews going on at any given time. If the average number of FAs added every month stays constant (and it actually seems to be increasing), the year after next we will need to start 7 reviews every day, the year after that, 9 reviews (which would correspond to 45 in progress at any given time). Yearly reviews would quickly become backlogged. Mr.Z-man 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Facts?

How does wiki make sure that there are no false facts being posted and that people aren't just creating articles just for the heck of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.163.168 (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We always check what has been written with an internet wide search, and than, if nothing is found, we nominate it for deletion, and there, if someone has found something, they could bring it up there. Dreamy \*/!$! 14:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally every article should be based on facts which should be referenced and multiple parties will check the references to ensure the claim is supported by the reference. However this does not always happen and you should not assume it has happened. As such, when doing research particularly for academic or professional purposes you should use the article at most as a starting point and do you own reading particularly of references. You should treat unreferenced claims as dubious and are welcome to tag them as unreferenced; or remove them altogether particularly if it's a claim about a living person or if your own knowledge perhaps from the reading you've done suggests it's BS. Bear in mind that encylopaedias are never a good source for academic or professional writing/presentations anyway. Also simple doing an internet search is not really sufficient in many instances to determine if something is likely to be true or false. Many sources use wikipedia without acknowledgement and just because other people say something doesn't mean it's true. It is important that you make sure the sources are reliable. Also the fact that you can't find something on the internet doesn't automatically mean it's false. There is still a lot of stuff that isn't on the internet and for certain subject matters not finding anything on the internet is mostly meaningless. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:General disclaimer. In short, there is no way that 'wikipedia' (which isn't even a sentient entity) or its editor's can make sure that no false facts are being posted or that people aren't just creating articles for the heck of it. We do have various ways we try to catch such problems and all people are welcome to help in that regards but there is no guarantee Nil Einne 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial suggestion

To make it more clear whats being pictured, can we have the word pictured in bold text like this: pictured on the Main Page. I think it would catch a readers eye and so quickly inform them as to what is pictured rather than just having to read thru all the text. Tourskin 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Position of search box and searches

I think the search box sahould be moved to a more accessible position near the top right hand corner of the page or at least have the cursor already placed in the box just like google. also the search function is crappy and definetly needs to be upgraded so that it recommends pages and suggests alternative spellings.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=155328899"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy