This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 105 | ← | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | → | Archive 115 |
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 |
I just added Palladium Plaza Shopping Mall article. Do you like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasLord ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm totally strange to this thing of discussing the front page, my apologies if somehow I did something wrong. -- Extremophile 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed a strange image in the place of a Knights templar image....IT says in the image that "Please upload something..."...whats up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyoraish ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all wikipedians for all good articles! 80.217.65.124 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
How awesome is it that the Knight's Templar is the main article the same time as the Vatican releases transcripts of the trials. Cool, eh? - Viola sk8 1976 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The picture in DYK today is disgusting. Marlith T/ C 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
NOT CENSORED, NOT CENSORED! Amit@ Talk 13:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of you may be aware of the proposal for today's featured list, which is crashing and burning its way into the land of the rejected. However, it appears that some support existed for the general idea of featured lists on the Main Page. As such, I, and some other editors, thought that this, more general discussion deserved its own time. You can contribute to the discussion at this subsection of the Village Pump. Thanks. IvoShandor 04:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The Hindi Wikipedia doesn't appear in the "Wikipedia in other languages" list at the left. Is there any way to add it? Amit@ Talk 12:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi how about we add a review part on pages about media and toys/models. eg. films/music/formats/computer and bord games/toys/figers/tv shows , and so one. if you have seen/got the thing in qustion then you add to the review secshon your opinium. Anyone up for it? JosephK19 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We have a lead on Intelligent design, and then a headline mentioning the Armenian Genocide. Yikes! Hires an editor 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any connection between this and the fact that Truthiness is scheduled for the main page on October 17,... Maybe it's "truthiness week", or something? Editors might want to be on the lookout for another round of vandalism by Stephen Colbert (hint: PROTECT THE ELEPHANT ARTICLE!) Dr. Cash 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The bleeding hearts that control Wikipedia couldn't stand to see Battleship and Knights Templar as featured articles so they lasted about 10 minutes each. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Why I see every next day featured article about American pop group? I wounder whether there is really such big demand to read about pop groups pruthvi 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
i have a question about the "today's featured articles question": in the section when they say "today's featured articles", do they mean it is a new featured article, or a featured article long ago? Jimblack 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)jimblack
Why has there been so much stuff regarding Nazism and the Holocaust on the main page recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.144 ( talk) 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the article featured on the main page chosen at random? It seems kind of fishy that
Truthiness has a place of honour today when Stephen Colbert has just released a new book. ...
discospinster
talk
12:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know what's going on with Wikipedia:Main Page? I have my browser set to Main Page/Tomorrow, and that's been moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. But when I go back from there to Wikipedia:Main Page, and click on history and talk, I still get the Talk:Main Page and 'Main Page' history. What's going on? From what I can tell Wikipedia:Main Page has the tabs pointing at Main Page. Does that sound right? Carcharoth 15:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The Olaudah Equiano page is blank, I assume it's vandalism. I can't fix it myself I'm too new... so that needs to be fixed. Anyway, is there a place to report vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.149.14 ( talk) 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 64.191.210.200 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Texas The Education section has been vandalized with "which is composed primarily of suck and lose. The school district is so terrible, that students such as Ryan Ladner withdraw from it and homeschool themselves, leaving ample free time to vandalize Wikipedia pages." and I am too new to this on how to report properly or correct actions to follow. It took me almost 20 minutes to find this area for posting so I hope it works. 64.191.210.200 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a serious Pirates of the Caribbean addict, as you can probably tell. I was wondering, if we'd like to make a request for the "featured article" can we do so? If so, I'd like Jack Sparrow to be the main article. BlackPearl14 —Preceding comment was added at 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you show the actual article on the main page. For example, Jack Sparrows page. This didn't really get anywhere near the answer to my question, sorry. But thanks for the info. Oh, and, User:Mr.Z-man, that's a bit obsurd, no offense meant. BlackPearl14 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it wise to have England national rugby union team as the featured article on the same day that England plays in the Rugby Union World Cup final - regular updating, especially this evening, when the match begins, will mean that the article will be very unstable, even for a main page FA. Additionally, with the entry Scrum (rugby union) in DYK, we will probably end up with TFA, DYK and ITN all referencing rugby union today - something specifically advised against in Main Page guidelines. Laïka 10:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
"Generally speaking, preference will be given to requests [...] that are particularly relevant to a given date (especially major anniversaries)." - WP:TFA/R
Look I support England fully today and of course naturally want them to win but this featured article for england is a POV. It is contrary to the fundamental principles of wikipedia. If it was an article on rugby union or the world cup fine but it is actions like this which make wikipedia look a laughing stock when it extresses so often that "neutrality" is one of the major goals 81.102.25.233 13:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Raikkonen looks pensative on the photo. I think instead a photo of somebody who has just become world champion should convey more happiness. How about this one instead? -- Ben T/ C 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry if this is not the place to request this. Could the caretakers of this page please add an 'InterWiki' link on the English main page to the Ido language 'Main Page'? That page may be found at http://io.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontispico Thank you. AnFu 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the lead section of the article at Kiwifruit and suggest the caption be changed accordingly. The final sentence here is a bit lame. Suggested final sentence: Originally known as the "Chinese Gooseberry" or "Melonette", the fruit was renamed for marketing reasons after the country's national symbol due a passing similarity to the small, furry-looking creature. -- mikaul talk 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Please? I know theres an article but I don't know how to get it up there. Tourskin 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Over at the Village Pump, I have raised the idea of adding a box about the 2008 Summer Olympics to the Main Page next year. I would like to ask all of you to join the discussion and share your thought about this, on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Olympics on the Main Page. A ecis Brievenbus 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I was going to ask this at the help desk, but it is not a question about using wikipedia, so I will ask it here. I once was Chipka, but I stopped using Wikipedia for a very long time (it might have been a year or more), Now I want to start up again, but when I tried to log in it would not let me. I am almost positive I have the right passward, so I'm wondering if wikipedia will get rid of an user if he stopes editing for a long time or something. Thanks for any responce. 76.189.123.239 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hoe do you get rid of it? Ive cleared my cache several times but it is still staring at me. It is annoying and distracting. I can't even read whatever language they're saying. Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.227.133 ( talk) 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/?title=Special:NoticeLoader&action=raw
At least could the languages be identified - might as well "learn a factoid". Jackiespeel 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, translate them or omit them, its very silly. Brando130 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to read all the different things people have said when they contributed? 71.56.155.117 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
How do I edit it? The line in spanish has 3 spelling mistakes.-- 84.108.69.102 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
How about adding "[[ Category:Main Page]]" and "[[ Category:Main Page alternatives]]" to the bottom of the page? WAS 4.250 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the inherent heat that surrounds anything remotely to do with Israel on Wikipedia, I anticipate an increased volume of vandalism on tomorrow's Main Page article. -- Dweller 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I get we need to raise funds, but the animated text in the "ad banner" what you don't know about us is incredibly, incredibly distracting. It needs to go.
Sdedeo (
tips) 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Problem solved with a "dismiss". Thanks team!
Sdedeo (
tips)
23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, if there must be something animated, at least make it cross-fade instead of scroll. – Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wait until someone donates and adds cuss filled/racist/sexual comments
BTW, am I the only one who has problems playing the video? Maybe it's from the high amount of traffic. Paliku 22:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Who the heck thought putting an animated, scrolling piece of crap on the main page -- no wait, on every page -- was a good idea? The way it jitters nauseates me if I try to read it. -- FOo 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is actually the right forum for discussion, since this box appears on all pages, not just the Main Page. The only thing I could find on the Village Pump, though, was this short query, unanswered as I type. I certainly agree that the box as it is now is awfully distracting. I certainly have not the slightest intention of making a donation if this type of non-turn-off-able advertising remains. It's simply unacceptable not to have a "dismiss" button. Loganberry ( Talk) 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments: 1. The code is
here. 2. It uses a <marquee> tag. (Help!) 3. It can be hidden with table.fundraiser-box {display : none; }
.
Gracenotes
T §
23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict: Doesn't look like the administrators will be able to help... the banner is loaded from m:Special:NoticeLoader, powered by an extension that was installed at Meta. In other words, it's hard-coded into the site now. Well, at least Jason Calacanis can't say we don't know about advertising. – Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What a pathetic thing to do. Try to encourage donations yes, but people are now going to be adding the hide option to their personal CSS in droves. violet/riga (t) 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It makes the site completely unusable. Where do we protest? Also, the monobook fix doesn't seem to work for me. Espresso Addict 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone mentioned objectionable comments above, I'm particularly fond of the bit saying thank you for telling me the truth about 9/11 scrolling across the main page. Narco 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all- the scrolling is a nightmare. Will be implementing the fix asap. Badgerpatrol 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested a way for the administrators here to add an opt-out link or something using JavaScript. At least we should be able to turn off the ticker. – Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia was one of the very few sites where I never needed to use AdBlock+. Until now. I fully understand you pursue a very noble goal, but the kind of advertising method you chose to employ is simply NOT acceptable for any reason whatsoever. Please consider the the fact that annoying visitors is simply not a good way to plea for their help. 24.83.195.130 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So bringing a complaint here yields "sorry, it's hard coded" and bringing a complain here yields "this is about wikipedia, not us". Wikipedia really has been taken over by corporate interests, they've got customer support pat!
I personally agree the scrolling needs to stop, but at least there is a dismiss option (I can definitely see how it would be unbearable without one). Where is the proper place to discuss the content of the banner? I would like to weigh in, as first impressions are important on a behemoth project like wiki. Halond 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Whose idea was this? It was a terrible one. Pacific Coast Highway { Trick • or treat!} 23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
div#siteNotice {display:none}
in your monobook.css. Lord Dreamy tm 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't even know anything about the marquee code, I just used the one above. Lord Dreamy tm 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been resolved. Apparently, I'm a bit of an idiot :) Many thanks all. -- Bfigura ( talk) 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems to work! Espresso Addict 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't help mentioning: this is not only about scrolling, the presentation is tasteless - the yellow polo over black t-shirt... the beard... the close-up of his eyes and hands, ugh, and then it abruptly goes back to reply this over and over. With so many volunteers around, could someone do a better job? it looks like a mock-up of a Steve Jobs' keynote presentation. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have even looked at that ad, naturally tuning it out, if not for the fact that I was so disgusted with the idea of Wikipedia having ads. Then I thought "They must be in dire straights to put in ads, maybe I'll click it" then I realised what it was. Surely a better idea could have been found than this? -- 69.138.69.107 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If this is the english wikipedia, why do we have messages from people who donate funds in different languages; surely they should be translated? Is it time for another fundraising event?-- Hadseys 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Plus it's really ugly.. :/ — jacĸrм ( talk) 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Fundraising is unfortunately necessary, but the ugly banner is not. If we can design a better banner, we can replace it. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Dragons flight 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't like that message up there and wish it were gone but for some reason the link takes you to a blank page in IE6?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abpfs ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There were two issues today:
We now have a "Report a problem" link on the new donation site so these things will be more traceable.-- Eloquence * 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)...
Josh: I actually love it, especially the random quote every time!
I think "Wikipedia's sister projects" on the main page should read "Wikipedia's sister projects (the rest of the library)". WAS 4.250 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the header should be changed from "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." to "The free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." -- Coaster geekperson 04 00:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Why have shocking pictures been featured recently on the main page? First there was the one showing the hideously scarred back of a black slave, and now we have one of a pit of Holocaust victims (with one more about to be shot.) These are NOT the kind of images most people want to see in the "cover" of an encyclopedia; I'm not saying they articles, where people would find them only if they're intentionally looking for them. Is this part of some agenda? How are featured images decided on anyway? - Wilfredo Martinez 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That still doesn't justify the use of shocking pictures as featured images. I have the Main Page set as my default homepage, because I enjoy reading news and facts as soon as I log in every day. Pictures of mayhem are NOT what I want to see here, and I'm reasonably sure most people don't either. If anything, this shows very poor judgment. Just write me down as opposing this - Wilfredo Martinez 13:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I am with Wilfredo.. Nobody is disputing that terrible things happen or arguing that Wikipedia, et al, should shy away from them. The argument is that "shocking" images should not be posted on the Main Page. The reason is that there is no warning or preview or choice involved when a user accesses the Main Page. Put it another way, if you type "holocaust" into the search bar, you cannot complain if you read about and see photos of atrocious things. But if you come to the homepage, you have no prior warning of what it might contain. No news site would do this and neither should we. There are children accessing this site, for goodness sake... -- Oscar Bravo 10:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
To Bazza, Re: definition of "shocking": Stop playing the smug Philadelphia Lawyer and put yourself in the position of an educated 12-year-old. We all know what's shocking and a picture of dead bodies and someone with a gun to his head is one of them.-- Oscar Bravo 07:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is an essential read. If you haven't read it already, do so. I'm not going to throttle the rate of FPC promotions just because someone thinks the image I am about to promote may be offensive. That way, nothing will be promoted. Featured Pictures aren't politically correct and will never be (at least while I am there). MER-C 09:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Images are just a representation. They can not be shocking in and of themselves. People feel shocked when confronted with ideas they would prefer to suppress. When children eat dead bodies (eg chicken) they feel and touch and taste those murdered dead bodies. Once I saw children acting grossed out at a cat eating a bird so I reminded them that they eat chickens which are birds too and they were immediately non-grossed out now that they could relate. Children see what some would call child porn when they look in the mirror naked; it's all about context and meaning and ideas. Taboos and emotional response to images are all defined by the ideas one holds in their mind. There can be no objective determination of which images are shocking. WAS 4.250 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with censoring is that once it starts, there's no end to it. So given a choice, I'd rather be occasionally shocked than protected for my own good. Besides, we all have a choice: we can refrain from viewing WP. Shir-El too 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
'cause then there'd be eleven. Macbi 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Lol thats funny... we are human and that is our history. If you don't like it then you can't even watch the news, turn it on right now and you'll see 10 stories of shootings or car accident related deaths guaranteed, your parents were to sheltering to you as a child. Catherine the Great does not deserve her title 23:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Im 15 and I use Wikipedia all the time for homework and such like. Persionally I dont find these sort of images offencive, but thats just me, i know and advise children of 12 and younger to use this source, and am quite sure that they get upset by these pictures, there 12 for christs sake! They will have nightmares! Something needs to be done, censoring, as some have mentioned, seems a bad idea as it is too time consuming, I think that the page where the pictures that are going to be shown on the main page had options, for example boxes form 1-5 where each person looking at them could say weather they though the picture sutiable or not, then tehy would get censored quickley and easily. However, i also think that there needs to be a definition for shocking, as theres a picture of a big spider on the main page atm, and many adults would find it "horrible" or "grotesque" there for some order needs to be sorted out. Soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie-yippedy ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
ukrainian wiki has got already more than 75 000 articles -- Riwnodennyk 09:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the Ukranian link up to the next level. As for the missing entries - the Volapük, Lombard, Newar / Nepal Bhasa, Cebuano, and Telugu Wikipedias were removed from the list a few weeks ago due to mostly being bot-created and not really having much quality/depth (for example, check out a random Volapük's page). --- RockMFR 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I can change any content in this page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.79.211 ( talk) 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
2002 - Ho Chi Minh City ITC Inferno, a fire destroys a luxurious department store with 1500 people shopping. Over 60 people died and over 100 are missing. It is the deadliest disaster in Vietnam during peacetime. Why isnt it in on this day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Also day of the Dead
That should be an ocean quahog clam. 139.62.127.95 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
According to Long Island, it too is over 3,000 sq.miles - it's not listed anywhere in the List of islands of the United States by area article either?!? SteveBaker 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, a quick inspection at Google Earth will show Long Island is longer than PR, but PR is wider. -- Howard the Duck 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry people but I really must object to this article appearing on tomorrow's main page. It's just a group of unsourced stubs, for the most part, linked into one article. If this is the standard wikipedia is setting itself in 2007, then we're going to face speedy criticism. I understand this standard was acceptable until about mid-2004 but come on people, the criteria for featureship has become much more concrete since then. This article should be de-listed as a featured article, and I object in the strongest possible terms to it appearing on tomorrow's main page -- Hadseys 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Another example of why having one person unilaterally decide anything on Wikipedia is a bad idea. I am sure this thought is not popular, as Raul is well-liked. This comment is not an affront to him, but to the idea that one person should be deciding anything in a supposed community, especially about the Main Page's content. IvoShandor 05:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Many refs have been added, we'll keep working. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The referencing seems poor for an FA, but we're featuring it tomorrow. There's no way we could reach a valid consensus in that time. If anyone's interested, here's a link to the FA discussion, and the peer review. Puchiko ( talk • contribs • email) 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen worse articles so stop complaining and start donating!! Tourskin 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 105 | ← | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | → | Archive 115 |
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 |
I just added Palladium Plaza Shopping Mall article. Do you like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasLord ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm totally strange to this thing of discussing the front page, my apologies if somehow I did something wrong. -- Extremophile 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed a strange image in the place of a Knights templar image....IT says in the image that "Please upload something..."...whats up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyoraish ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all wikipedians for all good articles! 80.217.65.124 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
How awesome is it that the Knight's Templar is the main article the same time as the Vatican releases transcripts of the trials. Cool, eh? - Viola sk8 1976 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The picture in DYK today is disgusting. Marlith T/ C 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
NOT CENSORED, NOT CENSORED! Amit@ Talk 13:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of you may be aware of the proposal for today's featured list, which is crashing and burning its way into the land of the rejected. However, it appears that some support existed for the general idea of featured lists on the Main Page. As such, I, and some other editors, thought that this, more general discussion deserved its own time. You can contribute to the discussion at this subsection of the Village Pump. Thanks. IvoShandor 04:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The Hindi Wikipedia doesn't appear in the "Wikipedia in other languages" list at the left. Is there any way to add it? Amit@ Talk 12:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi how about we add a review part on pages about media and toys/models. eg. films/music/formats/computer and bord games/toys/figers/tv shows , and so one. if you have seen/got the thing in qustion then you add to the review secshon your opinium. Anyone up for it? JosephK19 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We have a lead on Intelligent design, and then a headline mentioning the Armenian Genocide. Yikes! Hires an editor 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any connection between this and the fact that Truthiness is scheduled for the main page on October 17,... Maybe it's "truthiness week", or something? Editors might want to be on the lookout for another round of vandalism by Stephen Colbert (hint: PROTECT THE ELEPHANT ARTICLE!) Dr. Cash 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The bleeding hearts that control Wikipedia couldn't stand to see Battleship and Knights Templar as featured articles so they lasted about 10 minutes each. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Why I see every next day featured article about American pop group? I wounder whether there is really such big demand to read about pop groups pruthvi 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
i have a question about the "today's featured articles question": in the section when they say "today's featured articles", do they mean it is a new featured article, or a featured article long ago? Jimblack 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)jimblack
Why has there been so much stuff regarding Nazism and the Holocaust on the main page recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.144 ( talk) 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the article featured on the main page chosen at random? It seems kind of fishy that
Truthiness has a place of honour today when Stephen Colbert has just released a new book. ...
discospinster
talk
12:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know what's going on with Wikipedia:Main Page? I have my browser set to Main Page/Tomorrow, and that's been moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. But when I go back from there to Wikipedia:Main Page, and click on history and talk, I still get the Talk:Main Page and 'Main Page' history. What's going on? From what I can tell Wikipedia:Main Page has the tabs pointing at Main Page. Does that sound right? Carcharoth 15:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The Olaudah Equiano page is blank, I assume it's vandalism. I can't fix it myself I'm too new... so that needs to be fixed. Anyway, is there a place to report vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.149.14 ( talk) 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 64.191.210.200 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Texas The Education section has been vandalized with "which is composed primarily of suck and lose. The school district is so terrible, that students such as Ryan Ladner withdraw from it and homeschool themselves, leaving ample free time to vandalize Wikipedia pages." and I am too new to this on how to report properly or correct actions to follow. It took me almost 20 minutes to find this area for posting so I hope it works. 64.191.210.200 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a serious Pirates of the Caribbean addict, as you can probably tell. I was wondering, if we'd like to make a request for the "featured article" can we do so? If so, I'd like Jack Sparrow to be the main article. BlackPearl14 —Preceding comment was added at 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you show the actual article on the main page. For example, Jack Sparrows page. This didn't really get anywhere near the answer to my question, sorry. But thanks for the info. Oh, and, User:Mr.Z-man, that's a bit obsurd, no offense meant. BlackPearl14 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it wise to have England national rugby union team as the featured article on the same day that England plays in the Rugby Union World Cup final - regular updating, especially this evening, when the match begins, will mean that the article will be very unstable, even for a main page FA. Additionally, with the entry Scrum (rugby union) in DYK, we will probably end up with TFA, DYK and ITN all referencing rugby union today - something specifically advised against in Main Page guidelines. Laïka 10:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
"Generally speaking, preference will be given to requests [...] that are particularly relevant to a given date (especially major anniversaries)." - WP:TFA/R
Look I support England fully today and of course naturally want them to win but this featured article for england is a POV. It is contrary to the fundamental principles of wikipedia. If it was an article on rugby union or the world cup fine but it is actions like this which make wikipedia look a laughing stock when it extresses so often that "neutrality" is one of the major goals 81.102.25.233 13:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Raikkonen looks pensative on the photo. I think instead a photo of somebody who has just become world champion should convey more happiness. How about this one instead? -- Ben T/ C 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry if this is not the place to request this. Could the caretakers of this page please add an 'InterWiki' link on the English main page to the Ido language 'Main Page'? That page may be found at http://io.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontispico Thank you. AnFu 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the lead section of the article at Kiwifruit and suggest the caption be changed accordingly. The final sentence here is a bit lame. Suggested final sentence: Originally known as the "Chinese Gooseberry" or "Melonette", the fruit was renamed for marketing reasons after the country's national symbol due a passing similarity to the small, furry-looking creature. -- mikaul talk 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Please? I know theres an article but I don't know how to get it up there. Tourskin 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Over at the Village Pump, I have raised the idea of adding a box about the 2008 Summer Olympics to the Main Page next year. I would like to ask all of you to join the discussion and share your thought about this, on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Olympics on the Main Page. A ecis Brievenbus 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I was going to ask this at the help desk, but it is not a question about using wikipedia, so I will ask it here. I once was Chipka, but I stopped using Wikipedia for a very long time (it might have been a year or more), Now I want to start up again, but when I tried to log in it would not let me. I am almost positive I have the right passward, so I'm wondering if wikipedia will get rid of an user if he stopes editing for a long time or something. Thanks for any responce. 76.189.123.239 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hoe do you get rid of it? Ive cleared my cache several times but it is still staring at me. It is annoying and distracting. I can't even read whatever language they're saying. Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.227.133 ( talk) 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/?title=Special:NoticeLoader&action=raw
At least could the languages be identified - might as well "learn a factoid". Jackiespeel 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, translate them or omit them, its very silly. Brando130 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to read all the different things people have said when they contributed? 71.56.155.117 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
How do I edit it? The line in spanish has 3 spelling mistakes.-- 84.108.69.102 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
How about adding "[[ Category:Main Page]]" and "[[ Category:Main Page alternatives]]" to the bottom of the page? WAS 4.250 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the inherent heat that surrounds anything remotely to do with Israel on Wikipedia, I anticipate an increased volume of vandalism on tomorrow's Main Page article. -- Dweller 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I get we need to raise funds, but the animated text in the "ad banner" what you don't know about us is incredibly, incredibly distracting. It needs to go.
Sdedeo (
tips) 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Problem solved with a "dismiss". Thanks team!
Sdedeo (
tips)
23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, if there must be something animated, at least make it cross-fade instead of scroll. – Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wait until someone donates and adds cuss filled/racist/sexual comments
BTW, am I the only one who has problems playing the video? Maybe it's from the high amount of traffic. Paliku 22:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Who the heck thought putting an animated, scrolling piece of crap on the main page -- no wait, on every page -- was a good idea? The way it jitters nauseates me if I try to read it. -- FOo 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is actually the right forum for discussion, since this box appears on all pages, not just the Main Page. The only thing I could find on the Village Pump, though, was this short query, unanswered as I type. I certainly agree that the box as it is now is awfully distracting. I certainly have not the slightest intention of making a donation if this type of non-turn-off-able advertising remains. It's simply unacceptable not to have a "dismiss" button. Loganberry ( Talk) 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments: 1. The code is
here. 2. It uses a <marquee> tag. (Help!) 3. It can be hidden with table.fundraiser-box {display : none; }
.
Gracenotes
T §
23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict: Doesn't look like the administrators will be able to help... the banner is loaded from m:Special:NoticeLoader, powered by an extension that was installed at Meta. In other words, it's hard-coded into the site now. Well, at least Jason Calacanis can't say we don't know about advertising. – Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What a pathetic thing to do. Try to encourage donations yes, but people are now going to be adding the hide option to their personal CSS in droves. violet/riga (t) 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It makes the site completely unusable. Where do we protest? Also, the monobook fix doesn't seem to work for me. Espresso Addict 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone mentioned objectionable comments above, I'm particularly fond of the bit saying thank you for telling me the truth about 9/11 scrolling across the main page. Narco 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all- the scrolling is a nightmare. Will be implementing the fix asap. Badgerpatrol 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested a way for the administrators here to add an opt-out link or something using JavaScript. At least we should be able to turn off the ticker. – Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia was one of the very few sites where I never needed to use AdBlock+. Until now. I fully understand you pursue a very noble goal, but the kind of advertising method you chose to employ is simply NOT acceptable for any reason whatsoever. Please consider the the fact that annoying visitors is simply not a good way to plea for their help. 24.83.195.130 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So bringing a complaint here yields "sorry, it's hard coded" and bringing a complain here yields "this is about wikipedia, not us". Wikipedia really has been taken over by corporate interests, they've got customer support pat!
I personally agree the scrolling needs to stop, but at least there is a dismiss option (I can definitely see how it would be unbearable without one). Where is the proper place to discuss the content of the banner? I would like to weigh in, as first impressions are important on a behemoth project like wiki. Halond 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Whose idea was this? It was a terrible one. Pacific Coast Highway { Trick • or treat!} 23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
div#siteNotice {display:none}
in your monobook.css. Lord Dreamy tm 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't even know anything about the marquee code, I just used the one above. Lord Dreamy tm 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been resolved. Apparently, I'm a bit of an idiot :) Many thanks all. -- Bfigura ( talk) 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems to work! Espresso Addict 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't help mentioning: this is not only about scrolling, the presentation is tasteless - the yellow polo over black t-shirt... the beard... the close-up of his eyes and hands, ugh, and then it abruptly goes back to reply this over and over. With so many volunteers around, could someone do a better job? it looks like a mock-up of a Steve Jobs' keynote presentation. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have even looked at that ad, naturally tuning it out, if not for the fact that I was so disgusted with the idea of Wikipedia having ads. Then I thought "They must be in dire straights to put in ads, maybe I'll click it" then I realised what it was. Surely a better idea could have been found than this? -- 69.138.69.107 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If this is the english wikipedia, why do we have messages from people who donate funds in different languages; surely they should be translated? Is it time for another fundraising event?-- Hadseys 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Plus it's really ugly.. :/ — jacĸrм ( talk) 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Fundraising is unfortunately necessary, but the ugly banner is not. If we can design a better banner, we can replace it. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Dragons flight 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't like that message up there and wish it were gone but for some reason the link takes you to a blank page in IE6?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abpfs ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There were two issues today:
We now have a "Report a problem" link on the new donation site so these things will be more traceable.-- Eloquence * 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)...
Josh: I actually love it, especially the random quote every time!
I think "Wikipedia's sister projects" on the main page should read "Wikipedia's sister projects (the rest of the library)". WAS 4.250 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the header should be changed from "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." to "The free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." -- Coaster geekperson 04 00:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Why have shocking pictures been featured recently on the main page? First there was the one showing the hideously scarred back of a black slave, and now we have one of a pit of Holocaust victims (with one more about to be shot.) These are NOT the kind of images most people want to see in the "cover" of an encyclopedia; I'm not saying they articles, where people would find them only if they're intentionally looking for them. Is this part of some agenda? How are featured images decided on anyway? - Wilfredo Martinez 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That still doesn't justify the use of shocking pictures as featured images. I have the Main Page set as my default homepage, because I enjoy reading news and facts as soon as I log in every day. Pictures of mayhem are NOT what I want to see here, and I'm reasonably sure most people don't either. If anything, this shows very poor judgment. Just write me down as opposing this - Wilfredo Martinez 13:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I am with Wilfredo.. Nobody is disputing that terrible things happen or arguing that Wikipedia, et al, should shy away from them. The argument is that "shocking" images should not be posted on the Main Page. The reason is that there is no warning or preview or choice involved when a user accesses the Main Page. Put it another way, if you type "holocaust" into the search bar, you cannot complain if you read about and see photos of atrocious things. But if you come to the homepage, you have no prior warning of what it might contain. No news site would do this and neither should we. There are children accessing this site, for goodness sake... -- Oscar Bravo 10:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
To Bazza, Re: definition of "shocking": Stop playing the smug Philadelphia Lawyer and put yourself in the position of an educated 12-year-old. We all know what's shocking and a picture of dead bodies and someone with a gun to his head is one of them.-- Oscar Bravo 07:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is an essential read. If you haven't read it already, do so. I'm not going to throttle the rate of FPC promotions just because someone thinks the image I am about to promote may be offensive. That way, nothing will be promoted. Featured Pictures aren't politically correct and will never be (at least while I am there). MER-C 09:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Images are just a representation. They can not be shocking in and of themselves. People feel shocked when confronted with ideas they would prefer to suppress. When children eat dead bodies (eg chicken) they feel and touch and taste those murdered dead bodies. Once I saw children acting grossed out at a cat eating a bird so I reminded them that they eat chickens which are birds too and they were immediately non-grossed out now that they could relate. Children see what some would call child porn when they look in the mirror naked; it's all about context and meaning and ideas. Taboos and emotional response to images are all defined by the ideas one holds in their mind. There can be no objective determination of which images are shocking. WAS 4.250 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with censoring is that once it starts, there's no end to it. So given a choice, I'd rather be occasionally shocked than protected for my own good. Besides, we all have a choice: we can refrain from viewing WP. Shir-El too 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
'cause then there'd be eleven. Macbi 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Lol thats funny... we are human and that is our history. If you don't like it then you can't even watch the news, turn it on right now and you'll see 10 stories of shootings or car accident related deaths guaranteed, your parents were to sheltering to you as a child. Catherine the Great does not deserve her title 23:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Im 15 and I use Wikipedia all the time for homework and such like. Persionally I dont find these sort of images offencive, but thats just me, i know and advise children of 12 and younger to use this source, and am quite sure that they get upset by these pictures, there 12 for christs sake! They will have nightmares! Something needs to be done, censoring, as some have mentioned, seems a bad idea as it is too time consuming, I think that the page where the pictures that are going to be shown on the main page had options, for example boxes form 1-5 where each person looking at them could say weather they though the picture sutiable or not, then tehy would get censored quickley and easily. However, i also think that there needs to be a definition for shocking, as theres a picture of a big spider on the main page atm, and many adults would find it "horrible" or "grotesque" there for some order needs to be sorted out. Soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie-yippedy ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
ukrainian wiki has got already more than 75 000 articles -- Riwnodennyk 09:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the Ukranian link up to the next level. As for the missing entries - the Volapük, Lombard, Newar / Nepal Bhasa, Cebuano, and Telugu Wikipedias were removed from the list a few weeks ago due to mostly being bot-created and not really having much quality/depth (for example, check out a random Volapük's page). --- RockMFR 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I can change any content in this page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.79.211 ( talk) 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
2002 - Ho Chi Minh City ITC Inferno, a fire destroys a luxurious department store with 1500 people shopping. Over 60 people died and over 100 are missing. It is the deadliest disaster in Vietnam during peacetime. Why isnt it in on this day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 ( talk) 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Also day of the Dead
That should be an ocean quahog clam. 139.62.127.95 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
According to Long Island, it too is over 3,000 sq.miles - it's not listed anywhere in the List of islands of the United States by area article either?!? SteveBaker 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, a quick inspection at Google Earth will show Long Island is longer than PR, but PR is wider. -- Howard the Duck 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry people but I really must object to this article appearing on tomorrow's main page. It's just a group of unsourced stubs, for the most part, linked into one article. If this is the standard wikipedia is setting itself in 2007, then we're going to face speedy criticism. I understand this standard was acceptable until about mid-2004 but come on people, the criteria for featureship has become much more concrete since then. This article should be de-listed as a featured article, and I object in the strongest possible terms to it appearing on tomorrow's main page -- Hadseys 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Another example of why having one person unilaterally decide anything on Wikipedia is a bad idea. I am sure this thought is not popular, as Raul is well-liked. This comment is not an affront to him, but to the idea that one person should be deciding anything in a supposed community, especially about the Main Page's content. IvoShandor 05:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Many refs have been added, we'll keep working. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The referencing seems poor for an FA, but we're featuring it tomorrow. There's no way we could reach a valid consensus in that time. If anyone's interested, here's a link to the FA discussion, and the peer review. Puchiko ( talk • contribs • email) 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen worse articles so stop complaining and start donating!! Tourskin 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)