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 120 | ← | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | → | Archive 130 |
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 think that there should be a link to the mobile / WAP version in a prominent position on this page. The reason is that many people ask for a mobile version on OTRS, and even journalists specialized in IT stuff do not know it exists. Any opposition ? David.Monniaux ( talk) 17:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be possible, using CSS, to only display a message to handheld devices. Using something like:
@media all {
#mainpage-wap-notice { display:none }
}
@media handheld {
#mainpage-wap-notice { position:absolute; z-index:100; right:55px; top:10px; display:block; }
}
we could display something wrapped in a <div id="mainpage-wap-notice"> only to users using a handheld device, assuming they are CSS2 compatible. The above code would display the notice in the same location as the protection icons, regardless of its position in the wikitext. Mr. Z-man 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've just answered on OTRS a person using a Palm Trēo. Apparently our normal site does not work for him, while our WAP site works.
This may sound like a bold request, but I think the WAP link should be in the top section of the page, under "Welcome to Wikipedia". That is, where people can see it. David.Monniaux ( talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Could this be on my end maybe? Pleasee see screenshot: http://members.cox.net/tjswoboda/Wikipedia.jpg TJSwoboda ( talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
DYK has an expression error in the lbs field -- Lemmey talk 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not report to WP:ERRORS? -- 74.13.129.34 ( talk) 13:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The image used by the main featured Article Image:George I of Great Britain.JPG has been nominated for deletion since 16 May 2008 on commons due to [ [2]]. Should we have this image on the main page on that basis? GameKeeper ( talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Link for George I directs to a Disambiguous (sp?) page. Team4Technologies ( talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Put a picture of one of the tornadoes in the news section. There's a good one in the tornado outbreak article. Wrad ( talk) 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Wrad ( talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What about a section for languages above 750,000 articles(German wikipedia recently overstepped this border)?-- Edroeh ( talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Flag of Canada from the main page leads to a hacked page? Ozdaren ( talk) 08:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the text on the Main Page is too dense and overwhelming. It's not this kind of text density is bad, but for a front-page welcoming page, I think it is.
Is it possible to space the elements and maybe remove or reduce text or elements which aren't absolutely essential to the Main Page? 217.132.3.125 ( talk) 01:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems like every time I log in there's a lovely high-resolution photograph of insects. No offense to the photographer (often fir002 I believe), but perhaps he could expand his repertoire a bit? Wikipedia included -- I hope -- a bit more than entomology-related subjects. Maybe images other than photographs would be a good idea. Maps, graphics, ect. Apologies if this has already been addressed. Sammermpc ( talk) 03:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
--three insect photos since May 1. Doesn't seem like an exorbitant amount to me. 202.131.182.41 ( talk) 08:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The death of the American journalist in In the news. Really, this is not the place for information on someone who is of no interest or importance outside the US. In the news has become very US-parochial recently. The Boy Scouts killed by a tornado - internationally newsworthy? I don't think so. There are tornadoes all the time in the US - do we need to report every single one? And to be brutal - four deaths is hardly newsworthy internationally. How come we don't report every death of four or more people from other parts of the world? I suspect this is to do with systemic bias of the editors choosing ITN entries - my guess is that they are probably American. Seriously, this makes Wikipedia look very silly. 81.156.175.234 ( talk) 10:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Tim Russert is internationally well known enough to make the ITN, but Arthur C Clarke and Heath Ledger weren't?? Sorry can't agree! 202.131.182.41 ( talk) 09:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Putting Tim Russerts death on the Main page goes to show just how bais wikipedia really is. It is very sad and pathetic. If he was not American it would never have made it. So unless you are an American your death is not important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.45.34 ( talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The below was also posted on discussion under DYK section. Another article in that section suggested that this is the place to post content discussion and suggestings for that section.
I noticed there have been a lot of posts in the DYK section on Scientology. Recently 'Battlefield Earth' was a featured article. Is Wikipedia’s homepage being used to educate the public about scientology? I thought DYK articles were supposed to be thoughtful and engaging. The fact that L Ron Hubbard wrote a score for a movie is neither. The scientology facts are not interesting at all, and seem to be reoccurring. The other facts presented are usually very intriguing. When there are so many facinating things about the world I don't know, why would wikipedia waste valuable educational space for garbage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.48.146 ( talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this, sorry if this is not the correct location, but it is rather sad to see that Wikipedia has such a poor article on Ali Al-Naimi, the Saudi Oil minister, who is probably the most influential person in the world right now, what with the food price crisis. Some experienced Wikipedians should really work on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.123.4 ( talk) 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Today's featured article has red writing (Expression error: Unexpected < operator in) after "The fruit can grow up to 30 centimetres" D0762 ( talk) 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've put {{ convert}} back onto the TFA. If anyone sees Expression error: Unexpected < operator appear again on the Main Page, please report it here. --- RockMFR 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
We may want to take into consideration the items listed under 'On This Day' when determining the Featured Topic for that day. It is a little surprising to see the Canadian Flag as the Featured Article on June 14th, which is America's Flag Day. Although this sticks out, it serves as a reminder to avoid what could be worse - featuring one country or religion on the day held in importance for another country or religion when the two do not get along. Wilm1998 ( talk) 21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm...it's past that day now...wonder what the Featured Article of TODAY is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycwhiz ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an admin of Esperanto Wikipedia, and we just reached 100,000 articles. Is there any way you could put us in the appropriate list at the bottom of the main page ? Thank you beforehand ! Thomas Guibal ( talk) 10:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Is Esperanto still growing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.92.21 ( talk) 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I had a brief look through the main page FAQ, and saw nothing on this. Should articles be semi-protected that appear on the main page? It seems that vandalism rates spike on alot of the articles when they achieve fame on it, and can give mis-represented views on people looking on pages off there. While there is no damage to the main page itself, i believe it could help the project on the whole. I am very sorry if this has already been suggested, which i am pretty sure it will have been, however i thought i should ask. Thank you, Metagraph comment 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Understood, Didn't see that policy (what a weird acronym.) I realise that wiki's policy is that anyone can edit, i just thought it might be a good idea. I see that policy is disputed though.. maybe we'll see some changes soon. Maybe not. Oh well, thanks everyone! Metagraph comment 07:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is the picture of Tiger Woods still the primary news image given? The story was three days ago and has moved down, it's confusing to continue seeing this pic as the primary one of the current news day. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The current FA, The World Without Us is lacking an image on the main page (the book cover is ineligible for obvious copyright reasons). May I suggest this image. It perfectly illustrates both the content (the author talks at length about Chernobyl) and subject matter (city without humans), and would fit easily into the lead. Cheers, Mostlyharmless ( talk) 02:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Good picture and relevant. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
What follows was arbitrarily removed by a newcomer who complained about anti-americanism. This is not meant that way, but as a complaint about the often lopsided news coverage and that point stands. What was removed was this.
Cheers Þórður Breiðfjörð ( talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The Barrack Obama DYK is not neutral. Come on people, were in the middle of a US election, we really don't want to use the main page to advertise who campaigns for what. Tourskin ( talk) 17:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I count 4 DYK's with the common thread of them being part of the National Register of Historic Places. Just an observation.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipedia and not the US Wikipedia and so I don't think that mentioning just one of the US presidential candidates (given that both are US Senators and hence have some notability) is non neutral. It won't have any affect on the way that I vote, or for that matter any other citizen of the UK (or Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, the Philippines, St Lucia, Nigeria, Barbados, etc).
I don't think that a mention in Wikipedia's DYK will influence many voters, however it would, IMO, be a bit dumb to comment on one candidate and not the other just before the election date, not because of bias but because of perceived bias. This far away from the election date however I cannot see any problem.
FerdinandFrog ( talk) 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay to add an "in the news" headline about the NHL draft? I was very excited to hear the Macedonian-Canadian Steve Stamkos was picked #1 overall, and since there are alot of "in the news" headlines about sports, I thought that could be one also. Mactruth ( talk) 05:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to have a cut-out of the fake screenshot to accompany the blurb? So that part of the text disappears off the right-hand side but the "Dear valued customer..." and "We have received notice..." is at least readable. I've seen news organisations use screenshots like this plenty of times.
Alternatively I'm surprised no-one thought to draw a quick-and-dirty illustration - you know, a guy in a stereotypical robber's striped jumper and mask sitting by a river, dipping a fishing rod in a pond full of floating dollar signs, something like that. -- 86.147.173.179 ( talk) 10:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Putting an entry about computer-game on the main page demeans the standing of this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The years in the blurb should be formatted "(1922–1969)" without spaces, and without linksper WP:MOSDATE. indopug ( talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Facilitating TFA suggestions, request to unprotect the TFA blurbs and let the community choose them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not strictly Main Page material but it is related to its presentation. First, it strikes me that it's slightly hard to find which is the main article of the sentence. Is it Mars or is it Phoenix. Since I've been using wikipedia for some time, it's obviously not Mars, that'd be an article on it. Perhaps it needs to be somehow more prominently shown. Secondly, shouldn't the main article about it be about a mission finding ice on Mars? It's an article about a craft. -- Leladax ( talk) 23:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I meant to do this earlier, but was caught up with dealing with a load of other things. Anyway, I semi-protected this talk page due a sockpuppetry attack that spilled over from another article. This note is to inform people of that protection, and that since the protection is set to indefinite, any admin may choose to set the protection back to move=sysop after a few hours if they wish, though I do plan to lift my own protection of the page later anyway. Thanks. Acalamari 22:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Not technically an arror, so I'm posting here. As of this revision, the featured picture is a video. I'm not saying people are dumb and would think its a picture, but it somewhat implies that it always has to be a picture to be feautured. We could change the name to Today's Featured Media to include picture and picture. Just a comment. =) -- DA PIE EATER ( talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what's so internationally important about the Amarnath news. Maquahuitl talk! 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
And what does the hook mean by a "land transfer"? Did someone dump a pile of dirt there? There is no context for understanding this news item, nor any link to a larger story. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a small idea. Should sports be split from WP:ITN? Template talk:In the news#Split? Simply south ( talk) 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The main page now displays just an image of some guy. Is this happenning just to me or is the page hacked? Admiral Norton ( talk) 10:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It is amazing how fast the news section is updated now, compared to the infamous "Fernando Lugo picture", that I had become tired of seeing. So I hope that the ITN section keeps up like now and stays that way. Now Wikipedia ITN is not stale, and headlines are changing every day. I'm glad to see ITN updated so regularly.-- J.C. ( talk) 22:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This may be a FAQ but I'm uncomfortable about the way that the photo of Mugabe looks like it's illustrating the story about FARC. There's such a large gap between the photo and the "pictured" text, anyone casually looking at the page will be misled. Which is A Bad Thing for an encyclopedia. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
InTheNews says flights resume? Can I get a refund please? -- Leladax ( talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Nkhotakota is hardly a new article. Did Did you know? bend the rules? MMetro ( talk) 10:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Due to a few comments on IRC, I have started redesigning the main page, here. I would like some more opinion on weather it really needs a redesign. Also, if you agree that it needs a redesign, suggestions are very welcome, and encouraged. -[[Ryan]] ( me) ( talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't see any problems with the page as it is, indeed it's better than a lot of other 'major' sites Modest Genius talk 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the main page of English Wikipedia should re-design and for me, the main page design of English Wikipedia is the worst main page in any major Wikipedia language versions. My suggestion is to add portal lists like in Spanish Wikipedia.-- Joseph Solis in Australia ( talk) 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking at this main page for years and I think it would be a cool idea to feature an editor every day or week. Create a small section in the top that features an active editor and a short motto or introduction to that user. Just an idea I thought I would trow out to you guys. What do you think? I mean, it can be pretty basic and help show Wikipedia's interaction. Thanks, ciao! -- Eric (mailbox) 08:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The In the News coverage about the suicide bombing in Pakistan now has a separate article - Lal Masjid suicide bombing. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As of today, video sequence is present. The currernt section name is misleading.-- Kozuch ( talk) 11:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a main page issue right now. If you want it changed, the logical first step would be to change Wikipedia:Featured pictures. --- RockMFR 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a compromise: We can continue to call " Featured pictures" by its present name, but on the rare occasions that the TFP something other than a picture, we can modify it to say "Featured audio" or "Featured video" on the main page. Lovelac 7 15:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg
, .ogg
, etc.) and changes the headline appropriately. And if that's not an option, it really wouldn't be that big of a pain to change it manually. We don't have that many non-picture TFPs anyway.
Lovelac
7
21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(←)I can understand the objection, but please remember that the word "picture" also refers to film. After all, the Academy Award is Best Picture (not Best Film). The LA Times movie blog is " The Big Picture". And lest we forget, the word " movie" is short for "moving picture". howcheng { chat} 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added necessary CSS classes to MediaWiki:Common.css, and created a version of the main page using the classes rather than hardcoded styles at Wikipedia:Main Page/skinned. The version needs to be thoroughly checked on all browsers to check that it renders identical to the current version, so any assistance in doing so from people with wierd and wonderful browsers would be greatly appreciated. If all is good we can change the main page over after 16:35 August 7 2008. Happy‑ melon 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I did so, and the problems are still there. --
Herald Alberich (
talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Ah, and that would be because the code is gone. Silly me for not reading the whole discussion. --
Herald Alberich (
talk)
23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The new version has extra space underneath each of the five section boxes (e.g., there is extra space between "Did you know..." and "From Wikipedia's newest articles"). This space is visible in FF2 and IE7. --- RockMFR 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This code has been reverted until there's a consensus to add it to the global skin file. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, having thoroughly wacked myself for doing sandbox edits to the 8th most prominent webpage on the net (:D) I've successfully implemented the change I wanted to make. I've changed each link on the top banner from a direct link, into a link to a (protected) redirect page to the original target. I indend to do the same for as many of the other 'static' internal links as possible, and I'd recommend that it be done for today's and future TFA, ITN, FP, etc. Why? For traffic analysis :D. From http://stats.grok.se we can see, broken down by day, how many pageviews any individual page has, but not where they're coming from. For the main page redesign proposal it would be nice to know which of the links on the main page are actually used, and which aren't. Since each click on a link on the main page will now clock up a 'hit' on Wikipedia:Main Page/XXX, in a few weeks time we can revert and have a look at the statistics to see which links are used and which aren't. From a technical point of view, expanding redirects is only about 10% more server-intensive than parsing normal links, so there shouldn't be a problem. Obviously if the change gets reverted by Tim or Brion, we know it's doing more harm than I expected :D. Happy‑ melon 10:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I've now done all the static content. I'm not sure whether, or how, to handle the dynamic content - maybe only redirect the bold headings? Comments? Happy‑ melon 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh. This would be better done with stats collection on the referrers. Any server impact here is not relevant (dunno where whos rear you pulled the 10% number out of... If it were 10% it would need to be reverted :))... but what is relevant is that it will approx. double the time page loads for most viewers since the page load will now take 4x the round trip time between the user and the relevant WMF server, rather than 2x the RTT. No reason to undo this now, but please don't go spreading this approach all over the site. :) -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 18:52, 6 July 2008 (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 120 | ← | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | → | Archive 130 |
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 think that there should be a link to the mobile / WAP version in a prominent position on this page. The reason is that many people ask for a mobile version on OTRS, and even journalists specialized in IT stuff do not know it exists. Any opposition ? David.Monniaux ( talk) 17:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be possible, using CSS, to only display a message to handheld devices. Using something like:
@media all {
#mainpage-wap-notice { display:none }
}
@media handheld {
#mainpage-wap-notice { position:absolute; z-index:100; right:55px; top:10px; display:block; }
}
we could display something wrapped in a <div id="mainpage-wap-notice"> only to users using a handheld device, assuming they are CSS2 compatible. The above code would display the notice in the same location as the protection icons, regardless of its position in the wikitext. Mr. Z-man 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've just answered on OTRS a person using a Palm Trēo. Apparently our normal site does not work for him, while our WAP site works.
This may sound like a bold request, but I think the WAP link should be in the top section of the page, under "Welcome to Wikipedia". That is, where people can see it. David.Monniaux ( talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Could this be on my end maybe? Pleasee see screenshot: http://members.cox.net/tjswoboda/Wikipedia.jpg TJSwoboda ( talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
DYK has an expression error in the lbs field -- Lemmey talk 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not report to WP:ERRORS? -- 74.13.129.34 ( talk) 13:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The image used by the main featured Article Image:George I of Great Britain.JPG has been nominated for deletion since 16 May 2008 on commons due to [ [2]]. Should we have this image on the main page on that basis? GameKeeper ( talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Link for George I directs to a Disambiguous (sp?) page. Team4Technologies ( talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Put a picture of one of the tornadoes in the news section. There's a good one in the tornado outbreak article. Wrad ( talk) 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Wrad ( talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What about a section for languages above 750,000 articles(German wikipedia recently overstepped this border)?-- Edroeh ( talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Flag of Canada from the main page leads to a hacked page? Ozdaren ( talk) 08:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the text on the Main Page is too dense and overwhelming. It's not this kind of text density is bad, but for a front-page welcoming page, I think it is.
Is it possible to space the elements and maybe remove or reduce text or elements which aren't absolutely essential to the Main Page? 217.132.3.125 ( talk) 01:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems like every time I log in there's a lovely high-resolution photograph of insects. No offense to the photographer (often fir002 I believe), but perhaps he could expand his repertoire a bit? Wikipedia included -- I hope -- a bit more than entomology-related subjects. Maybe images other than photographs would be a good idea. Maps, graphics, ect. Apologies if this has already been addressed. Sammermpc ( talk) 03:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
--three insect photos since May 1. Doesn't seem like an exorbitant amount to me. 202.131.182.41 ( talk) 08:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The death of the American journalist in In the news. Really, this is not the place for information on someone who is of no interest or importance outside the US. In the news has become very US-parochial recently. The Boy Scouts killed by a tornado - internationally newsworthy? I don't think so. There are tornadoes all the time in the US - do we need to report every single one? And to be brutal - four deaths is hardly newsworthy internationally. How come we don't report every death of four or more people from other parts of the world? I suspect this is to do with systemic bias of the editors choosing ITN entries - my guess is that they are probably American. Seriously, this makes Wikipedia look very silly. 81.156.175.234 ( talk) 10:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Tim Russert is internationally well known enough to make the ITN, but Arthur C Clarke and Heath Ledger weren't?? Sorry can't agree! 202.131.182.41 ( talk) 09:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Putting Tim Russerts death on the Main page goes to show just how bais wikipedia really is. It is very sad and pathetic. If he was not American it would never have made it. So unless you are an American your death is not important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.45.34 ( talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The below was also posted on discussion under DYK section. Another article in that section suggested that this is the place to post content discussion and suggestings for that section.
I noticed there have been a lot of posts in the DYK section on Scientology. Recently 'Battlefield Earth' was a featured article. Is Wikipedia’s homepage being used to educate the public about scientology? I thought DYK articles were supposed to be thoughtful and engaging. The fact that L Ron Hubbard wrote a score for a movie is neither. The scientology facts are not interesting at all, and seem to be reoccurring. The other facts presented are usually very intriguing. When there are so many facinating things about the world I don't know, why would wikipedia waste valuable educational space for garbage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.48.146 ( talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this, sorry if this is not the correct location, but it is rather sad to see that Wikipedia has such a poor article on Ali Al-Naimi, the Saudi Oil minister, who is probably the most influential person in the world right now, what with the food price crisis. Some experienced Wikipedians should really work on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.123.4 ( talk) 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Today's featured article has red writing (Expression error: Unexpected < operator in) after "The fruit can grow up to 30 centimetres" D0762 ( talk) 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've put {{ convert}} back onto the TFA. If anyone sees Expression error: Unexpected < operator appear again on the Main Page, please report it here. --- RockMFR 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
We may want to take into consideration the items listed under 'On This Day' when determining the Featured Topic for that day. It is a little surprising to see the Canadian Flag as the Featured Article on June 14th, which is America's Flag Day. Although this sticks out, it serves as a reminder to avoid what could be worse - featuring one country or religion on the day held in importance for another country or religion when the two do not get along. Wilm1998 ( talk) 21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm...it's past that day now...wonder what the Featured Article of TODAY is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycwhiz ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an admin of Esperanto Wikipedia, and we just reached 100,000 articles. Is there any way you could put us in the appropriate list at the bottom of the main page ? Thank you beforehand ! Thomas Guibal ( talk) 10:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Is Esperanto still growing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.92.21 ( talk) 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I had a brief look through the main page FAQ, and saw nothing on this. Should articles be semi-protected that appear on the main page? It seems that vandalism rates spike on alot of the articles when they achieve fame on it, and can give mis-represented views on people looking on pages off there. While there is no damage to the main page itself, i believe it could help the project on the whole. I am very sorry if this has already been suggested, which i am pretty sure it will have been, however i thought i should ask. Thank you, Metagraph comment 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Understood, Didn't see that policy (what a weird acronym.) I realise that wiki's policy is that anyone can edit, i just thought it might be a good idea. I see that policy is disputed though.. maybe we'll see some changes soon. Maybe not. Oh well, thanks everyone! Metagraph comment 07:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is the picture of Tiger Woods still the primary news image given? The story was three days ago and has moved down, it's confusing to continue seeing this pic as the primary one of the current news day. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The current FA, The World Without Us is lacking an image on the main page (the book cover is ineligible for obvious copyright reasons). May I suggest this image. It perfectly illustrates both the content (the author talks at length about Chernobyl) and subject matter (city without humans), and would fit easily into the lead. Cheers, Mostlyharmless ( talk) 02:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Good picture and relevant. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
What follows was arbitrarily removed by a newcomer who complained about anti-americanism. This is not meant that way, but as a complaint about the often lopsided news coverage and that point stands. What was removed was this.
Cheers Þórður Breiðfjörð ( talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The Barrack Obama DYK is not neutral. Come on people, were in the middle of a US election, we really don't want to use the main page to advertise who campaigns for what. Tourskin ( talk) 17:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I count 4 DYK's with the common thread of them being part of the National Register of Historic Places. Just an observation.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipedia and not the US Wikipedia and so I don't think that mentioning just one of the US presidential candidates (given that both are US Senators and hence have some notability) is non neutral. It won't have any affect on the way that I vote, or for that matter any other citizen of the UK (or Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, the Philippines, St Lucia, Nigeria, Barbados, etc).
I don't think that a mention in Wikipedia's DYK will influence many voters, however it would, IMO, be a bit dumb to comment on one candidate and not the other just before the election date, not because of bias but because of perceived bias. This far away from the election date however I cannot see any problem.
FerdinandFrog ( talk) 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay to add an "in the news" headline about the NHL draft? I was very excited to hear the Macedonian-Canadian Steve Stamkos was picked #1 overall, and since there are alot of "in the news" headlines about sports, I thought that could be one also. Mactruth ( talk) 05:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to have a cut-out of the fake screenshot to accompany the blurb? So that part of the text disappears off the right-hand side but the "Dear valued customer..." and "We have received notice..." is at least readable. I've seen news organisations use screenshots like this plenty of times.
Alternatively I'm surprised no-one thought to draw a quick-and-dirty illustration - you know, a guy in a stereotypical robber's striped jumper and mask sitting by a river, dipping a fishing rod in a pond full of floating dollar signs, something like that. -- 86.147.173.179 ( talk) 10:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Putting an entry about computer-game on the main page demeans the standing of this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The years in the blurb should be formatted "(1922–1969)" without spaces, and without linksper WP:MOSDATE. indopug ( talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Facilitating TFA suggestions, request to unprotect the TFA blurbs and let the community choose them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not strictly Main Page material but it is related to its presentation. First, it strikes me that it's slightly hard to find which is the main article of the sentence. Is it Mars or is it Phoenix. Since I've been using wikipedia for some time, it's obviously not Mars, that'd be an article on it. Perhaps it needs to be somehow more prominently shown. Secondly, shouldn't the main article about it be about a mission finding ice on Mars? It's an article about a craft. -- Leladax ( talk) 23:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I meant to do this earlier, but was caught up with dealing with a load of other things. Anyway, I semi-protected this talk page due a sockpuppetry attack that spilled over from another article. This note is to inform people of that protection, and that since the protection is set to indefinite, any admin may choose to set the protection back to move=sysop after a few hours if they wish, though I do plan to lift my own protection of the page later anyway. Thanks. Acalamari 22:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Not technically an arror, so I'm posting here. As of this revision, the featured picture is a video. I'm not saying people are dumb and would think its a picture, but it somewhat implies that it always has to be a picture to be feautured. We could change the name to Today's Featured Media to include picture and picture. Just a comment. =) -- DA PIE EATER ( talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what's so internationally important about the Amarnath news. Maquahuitl talk! 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
And what does the hook mean by a "land transfer"? Did someone dump a pile of dirt there? There is no context for understanding this news item, nor any link to a larger story. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a small idea. Should sports be split from WP:ITN? Template talk:In the news#Split? Simply south ( talk) 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The main page now displays just an image of some guy. Is this happenning just to me or is the page hacked? Admiral Norton ( talk) 10:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It is amazing how fast the news section is updated now, compared to the infamous "Fernando Lugo picture", that I had become tired of seeing. So I hope that the ITN section keeps up like now and stays that way. Now Wikipedia ITN is not stale, and headlines are changing every day. I'm glad to see ITN updated so regularly.-- J.C. ( talk) 22:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This may be a FAQ but I'm uncomfortable about the way that the photo of Mugabe looks like it's illustrating the story about FARC. There's such a large gap between the photo and the "pictured" text, anyone casually looking at the page will be misled. Which is A Bad Thing for an encyclopedia. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
InTheNews says flights resume? Can I get a refund please? -- Leladax ( talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Nkhotakota is hardly a new article. Did Did you know? bend the rules? MMetro ( talk) 10:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Due to a few comments on IRC, I have started redesigning the main page, here. I would like some more opinion on weather it really needs a redesign. Also, if you agree that it needs a redesign, suggestions are very welcome, and encouraged. -[[Ryan]] ( me) ( talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't see any problems with the page as it is, indeed it's better than a lot of other 'major' sites Modest Genius talk 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the main page of English Wikipedia should re-design and for me, the main page design of English Wikipedia is the worst main page in any major Wikipedia language versions. My suggestion is to add portal lists like in Spanish Wikipedia.-- Joseph Solis in Australia ( talk) 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking at this main page for years and I think it would be a cool idea to feature an editor every day or week. Create a small section in the top that features an active editor and a short motto or introduction to that user. Just an idea I thought I would trow out to you guys. What do you think? I mean, it can be pretty basic and help show Wikipedia's interaction. Thanks, ciao! -- Eric (mailbox) 08:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The In the News coverage about the suicide bombing in Pakistan now has a separate article - Lal Masjid suicide bombing. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As of today, video sequence is present. The currernt section name is misleading.-- Kozuch ( talk) 11:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a main page issue right now. If you want it changed, the logical first step would be to change Wikipedia:Featured pictures. --- RockMFR 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a compromise: We can continue to call " Featured pictures" by its present name, but on the rare occasions that the TFP something other than a picture, we can modify it to say "Featured audio" or "Featured video" on the main page. Lovelac 7 15:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg
, .ogg
, etc.) and changes the headline appropriately. And if that's not an option, it really wouldn't be that big of a pain to change it manually. We don't have that many non-picture TFPs anyway.
Lovelac
7
21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(←)I can understand the objection, but please remember that the word "picture" also refers to film. After all, the Academy Award is Best Picture (not Best Film). The LA Times movie blog is " The Big Picture". And lest we forget, the word " movie" is short for "moving picture". howcheng { chat} 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added necessary CSS classes to MediaWiki:Common.css, and created a version of the main page using the classes rather than hardcoded styles at Wikipedia:Main Page/skinned. The version needs to be thoroughly checked on all browsers to check that it renders identical to the current version, so any assistance in doing so from people with wierd and wonderful browsers would be greatly appreciated. If all is good we can change the main page over after 16:35 August 7 2008. Happy‑ melon 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I did so, and the problems are still there. --
Herald Alberich (
talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Ah, and that would be because the code is gone. Silly me for not reading the whole discussion. --
Herald Alberich (
talk)
23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The new version has extra space underneath each of the five section boxes (e.g., there is extra space between "Did you know..." and "From Wikipedia's newest articles"). This space is visible in FF2 and IE7. --- RockMFR 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: This code has been reverted until there's a consensus to add it to the global skin file. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, having thoroughly wacked myself for doing sandbox edits to the 8th most prominent webpage on the net (:D) I've successfully implemented the change I wanted to make. I've changed each link on the top banner from a direct link, into a link to a (protected) redirect page to the original target. I indend to do the same for as many of the other 'static' internal links as possible, and I'd recommend that it be done for today's and future TFA, ITN, FP, etc. Why? For traffic analysis :D. From http://stats.grok.se we can see, broken down by day, how many pageviews any individual page has, but not where they're coming from. For the main page redesign proposal it would be nice to know which of the links on the main page are actually used, and which aren't. Since each click on a link on the main page will now clock up a 'hit' on Wikipedia:Main Page/XXX, in a few weeks time we can revert and have a look at the statistics to see which links are used and which aren't. From a technical point of view, expanding redirects is only about 10% more server-intensive than parsing normal links, so there shouldn't be a problem. Obviously if the change gets reverted by Tim or Brion, we know it's doing more harm than I expected :D. Happy‑ melon 10:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I've now done all the static content. I'm not sure whether, or how, to handle the dynamic content - maybe only redirect the bold headings? Comments? Happy‑ melon 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh. This would be better done with stats collection on the referrers. Any server impact here is not relevant (dunno where whos rear you pulled the 10% number out of... If it were 10% it would need to be reverted :))... but what is relevant is that it will approx. double the time page loads for most viewers since the page load will now take 4x the round trip time between the user and the relevant WMF server, rather than 2x the RTT. No reason to undo this now, but please don't go spreading this approach all over the site. :) -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 18:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)