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 155 | ← | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | → | Archive 165 |
I know it isn't an advert. But having Transformers as your daily feature on its sequel's opening weekend looks that way. 188.222.170.156 ( talk) 11:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
There is now a separate article on the death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg ( Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg).
Can someone update ITN? Mocctur ( talk) 03:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggested text:
'''[[Otto von Habsburg]]''' (pictured), former Crown Prince of [[Austria-Hungary]], [[Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg|dies at the age of 98]].
Okay, it's 4 July but can we expect this level of saturation - US Featured Article, US Featured List, US Featured Image - for any other country's national day? I very much doubt it. 86.152.240.132 ( talk) 06:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
In 10 days time there will there be more complaints about too many or too few France-related articles? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
OTD and FA dedicated to July 5. Will other dates get the same treatment, or is this just another example of July 5 editors running amok. Hot Stop (c) 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm saying it's fine if you start with the FA and then choose a good date for it to appear but let's not get into starting with a date and choosing a good FA to put on ... of course it might not be that easy to disentangle these. JIMp talk· cont 02:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Shelton Benjamin FTW – H T D 06:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hate the date-dwelling. It is crufty crap from the a--. Most of the topics are very non-notable to start with, and then even so date connections (founding of a uni) are not really what is important about them (as opposed to say Pearl Harbor...which almost equates with December 7th...a "day that will live in infamy".) It just seems like we prioritize dating much higher than we should. And don't spend enough time thinking about diversity of subjects shown as well as notability (mostly criticizing TFA here). And I know we are all volunteers and not trying to make the TFAers feel sad. Just to get people thinking... TCO ( talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The text about evangelical Protestants rioting against Abolitionists contradicts the article. — Leandro GFC Dutra ( talk) 23:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been noticing lately that the image alts for TFA, ITN, OTD, and TFP have consistently been short, caption-like statements while the image alts for DYK and TFL have been lengthy descriptions of the visual elements of each image for the purpose of users who are unable to view images. Is there a reason for this inconsistency? Neelix ( talk) 14:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That sounds...like...eh...doctrine, Mall. Did it come down from the mountain on a tablet? ;-) I find the old convo with Graham much more revealing than the Wiki page o' guidance. To your points, certainly writing body text to be self-supporting is a nice ideal, but at the same time images certainly can be more revealing than decorative. Can even be a functional method of communication. Walls of text with pretty pictures is not the only method of communication or always the ideal one. And body text could be significantly weighed down if some aspects of visual description, that are easily seen by the eye, were incorporated.
For instance, do we really want a discussion of the "swirls" of color on the plastron of the western painted turtle's shell, when the almost paisly, totem-pole-like pattern is easily seen as an "aha" by picture? So then for the person who lacks images (from device or from lacking sight), perhaps an attempt to really describe is helpful? Better than the so vague as to be a waste of words "bottom of a western painted turtle"! (Consider the analogy to "painting of Napoleon Bonarte".)
TCO ( talk) 13:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
"The closure of News of the World is announced..." Who announced it? -- Coemgenus ( talk) 21:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Tomorrow's POTD: I had to put a refimprove tag on the main article. And the Commons description page cites a "P. Boomgaard, 2001", but there seems to be no way of locating this reference, which might have been translated from the Dutch. The source link is to a page in Dutch that doesn't mention the claimed author (if it's on a subpage, I think the Boomgaard ref should link to it directly). The blurb info is not in the article. I'm not good at sorting out this kind of thing. I've left a note on Howcheng's page. Can anyone assist? Tony (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Dragging the stone 'Darodaro' for the death of Saoenigeho Bawamataloea, Nias.
Please add Independence Day of South Sudan to the "On the next day..." section (next to Independence Day of Argentina) -- Gimelthedog ( talk) 21:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is it so small? It has about as much impact as a tea bag. We're not lacking in space that I am aware, so allowance should have been made to display the panorama at a size which does it justice. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
too tired to work on an article. but no good flame wars going on. Discussion forums seem slow. maybe someone direct me to something interesting? TCO ( reviews needed) 04:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I was looking through the FAQs (yea, I was that bored) and found Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives and Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Seeing that the current Main page is now five years old (or ancient in internet terms) is there any chance of another possible design contest? Hot Stop (c) 04:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's something which struck me reading the Wikipedia main page just now: we include a lot of information on the front page. Most websites these days don't show much information on the front page, whereas Main Page just hits you with a wall of text and relatively few/small pictures. I actually forgot about the portal links in the top right corner (though for what it's worth, I don't visit the main page all that often). In re-designing, might we consider a more judicious use of space? hare j 06:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
1. Yeah, I find even text-heavy law blogs more engaging than our FP. And ESPN or CNN sites are WAY more fun to enter. Even some corporae website. I mean, shit, we got the ARTICLES to bore people with walls of text. (although I want more pics there, too! :-))
2. but srsly, the thing has a lot of issues. Long paras (in columned text [Hello! *bonk on head* "Anybody home, there, Mcfly?])
3. The ITN stuff is probably decent content to pimp people in with a newsreel...to looking at our Main Page, but then we blow it with several day old news (and have some bizarre rationale of oh we are an encyclopedia...but why have a news tape and have it so far out of date...just fucking half-pregnant.
4. We are missing GAs, FSes and Featured Videos on the site (I realize the last two need work as programs...but heck...this is 2011, being able to stream a video is basic, peeps...let's get over our mp3 hayt-tred.)
5. ITN (and somewhat other hooks) have way too many "side" wikilinks rather than the main ones. It's just a mess for the reader. But our half-pregnant mindset drives this. I mean 40 odd links from the various hooks themselves is enough peeps. Packking in 5 times that causes confusion. I can't even tell on ITN how to get to the main article stories.
6. All tha said, I think we need to realize we are modular (have a lot of people doing different programs) and have volunteer updating of the page, at high frequency. So making it too centralized or coordinating will be a hash. That's why I love the listers. They said screw it. Gives us a box at the very bottom. It won't cause some interaction with anyone else. We'll just make our thang work!
TCO ( reviews needed) 08:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Has nobody noticed the Pic of the Day and our topline DYK combo yet? If this is intentional editorializing it's beyond disgusting. If it's a mistake we should be taking a second look at how we coordinate material on the front page. Can we slide the FPOTD to tomorrow and swap tomorrow's for today? We get enough charges of bias and POV without this sort of thing. TomPointTwo ( talk) 18:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As if to resonate with the general feeling that WP's main page needs a redesign, new research results supporting a connection between trust and web-page attractiveness have just been reported in the mainstream press and Google news. It's odd that the buzz is out before the paper is presented next week at the 2011 World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Applied Computing in Las Vegas (perhaps a deal was done with the conference organisers). And I'd like to see the methodology before coming to any conclusions. But one thing caught my eye: "The biggest source of frustration for internet users is irrelevant information". Memo to TFA.
And before anyone dumps on this by saying it's by an internet marketing academic, and involves "consumers", I think the case is theirs to make that consuming WP's free information is in principle different from the psychology of other forms of consumption. Tony (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
But what you raise goes beyond this: I quite agree that peer reviewing is inadequate for our showpiece, especially at the tsunami-paced DYK, with up to 32 articles a day. How on earth can they be checked for copyvio, close paraphrasing, balance, and other issues the site has deemed germane to articles? The reviewers at DYK are unable to cope, although the queuing admins do their best to make good of it.
Cmandler, yes, there's so much research done on WP you'd think someone could conduct a study on the demographics and desires of people who visit the main page. But using up-to-date web-design and technology shouldn't need us to know much more: to me, it's a no-brainer that we need to use images more cogently and have mouse-over short texts that click to the gateway forums currently cluttering the main page. Sven Manguard, I think the regular forums are well designed in concept (although need some updating in practice). Yes, portals and topics should be given more oxygen on the front door. Tony (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Redesign is already being discussed above; maybe it is time to put together some sort of proposal/RFC/whatever to iron out the details? AD 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
If we are to get anywhere with updating the main page, we need to agree on what is actually wanted on the main page. So I have created an RFC to discuss. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Weird bits I've italicised.
Somerset is a
county in
South West England. The
county town is
Taunton, which is in the south of the county. The
ceremonial county of Somerset borders
Bristol and
Gloucestershire to the north,
Wiltshire to the east,
Dorset to the south-east, and
Devon to the south-west. It is partly bounded to the north and west by the coast of the
Bristol Channel and the
estuary of the
River Severn. Somerset is a rural county of rolling hills such as the
Mendip Hills,
Quantock Hills and
Exmoor National Park, and large flat expanses of land including the
Somerset Levels. There is evidence of human occupation from
Paleolithic times, and subsequent settlement in the
Roman and
Saxon periods. The fFarming of sheep and cattle, including for wool and the county's famous cheeses (most notably
Cheddar), are traditional and contemporary, as is the more unusual cultivation of
willow for
basketry. Apple orchards were once plentiful, and to this day Somerset is known for the production of strong
cider.[Even though the orchards aren't plentiful now?]
Tony
(talk)
04:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You would think Raul would find the problems on the blurb no? I mean this is not a case of some hidden badness far down, but of it front and center. But I do agree that article improvement and rating itself is more important than the front page kerfuffles. TCO ( reviews needed) 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
In German, Emperor Joseph's remark is usually reported as:
Zu schön für unsere Ohren und gewaltig viel Noten, lieber Mozart. (literally: "Too beautiful for our ears and enormously many notes, dear Mozart.")
with Mozart's response:
Grad so viel Noten, Eure Majestät, als nötig sind. ("Just as many notes as necessary, your Majesty.").
So, actually the Emperor did not complain about too many notes.
-- Furfur ( talk) 07:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
(Web links: http://www.nzz.ch/2006/01/21/li/articleDI1OR.html, http://staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/suche/einzelansicht/article/2006-10-16-4037/).
Fifteen years ago today, TWA Flight 800 crashed. But OTD, for some odd reason, chooses to highlight the fact that some people saw a streak of light and believe that there was a government cover-up:
1996 - A "streak of light" was seen immediately before TWA Flight 800 exploded in mid-air off the coast of New York, leading to a number of alternative theories that allege a government cover-up.
Before I just go in and change it, does anyone know if there was a decent reason why the blurb was formulated this way? -- tariqabjotu 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
What a great new option. Immediately encourages a positive atmosphere, greatly needed on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The section wins the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.200.3 ( talk) 09:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I moved this from #Any other problems, as the instructions in that section indicate. Art LaPella ( talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday's picture of the day: said " through three feet of ice". It has no metric equivalent. Is that a one-off error are a systematic error? Lightmouse ( talk) 17:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't think why I didn't manage to follow the instructions. Thanks for moving the question. I hope it is a one off but I may spend some time at the POTD preparation pages. Thanks. Lightmouse ( talk) 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Lightmouse ( talk) 11:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that one cannot find an article on the English language Wikipedia about a particular writer and I would like to propose or even contribute myself to writing an article about that writer. At the present time one can only find articles about him in the French and the Romanian language sections of wikipedia, and I would very much like to introduce him to the English speaking world. I do not have an account on wikipedia. I am not particularly interested nor do I have the time to become a regular contributor to wikipedia. Could I contribute with this one time contribution without having a formal account ? The last thing I need is remembering yet another password in my life ! Thank you very much for clarifying this for me, or even for forwarding this question to the appropriate department for me...(I know nothing about how this works or how it should work, nor am I particularly interested in finding out.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.4.82.7 ( talk) 08:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, "Howcheng". I apologize for not researching the correct pages about contributions before asking my question on the main page discussion. 161.4.82.7 ( talk) 10:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
'If unfamiliar with a place, ask at the most obvious place for directions' (WP-ians and other wiki-ists are normally helpful under such circumstances).
Even 'occaional users' can have usernames - and several persons can use the same IP address to different ends. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
How could the greatest feat in human history be missing from OTD? Kember ( talk) 18:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The above is copied from July 21st. It would seem to me, that (according to Apollo 11) that the first space walk occurred on July 20th, 1969 (But it occurred on July 21st according to the UTC standard).... Something seems wrong with that, the whole mission was supervised under the time used in the USA (EDT i believe). Shouldn't the Apollo 11 moon walks have been in yesterdays OTD (as was suggested in the above posts)? It is kinda like saying: "New Years Day is January 1st (December 31st in North America)." See what i am saying? It should be removed from the OTD as it did not occur on July 21st! Dusty777 ( talk) 02:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
wtf? wow thats really classy wikipedia, making a list of people with a disease, how like a stalker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.62.0 ( talk) 02:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
An RfC has been launched to measure community support for requiring the explicit checking and passing of DYK nominations for compliance with basic WP policies, and to improve the management of the nominations page through the introduction of a time-limit after which a nomination that does not meet requirements is archived. Tony (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
On the main page we currently list the number of articles as inspired from an RFC comment by User:A._di_M. I think we could add the count of the number of featured articles to the main page as well. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The reduced-clutter version, with the number of FAs, and a more obvious pipe to the month's archives, and losing the second set of ellipsis points that compete with the "more...", would be:
... However, he took up the title once again the following year, joining his son Maxentius in rebellion. After a failed leadership challenge in 307, Maximian fled to the court of Constantine in Trier. At the Council of Carnuntum in November 308, Diocletian forced Maximian to once again renounce his imperial claim. In early 310, Maximian attempted to seize Constantine's title while the emperor was on campaign on the Rhine. Few supported him, and he was captured by Constantine. He committed suicide later that year on Constantine's orders. (
more...)
Instead of the current clutter:
... However, he took up the title once again the following year, joining his son Maxentius in rebellion. After a failed leadership challenge in 307, Maximian fled to the court of Constantine in Trier. At the Council of Carnuntum in November 308, Diocletian forced Maximian to once again renounce his imperial claim. In early 310, Maximian attempted to seize Constantine's title while the emperor was on campaign on the Rhine. Few supported him, and he was captured by Constantine. He committed suicide later that year on Constantine's orders. ( more...)
Recently featured: "Nothing to My Name" – Robert Peake the elder – Canadian heraldry
Tony (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I hardly think it's necessary to give someone the rights just to edit the main page for simple numbers, anyways, and I don't think Sandy's interested. Maybe it's just better to go without? ceran thor 22:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The issues with sandy not being able to edit it not withstanding, I don't particularly care for this proposal. I think it is uglier (in that the FA is the only section doing it while none of the other sections do) and that the FA count isn't an especially useful thing to have there. Raul654 ( talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
We have links to:
OTD, DYK, and ITN are all overlinking. Why are they all making the same error? Lightmouse ( talk) 11:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I've tried to move it but I'm somewhat confused by the instruction with a link. It looks like it should take me elsewhere but I found it takes me right back here. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 14:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Overlinks just keep on coming!
More to:
See: Template:Did you know/Queue/1 as of now. Lightmouse ( talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 15:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This thread has brought us to the elephant in the living room of the main page: that every "secondary" wikilink is a potential unexploded bomb unless it's been checked out for copyvio, plagiarism, reliable sources, BLP policy, and the rest. So why insert wikilinks to secondary targets more than very judiciously when they expose us to risk, and carry the further disadvantages of: (1) diluting the traffic to the subject article, which presumably contains the secondary wikilinks in the first place (usually prominently); (2) making the main page look rather messy; and (3) often, in the case of "dictionary" terms, violate the site's styleguides. I note that the right side of the page (ITN and OTD) seems to be especially keen to drown subject articles in low-value link targets, as raised in the thread above.
But worse, we're learning day by day that even the subject articles are not audited; witness this embarrassment that was recently exposed on the main page via DYK—paste-ins of tranches of text from an obituary in a leading broadsheet, with legal and emotional implications; apparently it's not uncommon. In the past hour, someone at DYK has stated that the even subject articles are waved through without checking for compliance with basic site policies:
“ | ... most articles linked (unbolded) from the main page are in much worse, and often disastrous, state and that this should be the priority in the main page cleanup; that there is a mainpage culture of wlinking any uncommon term without looking what is being linked? ... ITN articles are not scrutinized even when bolded. Many, if not most, fresh ITN articles have bare-url refs and problems with sourcing and prose, and get cleaned up quickly while on the main page. My point is that WP is work in progress, and that main page helps fixing the problems ASAP. That only a part of main page content and links is actually screened. | ” |
The astonishing implication is that the main page is being used partly as a dumping ground to stimulate article clean-ups. Tony (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Does WP make regular screenshots of the main page? Or is it practically possible to recreate historical main pages? -- ¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.206.249 ( talk) 11:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This post is intended to follow on from comments about Main Page reform in the section above. The overlinking section should remain about overlinking, as I think there is further discussion to be had on that front.
When we do run discussions about the future of the Main Page, many of those calling loudest for change make comments that some might categorise as "negative" and/or ignorant (before I go on, the irony of me repeatedly criticising the tone of others is noted; what I will say is that tone and timing are close cousins). Differing opinions about what constitutes ignorance aside, such comments are fine if counterbalanced by "positive" suggestions on what we should actually do. But invariably we suffer from a lack of "positive" suggestions, and invariably calls for change result in no change by default.
People who want wholesale reform need to learn a thing or two from people who have gotten changes to the main page, whatever they actually think of them. Those who want to change the Main Page need to emulate the success of those who have already achieved it, and frankly they will need some of those who are "too close to the Main Page trees" to support a redesign to have a hope in hell of getting it through.
As someone who has been part of a team that did it (the unanimously supported TFL proposal), I don't think the stumbling block to change is actually that big. We have five daily and one weekly section on the Main Page. All of them bar On This Day have pretty clear-cut support to continue in one form or another. That said, there is broad agreement that we have too much text in most sections, too little freedom on image size and shape, and that we should streamline the other busyness on the page (although further discussion is needed to determine exactly what elements of the very top and very bottom we should retain and discard). In effect, people are saying that the main page looks rubbish, but that it does the job, and that the new one should have a simple yet modern look whilst doing a reasonably similar job.
Sooner or later, the community needs to confirm the design parameters. The biggest unresolved point that I can see is whether to retain OTD, and if not, whether to replace it with something else. Other factors to consider include the quantity of text (we should determine the upper and lower bounds for each section that are considered desirable by the community, and the upper and lower bounds that any designer must be adhere to), the size/shape of images that need to be accomodated (same criteria), and whether there is scope for ITN to take on a ticker format (is more prominence and less space too good to be true?). Additionally, what is the designer allowed and not allowed to do with links outside of the six main sections? What constraints are we putting in place with regards to colour scheme? Until we get decisions on these points and similar ones, no further progress can be made.
As a recently departed editor I was starting to grow fond of might have said, find a way to bang the right heads together, and the rest will come. — W F C— TFL notices 14:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Support for the main page carrot for new/expanded content is strong. Support for short, snappy, extraordinary facts on the main page is considerably stronger. You'll find few who are opposed to both concepts, even among those who believe that what we know as DYK should be put out of its misery. Therefore, as far as main page redesign is concerned it is safe to assume that either DYK or an equivalent will be there. Any change to that section, however drastic, is of no concern to the designer(s). — W F C— TFL notices 23:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this away from bleating about DYK, and back on topic Dr. Blofeld. I certainly echo your last two sentences.
As for your point about portals, I think it's worth considering some sort of drop-down interface for tangentally useful links. I would hypothesize that someone who clicks on Portal:Mathematics is more likely to become a mathematics editor than someone who clicks on a TFA or TFL is to become an editor in the applicable field. Admittedly this is impossible to prove, but logically someone who was after articles on a specific field and found them is more likely to "convert" into an editor that someone who happened to find Dickin Medal or Double Seven Day scuffle interesting. For that reason I think there is value in those portal links, but I can see why many feel that the space taken up is disproportionate to the benefit. — W F C— TFL notices 15:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
One of the village pumps or the template talk pages linked below is the place for this discussion. This page is for discussing the Main Page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I suggest that the "Preceded by and Succeeded by" links be added back on the info boxes for movies, novels, video games, etc. This is very helpful and is an easy reference for those looking for information on a particular series. Please take this into consideration. Mattseay3000 ( talk) 00:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been directed to WP:ITN/C. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Standard & Poor's has cut the US rating from its top-flight triple-A down to AA+. Surely this event is sufficiently newsworthy for mention in the Main page. Deterence Talk 07:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
|
On the 4th of August the following appeared in Wiki's DYK section.
If anyone had checked the
Mein Kampf in the Arabic language talk page at that time, they would have noted that the "bestseller in parts of the Middle East" was a controversial claim. Could editors please exercise special care when including information from the Arab/Israeli field, as information is notoriously unreliable in times of war/conflict. Thanks
Prunesqualor
billets_doux
10:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Permit me, if you will, to give us all a hypothetical situation, so that we can think about the Main Page, and any reform or redesign, from a different perspective. Let's imagine that there is no Main Page, and four million people a day looking at nothing, and we've been tasked with giving those nice people something to look at. So, in that hypothetical situation, what would we put on the front page of one of the ten most-visited websites? I'm not looking for a straw poll, and I don't expect radical proposals to come of this straight away, but I'm hoping for a brainstorming session on what we want to see on the Main Page, and how we want it laid out, in the hope that it might guide future discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Question marks over OTD's existence aside, the only radical decision with any relevance at all to redesign is the look itself. Radical changes to DYK can be sorted out at WT:DYK, likewise for ITN; in one form or another there is no question that they will remain on the Main Page, so the designer does not need to concern him or herself with it. — W F C— TFL notices 10:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a slightly different opinion on OTD; if ITN were adapted into a ticker format, I'd replace OTD with a simple wikilink to the day's date. If not, I think OTD provides very important balance. — W F C— TFL notices 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Azerbaijani language has 79158 article( http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_S%C9%99hif%C9%99) but is not in the More than 50,000 articles list. Freedomist ( talk) 17:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted.
There was a huge demonstration yesterday in Israel (and especially in Tel Aviv) with over 320,000 people, 280,000 of them in Tel Aviv, who want a financial reform — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
We really ought to do something about the rather pathetic size (100px) of the thumbnails on the main page. I think the thumbnail is a total insult to most images anyway. Just for example, the cute little image of the lizard looks like an undiscernible mass; the image of the Sistine chapel fares only a little better. Most readers would be content to see a reasonable-sized version without needing to click to enlarge. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is rapidly deteriorating into an argument that has already been had. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I put this up for deletion, but it was made a 'speedy keep' because it was linked-to from here. I have now started this, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_9#2011_London_riots so there is somewhere to debate Wikipedia reporting on this breaking news story from within the encyclopedia. Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the speedy keep and speedy close of the re-opened deletion discussion. A riot on this scale is most certainly a notable event encyclopedia-wise and not just news-wise. -- mav ( reviews needed) 01:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Look people, the original AfD was just 1 hour long. How can you get "overwhelming consensus" in that? All the natural 'keep' contributors were already there, and it was shut when they had their say. If the Afd was still running (as it should have been) I'd have seen it and simply commented, end of story. I've consistently been trampled upon - even of the talk page, and my own talk too. Since the "disruptive" comment by Levy I've had real abuse. It's just not on. And people are making me look worse in a compounded fashion after the event - why? It's bullying in a way. I had something to say and it's continually been moved along or scrolled up so not to get in the way (or read, basically). I've been a Wikipedian for 5 years now, and am totally unimpressed with the way this has been handled. It's not Wikipedia in fact is it? It's something slightly different - it's "covering" breaking news. This is simply a reply to the above comments, but just wait till someone tells me to "shut up". I've not seen anything quite like it, and I haven't been anywhere near as bad as people are suggesting. Much of my commenting has been on my own or David's talk pages, and I've just done nothing wrong. There has been no "disruption" I can see at all. AfD's (and their reviews) are disigned to be away from the article in question, which can continue undisturbed. People are effectively saying here that AfD's disrupt articles, but they can go on for a few days with no problem surely. Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Two out of the last six Did You Know? photographs have featured coins as scales. I have no idea how big these coins are, and I imagine a large part of the English language readership won't either, as we are not familiar with them. By featuring these photos on the Main Page you are suggesting to the Wikipedia audience / editors that using coins as a scale is a good idea. It is not. Can we please have some sort of moratorium on such images, to prevent any more being taken and uploaded? If people see them on the front page they are bound to think it's okay. There's a category for such images precisely because they are Not a Good Thing and should be weeded out: [Category:Images with coins to indicate scale]. Thank-you. 86.152.23.211 ( talk) 16:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I am just saying Well Done to those people who implemented changes, bringing in most of the other sections of the Main Page to the mobile site today. Simply south.... .. unintentionally mispelling fr 5 years So much for ER 18:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is the link to Khmer main page [[km:ទំព័រដើម]]. Thank your for your help. ( Nisetpdajsankha ( talk) 11:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
Some people at Khmer wikipedia, they request that should have a link from English to Khmer. Can you help on this case Stephen. It's link may be above Korean (ko) and Khmer (km). ( Nisetpdajsankha ( talk) 11:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
Oh! I'm sorry that I don't know. Thank you for your reply, so I will tell them bye everyone. ( Nisetpdajsankha ( talk) 12:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
Did anyone else just get the mobile version instead of the standard version of Wikipedia just now? Was a tad confusing what. Quintessential British Gentleman ( talk) 20:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
i got the mobile version as well Tony ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to put interwiki link to KKWP? Thank you. 89.106.237.235 ( talk) 12:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Why Pakistan Independence Day is not mentioned in this section today? That's very unfair & biased approach! nomi887 ( talk) 09:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Link to temporary injunction?-- Gilderien Talk| Contribs 20:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The caption says the Hohenzollern Bridge survived numerous Allied bombings in World War II, only to be destroyed by German engineers as the war drew to a close in 1945.
There seems to be some confusion about syntax here. Destroyed, according to Webster's, means "demolished," "spoiled completely," "ruined." This, as opposed to heavily damaged. (One could draw an analogy with killed as opposed to seriously wounded.) If a structure is destroyed, it can’t be repaired, though it, or something like it, can be reconstructed. Only a damaged structure can be repaired.
Compare the German Wiki entry, which says: ... am 6. März 1945 wurden die Brückenpfeiler durch Pioniere der sich zurückziehenden Deutschen Wehrmacht gesprengt. Dabei wurden die uferseitigen Bögen teilweise nur gering beschädigt. Translation: On March 6, 1945, the bridge piers were dynamited by engineers of the retreating German Army. In this action, parts of the arches near the riverbanks were only slightly [gering] damaged.
Thus, the bridge was not destroyed, but only damaged. It seems it was repaired after the war, and later expanded with a third set of arches.
Excellent photo, though!
Sca ( talk) 20:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Today's main page ( August 18, 2011) was really enjoyable. The content in every section held my interest and I found myself constantly going back to it to follow all the various links. Just wanted to express my appreciation, as I'm just a reader rather than a contributor to the main page areas. -- œ ™ 07:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you know...
... that a cinema in America once banned popcorn?
... that an American published the first studies about African-American women in college?
... that the Kneeland Prairie penny-cress is a mustard flower found only in the United States?
... that an American was the first Asian American student at an American college, the first Asian American quarterback in the NFL and the first Japanese coach in American football?
... oh yeah, and something about a Canadian science-fiction series and a Spanish mouse...
Seriously, four out of six items that "center" on the United States do not suggest that Wikipedia has an international scope. A parochial scope, yes. An insular scope, definitely. An Americocentric scope, without a doubt. But America is not the world. 87.114.100.56 ( talk) 19:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This true-color satellite view of the Hawaiian Islands shows that most of the vegetation on the islands grows on the northeast sides—not at that resolution, it doesn't. If we're expecting readers to pick out detail like that, we need to make the image bigger. What's the reluctance to render the TFP at a resolution at which it has a chance of being useful? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments about SVG's |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Comments about SVG's |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Not related to the Main Page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am unsure about this.... but I have a question. Can an article on English Wikipedia use another article from French Wikipedia as an attributable reference to a claim made within the text? The article Rotary printing press makes a dual claim that Richard March Hoe invented the device in 1843.... and then it goes on to say that Hippolyte Auguste Marinoni invented the device. The reference being used for this claim does not use an external reference in the English Wikipedia article Rotary printing press but that from another article on French Wikipedia, see here [17]. Yoganate79 ( talk) 04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
|
On August the 27th it's Laylat al-Qadr, a very important Muslim day. So it must be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.208.136 ( talk) 00:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
"... signed the Treaty of Nerchinsk, establishing the Russian–Chinese border almost as it stands today." Almost? After that treaty Russia expanded its territory in hitherto Chinese basins of Amur and Ussuri Rivers. Quite an "almost" indeed, some 350,000 sq.mi of it! Apcbg ( talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Do we no longer copy to en: (and protect) commons images for use on the main page?
Rich
Farmbrough,
18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
I removed the ref tag from the article. Now can someone add the article to On This Day? Thanks. -- Kenatipo speak! 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Eid ul Fitr was on 30 August. But the Muslims in South-East Asia are celebrating a day later. Runehelmet ( talk) 13:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The "In the News" stories are all about Asia, with one each on Japan, India, and Singapore, and even the space story is about work from the Japanese space agency. Why is this so Asia-centric? Surely, there's some news from Africa, Australia, Europe, North America, or South America. 75.62.145.145 ( talk) 07:33, 31 August 2011 (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 155 | ← | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | → | Archive 165 |
I know it isn't an advert. But having Transformers as your daily feature on its sequel's opening weekend looks that way. 188.222.170.156 ( talk) 11:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
There is now a separate article on the death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg ( Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg).
Can someone update ITN? Mocctur ( talk) 03:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggested text:
'''[[Otto von Habsburg]]''' (pictured), former Crown Prince of [[Austria-Hungary]], [[Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg|dies at the age of 98]].
Okay, it's 4 July but can we expect this level of saturation - US Featured Article, US Featured List, US Featured Image - for any other country's national day? I very much doubt it. 86.152.240.132 ( talk) 06:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
In 10 days time there will there be more complaints about too many or too few France-related articles? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
OTD and FA dedicated to July 5. Will other dates get the same treatment, or is this just another example of July 5 editors running amok. Hot Stop (c) 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm saying it's fine if you start with the FA and then choose a good date for it to appear but let's not get into starting with a date and choosing a good FA to put on ... of course it might not be that easy to disentangle these. JIMp talk· cont 02:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Shelton Benjamin FTW – H T D 06:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hate the date-dwelling. It is crufty crap from the a--. Most of the topics are very non-notable to start with, and then even so date connections (founding of a uni) are not really what is important about them (as opposed to say Pearl Harbor...which almost equates with December 7th...a "day that will live in infamy".) It just seems like we prioritize dating much higher than we should. And don't spend enough time thinking about diversity of subjects shown as well as notability (mostly criticizing TFA here). And I know we are all volunteers and not trying to make the TFAers feel sad. Just to get people thinking... TCO ( talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The text about evangelical Protestants rioting against Abolitionists contradicts the article. — Leandro GFC Dutra ( talk) 23:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been noticing lately that the image alts for TFA, ITN, OTD, and TFP have consistently been short, caption-like statements while the image alts for DYK and TFL have been lengthy descriptions of the visual elements of each image for the purpose of users who are unable to view images. Is there a reason for this inconsistency? Neelix ( talk) 14:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That sounds...like...eh...doctrine, Mall. Did it come down from the mountain on a tablet? ;-) I find the old convo with Graham much more revealing than the Wiki page o' guidance. To your points, certainly writing body text to be self-supporting is a nice ideal, but at the same time images certainly can be more revealing than decorative. Can even be a functional method of communication. Walls of text with pretty pictures is not the only method of communication or always the ideal one. And body text could be significantly weighed down if some aspects of visual description, that are easily seen by the eye, were incorporated.
For instance, do we really want a discussion of the "swirls" of color on the plastron of the western painted turtle's shell, when the almost paisly, totem-pole-like pattern is easily seen as an "aha" by picture? So then for the person who lacks images (from device or from lacking sight), perhaps an attempt to really describe is helpful? Better than the so vague as to be a waste of words "bottom of a western painted turtle"! (Consider the analogy to "painting of Napoleon Bonarte".)
TCO ( talk) 13:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
"The closure of News of the World is announced..." Who announced it? -- Coemgenus ( talk) 21:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Tomorrow's POTD: I had to put a refimprove tag on the main article. And the Commons description page cites a "P. Boomgaard, 2001", but there seems to be no way of locating this reference, which might have been translated from the Dutch. The source link is to a page in Dutch that doesn't mention the claimed author (if it's on a subpage, I think the Boomgaard ref should link to it directly). The blurb info is not in the article. I'm not good at sorting out this kind of thing. I've left a note on Howcheng's page. Can anyone assist? Tony (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Dragging the stone 'Darodaro' for the death of Saoenigeho Bawamataloea, Nias.
Please add Independence Day of South Sudan to the "On the next day..." section (next to Independence Day of Argentina) -- Gimelthedog ( talk) 21:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is it so small? It has about as much impact as a tea bag. We're not lacking in space that I am aware, so allowance should have been made to display the panorama at a size which does it justice. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
too tired to work on an article. but no good flame wars going on. Discussion forums seem slow. maybe someone direct me to something interesting? TCO ( reviews needed) 04:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I was looking through the FAQs (yea, I was that bored) and found Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives and Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Seeing that the current Main page is now five years old (or ancient in internet terms) is there any chance of another possible design contest? Hot Stop (c) 04:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's something which struck me reading the Wikipedia main page just now: we include a lot of information on the front page. Most websites these days don't show much information on the front page, whereas Main Page just hits you with a wall of text and relatively few/small pictures. I actually forgot about the portal links in the top right corner (though for what it's worth, I don't visit the main page all that often). In re-designing, might we consider a more judicious use of space? hare j 06:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
1. Yeah, I find even text-heavy law blogs more engaging than our FP. And ESPN or CNN sites are WAY more fun to enter. Even some corporae website. I mean, shit, we got the ARTICLES to bore people with walls of text. (although I want more pics there, too! :-))
2. but srsly, the thing has a lot of issues. Long paras (in columned text [Hello! *bonk on head* "Anybody home, there, Mcfly?])
3. The ITN stuff is probably decent content to pimp people in with a newsreel...to looking at our Main Page, but then we blow it with several day old news (and have some bizarre rationale of oh we are an encyclopedia...but why have a news tape and have it so far out of date...just fucking half-pregnant.
4. We are missing GAs, FSes and Featured Videos on the site (I realize the last two need work as programs...but heck...this is 2011, being able to stream a video is basic, peeps...let's get over our mp3 hayt-tred.)
5. ITN (and somewhat other hooks) have way too many "side" wikilinks rather than the main ones. It's just a mess for the reader. But our half-pregnant mindset drives this. I mean 40 odd links from the various hooks themselves is enough peeps. Packking in 5 times that causes confusion. I can't even tell on ITN how to get to the main article stories.
6. All tha said, I think we need to realize we are modular (have a lot of people doing different programs) and have volunteer updating of the page, at high frequency. So making it too centralized or coordinating will be a hash. That's why I love the listers. They said screw it. Gives us a box at the very bottom. It won't cause some interaction with anyone else. We'll just make our thang work!
TCO ( reviews needed) 08:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Has nobody noticed the Pic of the Day and our topline DYK combo yet? If this is intentional editorializing it's beyond disgusting. If it's a mistake we should be taking a second look at how we coordinate material on the front page. Can we slide the FPOTD to tomorrow and swap tomorrow's for today? We get enough charges of bias and POV without this sort of thing. TomPointTwo ( talk) 18:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As if to resonate with the general feeling that WP's main page needs a redesign, new research results supporting a connection between trust and web-page attractiveness have just been reported in the mainstream press and Google news. It's odd that the buzz is out before the paper is presented next week at the 2011 World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Applied Computing in Las Vegas (perhaps a deal was done with the conference organisers). And I'd like to see the methodology before coming to any conclusions. But one thing caught my eye: "The biggest source of frustration for internet users is irrelevant information". Memo to TFA.
And before anyone dumps on this by saying it's by an internet marketing academic, and involves "consumers", I think the case is theirs to make that consuming WP's free information is in principle different from the psychology of other forms of consumption. Tony (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
But what you raise goes beyond this: I quite agree that peer reviewing is inadequate for our showpiece, especially at the tsunami-paced DYK, with up to 32 articles a day. How on earth can they be checked for copyvio, close paraphrasing, balance, and other issues the site has deemed germane to articles? The reviewers at DYK are unable to cope, although the queuing admins do their best to make good of it.
Cmandler, yes, there's so much research done on WP you'd think someone could conduct a study on the demographics and desires of people who visit the main page. But using up-to-date web-design and technology shouldn't need us to know much more: to me, it's a no-brainer that we need to use images more cogently and have mouse-over short texts that click to the gateway forums currently cluttering the main page. Sven Manguard, I think the regular forums are well designed in concept (although need some updating in practice). Yes, portals and topics should be given more oxygen on the front door. Tony (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Redesign is already being discussed above; maybe it is time to put together some sort of proposal/RFC/whatever to iron out the details? AD 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
If we are to get anywhere with updating the main page, we need to agree on what is actually wanted on the main page. So I have created an RFC to discuss. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Weird bits I've italicised.
Somerset is a
county in
South West England. The
county town is
Taunton, which is in the south of the county. The
ceremonial county of Somerset borders
Bristol and
Gloucestershire to the north,
Wiltshire to the east,
Dorset to the south-east, and
Devon to the south-west. It is partly bounded to the north and west by the coast of the
Bristol Channel and the
estuary of the
River Severn. Somerset is a rural county of rolling hills such as the
Mendip Hills,
Quantock Hills and
Exmoor National Park, and large flat expanses of land including the
Somerset Levels. There is evidence of human occupation from
Paleolithic times, and subsequent settlement in the
Roman and
Saxon periods. The fFarming of sheep and cattle, including for wool and the county's famous cheeses (most notably
Cheddar), are traditional and contemporary, as is the more unusual cultivation of
willow for
basketry. Apple orchards were once plentiful, and to this day Somerset is known for the production of strong
cider.[Even though the orchards aren't plentiful now?]
Tony
(talk)
04:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You would think Raul would find the problems on the blurb no? I mean this is not a case of some hidden badness far down, but of it front and center. But I do agree that article improvement and rating itself is more important than the front page kerfuffles. TCO ( reviews needed) 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
In German, Emperor Joseph's remark is usually reported as:
Zu schön für unsere Ohren und gewaltig viel Noten, lieber Mozart. (literally: "Too beautiful for our ears and enormously many notes, dear Mozart.")
with Mozart's response:
Grad so viel Noten, Eure Majestät, als nötig sind. ("Just as many notes as necessary, your Majesty.").
So, actually the Emperor did not complain about too many notes.
-- Furfur ( talk) 07:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
(Web links: http://www.nzz.ch/2006/01/21/li/articleDI1OR.html, http://staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/suche/einzelansicht/article/2006-10-16-4037/).
Fifteen years ago today, TWA Flight 800 crashed. But OTD, for some odd reason, chooses to highlight the fact that some people saw a streak of light and believe that there was a government cover-up:
1996 - A "streak of light" was seen immediately before TWA Flight 800 exploded in mid-air off the coast of New York, leading to a number of alternative theories that allege a government cover-up.
Before I just go in and change it, does anyone know if there was a decent reason why the blurb was formulated this way? -- tariqabjotu 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
What a great new option. Immediately encourages a positive atmosphere, greatly needed on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The section wins the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.200.3 ( talk) 09:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I moved this from #Any other problems, as the instructions in that section indicate. Art LaPella ( talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday's picture of the day: said " through three feet of ice". It has no metric equivalent. Is that a one-off error are a systematic error? Lightmouse ( talk) 17:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't think why I didn't manage to follow the instructions. Thanks for moving the question. I hope it is a one off but I may spend some time at the POTD preparation pages. Thanks. Lightmouse ( talk) 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Lightmouse ( talk) 11:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that one cannot find an article on the English language Wikipedia about a particular writer and I would like to propose or even contribute myself to writing an article about that writer. At the present time one can only find articles about him in the French and the Romanian language sections of wikipedia, and I would very much like to introduce him to the English speaking world. I do not have an account on wikipedia. I am not particularly interested nor do I have the time to become a regular contributor to wikipedia. Could I contribute with this one time contribution without having a formal account ? The last thing I need is remembering yet another password in my life ! Thank you very much for clarifying this for me, or even for forwarding this question to the appropriate department for me...(I know nothing about how this works or how it should work, nor am I particularly interested in finding out.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.4.82.7 ( talk) 08:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, "Howcheng". I apologize for not researching the correct pages about contributions before asking my question on the main page discussion. 161.4.82.7 ( talk) 10:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
'If unfamiliar with a place, ask at the most obvious place for directions' (WP-ians and other wiki-ists are normally helpful under such circumstances).
Even 'occaional users' can have usernames - and several persons can use the same IP address to different ends. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
How could the greatest feat in human history be missing from OTD? Kember ( talk) 18:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The above is copied from July 21st. It would seem to me, that (according to Apollo 11) that the first space walk occurred on July 20th, 1969 (But it occurred on July 21st according to the UTC standard).... Something seems wrong with that, the whole mission was supervised under the time used in the USA (EDT i believe). Shouldn't the Apollo 11 moon walks have been in yesterdays OTD (as was suggested in the above posts)? It is kinda like saying: "New Years Day is January 1st (December 31st in North America)." See what i am saying? It should be removed from the OTD as it did not occur on July 21st! Dusty777 ( talk) 02:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
wtf? wow thats really classy wikipedia, making a list of people with a disease, how like a stalker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.62.0 ( talk) 02:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
An RfC has been launched to measure community support for requiring the explicit checking and passing of DYK nominations for compliance with basic WP policies, and to improve the management of the nominations page through the introduction of a time-limit after which a nomination that does not meet requirements is archived. Tony (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
On the main page we currently list the number of articles as inspired from an RFC comment by User:A._di_M. I think we could add the count of the number of featured articles to the main page as well. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The reduced-clutter version, with the number of FAs, and a more obvious pipe to the month's archives, and losing the second set of ellipsis points that compete with the "more...", would be:
... However, he took up the title once again the following year, joining his son Maxentius in rebellion. After a failed leadership challenge in 307, Maximian fled to the court of Constantine in Trier. At the Council of Carnuntum in November 308, Diocletian forced Maximian to once again renounce his imperial claim. In early 310, Maximian attempted to seize Constantine's title while the emperor was on campaign on the Rhine. Few supported him, and he was captured by Constantine. He committed suicide later that year on Constantine's orders. (
more...)
Instead of the current clutter:
... However, he took up the title once again the following year, joining his son Maxentius in rebellion. After a failed leadership challenge in 307, Maximian fled to the court of Constantine in Trier. At the Council of Carnuntum in November 308, Diocletian forced Maximian to once again renounce his imperial claim. In early 310, Maximian attempted to seize Constantine's title while the emperor was on campaign on the Rhine. Few supported him, and he was captured by Constantine. He committed suicide later that year on Constantine's orders. ( more...)
Recently featured: "Nothing to My Name" – Robert Peake the elder – Canadian heraldry
Tony (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I hardly think it's necessary to give someone the rights just to edit the main page for simple numbers, anyways, and I don't think Sandy's interested. Maybe it's just better to go without? ceran thor 22:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The issues with sandy not being able to edit it not withstanding, I don't particularly care for this proposal. I think it is uglier (in that the FA is the only section doing it while none of the other sections do) and that the FA count isn't an especially useful thing to have there. Raul654 ( talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
We have links to:
OTD, DYK, and ITN are all overlinking. Why are they all making the same error? Lightmouse ( talk) 11:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I've tried to move it but I'm somewhat confused by the instruction with a link. It looks like it should take me elsewhere but I found it takes me right back here. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 14:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Overlinks just keep on coming!
More to:
See: Template:Did you know/Queue/1 as of now. Lightmouse ( talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 15:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This thread has brought us to the elephant in the living room of the main page: that every "secondary" wikilink is a potential unexploded bomb unless it's been checked out for copyvio, plagiarism, reliable sources, BLP policy, and the rest. So why insert wikilinks to secondary targets more than very judiciously when they expose us to risk, and carry the further disadvantages of: (1) diluting the traffic to the subject article, which presumably contains the secondary wikilinks in the first place (usually prominently); (2) making the main page look rather messy; and (3) often, in the case of "dictionary" terms, violate the site's styleguides. I note that the right side of the page (ITN and OTD) seems to be especially keen to drown subject articles in low-value link targets, as raised in the thread above.
But worse, we're learning day by day that even the subject articles are not audited; witness this embarrassment that was recently exposed on the main page via DYK—paste-ins of tranches of text from an obituary in a leading broadsheet, with legal and emotional implications; apparently it's not uncommon. In the past hour, someone at DYK has stated that the even subject articles are waved through without checking for compliance with basic site policies:
“ | ... most articles linked (unbolded) from the main page are in much worse, and often disastrous, state and that this should be the priority in the main page cleanup; that there is a mainpage culture of wlinking any uncommon term without looking what is being linked? ... ITN articles are not scrutinized even when bolded. Many, if not most, fresh ITN articles have bare-url refs and problems with sourcing and prose, and get cleaned up quickly while on the main page. My point is that WP is work in progress, and that main page helps fixing the problems ASAP. That only a part of main page content and links is actually screened. | ” |
The astonishing implication is that the main page is being used partly as a dumping ground to stimulate article clean-ups. Tony (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Does WP make regular screenshots of the main page? Or is it practically possible to recreate historical main pages? -- ¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.206.249 ( talk) 11:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This post is intended to follow on from comments about Main Page reform in the section above. The overlinking section should remain about overlinking, as I think there is further discussion to be had on that front.
When we do run discussions about the future of the Main Page, many of those calling loudest for change make comments that some might categorise as "negative" and/or ignorant (before I go on, the irony of me repeatedly criticising the tone of others is noted; what I will say is that tone and timing are close cousins). Differing opinions about what constitutes ignorance aside, such comments are fine if counterbalanced by "positive" suggestions on what we should actually do. But invariably we suffer from a lack of "positive" suggestions, and invariably calls for change result in no change by default.
People who want wholesale reform need to learn a thing or two from people who have gotten changes to the main page, whatever they actually think of them. Those who want to change the Main Page need to emulate the success of those who have already achieved it, and frankly they will need some of those who are "too close to the Main Page trees" to support a redesign to have a hope in hell of getting it through.
As someone who has been part of a team that did it (the unanimously supported TFL proposal), I don't think the stumbling block to change is actually that big. We have five daily and one weekly section on the Main Page. All of them bar On This Day have pretty clear-cut support to continue in one form or another. That said, there is broad agreement that we have too much text in most sections, too little freedom on image size and shape, and that we should streamline the other busyness on the page (although further discussion is needed to determine exactly what elements of the very top and very bottom we should retain and discard). In effect, people are saying that the main page looks rubbish, but that it does the job, and that the new one should have a simple yet modern look whilst doing a reasonably similar job.
Sooner or later, the community needs to confirm the design parameters. The biggest unresolved point that I can see is whether to retain OTD, and if not, whether to replace it with something else. Other factors to consider include the quantity of text (we should determine the upper and lower bounds for each section that are considered desirable by the community, and the upper and lower bounds that any designer must be adhere to), the size/shape of images that need to be accomodated (same criteria), and whether there is scope for ITN to take on a ticker format (is more prominence and less space too good to be true?). Additionally, what is the designer allowed and not allowed to do with links outside of the six main sections? What constraints are we putting in place with regards to colour scheme? Until we get decisions on these points and similar ones, no further progress can be made.
As a recently departed editor I was starting to grow fond of might have said, find a way to bang the right heads together, and the rest will come. — W F C— TFL notices 14:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Support for the main page carrot for new/expanded content is strong. Support for short, snappy, extraordinary facts on the main page is considerably stronger. You'll find few who are opposed to both concepts, even among those who believe that what we know as DYK should be put out of its misery. Therefore, as far as main page redesign is concerned it is safe to assume that either DYK or an equivalent will be there. Any change to that section, however drastic, is of no concern to the designer(s). — W F C— TFL notices 23:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this away from bleating about DYK, and back on topic Dr. Blofeld. I certainly echo your last two sentences.
As for your point about portals, I think it's worth considering some sort of drop-down interface for tangentally useful links. I would hypothesize that someone who clicks on Portal:Mathematics is more likely to become a mathematics editor than someone who clicks on a TFA or TFL is to become an editor in the applicable field. Admittedly this is impossible to prove, but logically someone who was after articles on a specific field and found them is more likely to "convert" into an editor that someone who happened to find Dickin Medal or Double Seven Day scuffle interesting. For that reason I think there is value in those portal links, but I can see why many feel that the space taken up is disproportionate to the benefit. — W F C— TFL notices 15:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
One of the village pumps or the template talk pages linked below is the place for this discussion. This page is for discussing the Main Page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I suggest that the "Preceded by and Succeeded by" links be added back on the info boxes for movies, novels, video games, etc. This is very helpful and is an easy reference for those looking for information on a particular series. Please take this into consideration. Mattseay3000 ( talk) 00:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been directed to WP:ITN/C. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Standard & Poor's has cut the US rating from its top-flight triple-A down to AA+. Surely this event is sufficiently newsworthy for mention in the Main page. Deterence Talk 07:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
|
On the 4th of August the following appeared in Wiki's DYK section.
If anyone had checked the
Mein Kampf in the Arabic language talk page at that time, they would have noted that the "bestseller in parts of the Middle East" was a controversial claim. Could editors please exercise special care when including information from the Arab/Israeli field, as information is notoriously unreliable in times of war/conflict. Thanks
Prunesqualor
billets_doux
10:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Permit me, if you will, to give us all a hypothetical situation, so that we can think about the Main Page, and any reform or redesign, from a different perspective. Let's imagine that there is no Main Page, and four million people a day looking at nothing, and we've been tasked with giving those nice people something to look at. So, in that hypothetical situation, what would we put on the front page of one of the ten most-visited websites? I'm not looking for a straw poll, and I don't expect radical proposals to come of this straight away, but I'm hoping for a brainstorming session on what we want to see on the Main Page, and how we want it laid out, in the hope that it might guide future discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Question marks over OTD's existence aside, the only radical decision with any relevance at all to redesign is the look itself. Radical changes to DYK can be sorted out at WT:DYK, likewise for ITN; in one form or another there is no question that they will remain on the Main Page, so the designer does not need to concern him or herself with it. — W F C— TFL notices 10:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a slightly different opinion on OTD; if ITN were adapted into a ticker format, I'd replace OTD with a simple wikilink to the day's date. If not, I think OTD provides very important balance. — W F C— TFL notices 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Azerbaijani language has 79158 article( http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_S%C9%99hif%C9%99) but is not in the More than 50,000 articles list. Freedomist ( talk) 17:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted.
There was a huge demonstration yesterday in Israel (and especially in Tel Aviv) with over 320,000 people, 280,000 of them in Tel Aviv, who want a financial reform — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
We really ought to do something about the rather pathetic size (100px) of the thumbnails on the main page. I think the thumbnail is a total insult to most images anyway. Just for example, the cute little image of the lizard looks like an undiscernible mass; the image of the Sistine chapel fares only a little better. Most readers would be content to see a reasonable-sized version without needing to click to enlarge. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is rapidly deteriorating into an argument that has already been had. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I put this up for deletion, but it was made a 'speedy keep' because it was linked-to from here. I have now started this, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_9#2011_London_riots so there is somewhere to debate Wikipedia reporting on this breaking news story from within the encyclopedia. Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the speedy keep and speedy close of the re-opened deletion discussion. A riot on this scale is most certainly a notable event encyclopedia-wise and not just news-wise. -- mav ( reviews needed) 01:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Look people, the original AfD was just 1 hour long. How can you get "overwhelming consensus" in that? All the natural 'keep' contributors were already there, and it was shut when they had their say. If the Afd was still running (as it should have been) I'd have seen it and simply commented, end of story. I've consistently been trampled upon - even of the talk page, and my own talk too. Since the "disruptive" comment by Levy I've had real abuse. It's just not on. And people are making me look worse in a compounded fashion after the event - why? It's bullying in a way. I had something to say and it's continually been moved along or scrolled up so not to get in the way (or read, basically). I've been a Wikipedian for 5 years now, and am totally unimpressed with the way this has been handled. It's not Wikipedia in fact is it? It's something slightly different - it's "covering" breaking news. This is simply a reply to the above comments, but just wait till someone tells me to "shut up". I've not seen anything quite like it, and I haven't been anywhere near as bad as people are suggesting. Much of my commenting has been on my own or David's talk pages, and I've just done nothing wrong. There has been no "disruption" I can see at all. AfD's (and their reviews) are disigned to be away from the article in question, which can continue undisturbed. People are effectively saying here that AfD's disrupt articles, but they can go on for a few days with no problem surely. Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Two out of the last six Did You Know? photographs have featured coins as scales. I have no idea how big these coins are, and I imagine a large part of the English language readership won't either, as we are not familiar with them. By featuring these photos on the Main Page you are suggesting to the Wikipedia audience / editors that using coins as a scale is a good idea. It is not. Can we please have some sort of moratorium on such images, to prevent any more being taken and uploaded? If people see them on the front page they are bound to think it's okay. There's a category for such images precisely because they are Not a Good Thing and should be weeded out: [Category:Images with coins to indicate scale]. Thank-you. 86.152.23.211 ( talk) 16:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I am just saying Well Done to those people who implemented changes, bringing in most of the other sections of the Main Page to the mobile site today. Simply south.... .. unintentionally mispelling fr 5 years So much for ER 18:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is the link to Khmer main page [[km:ទំព័រដើម]]. Thank your for your help. ( Nisetpdajsankha ( talk) 11:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
Some people at Khmer wikipedia, they request that should have a link from English to Khmer. Can you help on this case Stephen. It's link may be above Korean (ko) and Khmer (km). ( Nisetpdajsankha ( talk) 11:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
Oh! I'm sorry that I don't know. Thank you for your reply, so I will tell them bye everyone. ( Nisetpdajsankha ( talk) 12:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
Did anyone else just get the mobile version instead of the standard version of Wikipedia just now? Was a tad confusing what. Quintessential British Gentleman ( talk) 20:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
i got the mobile version as well Tony ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to put interwiki link to KKWP? Thank you. 89.106.237.235 ( talk) 12:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Why Pakistan Independence Day is not mentioned in this section today? That's very unfair & biased approach! nomi887 ( talk) 09:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Link to temporary injunction?-- Gilderien Talk| Contribs 20:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The caption says the Hohenzollern Bridge survived numerous Allied bombings in World War II, only to be destroyed by German engineers as the war drew to a close in 1945.
There seems to be some confusion about syntax here. Destroyed, according to Webster's, means "demolished," "spoiled completely," "ruined." This, as opposed to heavily damaged. (One could draw an analogy with killed as opposed to seriously wounded.) If a structure is destroyed, it can’t be repaired, though it, or something like it, can be reconstructed. Only a damaged structure can be repaired.
Compare the German Wiki entry, which says: ... am 6. März 1945 wurden die Brückenpfeiler durch Pioniere der sich zurückziehenden Deutschen Wehrmacht gesprengt. Dabei wurden die uferseitigen Bögen teilweise nur gering beschädigt. Translation: On March 6, 1945, the bridge piers were dynamited by engineers of the retreating German Army. In this action, parts of the arches near the riverbanks were only slightly [gering] damaged.
Thus, the bridge was not destroyed, but only damaged. It seems it was repaired after the war, and later expanded with a third set of arches.
Excellent photo, though!
Sca ( talk) 20:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Today's main page ( August 18, 2011) was really enjoyable. The content in every section held my interest and I found myself constantly going back to it to follow all the various links. Just wanted to express my appreciation, as I'm just a reader rather than a contributor to the main page areas. -- œ ™ 07:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you know...
... that a cinema in America once banned popcorn?
... that an American published the first studies about African-American women in college?
... that the Kneeland Prairie penny-cress is a mustard flower found only in the United States?
... that an American was the first Asian American student at an American college, the first Asian American quarterback in the NFL and the first Japanese coach in American football?
... oh yeah, and something about a Canadian science-fiction series and a Spanish mouse...
Seriously, four out of six items that "center" on the United States do not suggest that Wikipedia has an international scope. A parochial scope, yes. An insular scope, definitely. An Americocentric scope, without a doubt. But America is not the world. 87.114.100.56 ( talk) 19:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This true-color satellite view of the Hawaiian Islands shows that most of the vegetation on the islands grows on the northeast sides—not at that resolution, it doesn't. If we're expecting readers to pick out detail like that, we need to make the image bigger. What's the reluctance to render the TFP at a resolution at which it has a chance of being useful? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments about SVG's |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Comments about SVG's |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Not related to the Main Page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am unsure about this.... but I have a question. Can an article on English Wikipedia use another article from French Wikipedia as an attributable reference to a claim made within the text? The article Rotary printing press makes a dual claim that Richard March Hoe invented the device in 1843.... and then it goes on to say that Hippolyte Auguste Marinoni invented the device. The reference being used for this claim does not use an external reference in the English Wikipedia article Rotary printing press but that from another article on French Wikipedia, see here [17]. Yoganate79 ( talk) 04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
|
On August the 27th it's Laylat al-Qadr, a very important Muslim day. So it must be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.208.136 ( talk) 00:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
"... signed the Treaty of Nerchinsk, establishing the Russian–Chinese border almost as it stands today." Almost? After that treaty Russia expanded its territory in hitherto Chinese basins of Amur and Ussuri Rivers. Quite an "almost" indeed, some 350,000 sq.mi of it! Apcbg ( talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Do we no longer copy to en: (and protect) commons images for use on the main page?
Rich
Farmbrough,
18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
I removed the ref tag from the article. Now can someone add the article to On This Day? Thanks. -- Kenatipo speak! 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Eid ul Fitr was on 30 August. But the Muslims in South-East Asia are celebrating a day later. Runehelmet ( talk) 13:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The "In the News" stories are all about Asia, with one each on Japan, India, and Singapore, and even the space story is about work from the Japanese space agency. Why is this so Asia-centric? Surely, there's some news from Africa, Australia, Europe, North America, or South America. 75.62.145.145 ( talk) 07:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)