Laraib ahmad was born sulanpur of a little village in dhakwa.but no he live in kanpur
See Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Is_it_time_to_revisit_the_protection_status_of_the_article_featured_on_the_main_page.3F. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Vill höra lite mer om A.Bagge, blev fascinerande att han har gjort så mycket för musiken. Dels på egen hand och tillsammans med andra. Förvånad över att jag är äldre, (två år). Annveas ( talk) 12:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Google translates this as "Want to hear a little more about A.Bagge, was fascinating that he has done so much for music. Both on their own and with others. Surprised that I'm older, (two years)"
No, not because of the above subject, but because we now have a cute cat picture as the Featured Picture of the Day.
Obviously it's all about getting clicks fom now on ... Daniel Case ( talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
We should have more articles on cats featured. I nominate Frank's Pussy. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic TFP of Martin Van Buren, by Mathew Brady ! A visage of true character... Sca ( talk) 00:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Time for a few more chappesses on the MP to match the chaps? 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone please answer in the "Errors in the current or next Did you know..." section. — Bill william compton Talk 13:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Cock "Frank" ? Why are you are showing an article about movie of the penis of the man ! I knew what I have come to expect from online encyclopedia, and it is not this. In addition, the page is locked, how am I supposed to edit ? You guys are slipping ... Frankscock ( talk) 13:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it was rude of the — Crisco 1492 ( talk) and the SchroCat ( talk) to tell me that my spelling was bad. It is not my fault, it has been limited to the translator. You should be more welcoming for new users create a fun alternative, Wikipedia, you guys are supposed to be to an experience collaborative. Franklin dfd ( talk) 15:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm offended by the image being used on the front page. How dare they show someone drinking orange juice out of a plastic cup? What image are we trying to show for our future generations to know such taboo was a thing? GamerPro64 17:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You know, I sympathize with OP here. TFA director/former TFA director Raul had blacklisted Jenna Jameson from appearing on the main page for the longest time because the subject matter was considered too provocative. Is that article any more provocative than what we have here, particularly the title? It's great to say that we, as editors, can take a sober, scholarly approach to all sorts of unorthodox subject matter. And we can; that's one of the many great things about Wikipedia. But today's featured article is primarily for readers, not editors, and we should at least take into consideration what our readers would expect to see on the main page of a top-ten website, rather than focusing solely on what we think they should see.
Let me offer one hypothetical: suppose the main page featured article was Nigger. For an entire day, we'd have that word displayed very prominently on our main page. Would that really be the type of image that we'd want to present? Is there any doubt whatsoever that the heaps of criticism that we'd receive would be richly deserved? -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit more nuanced than just bleating "NOTCENSORED" and doing whatever we want.
There are boatloads of words and images that are appropriate in an article context, but wouldn't be appropriate in a main page context.
(reset) When will we have the 'vanilla/work/library/school safe' and 'anything goes' versions of the MP? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The 'vanilla list' would probably cover the following.
One problem is - there will always be a degree of subjectivity/local preference as to what constitutes 'Not my cup of tea while I am having a cup of tea.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The point about Wikipedia:Offensive material is that we make considerations at all about what may shock readers.
The main page is about promotion of our content; and if our readers are turned away by it, it works against its own purpose.
NOTCENSORED does not apply to the main page,
because the main page does not hold any information on its own, it only reflects/summarises other pages where the information is actually stored.
Out notability guidelines are ultimately completely subjective; but we still need them. And we still manage to create a sensible encyclopedia despite this obvious imperfection (indeed, notability is its own form of censorship, since information is actively suppressed).
There are widely different views on what user behaviour should lead to a block, but we still have guidelines and block people to make things go smoother.
This topic is no different from the two previous ones.
But the idea isn't to exclude content simply because it's "offensive"; it's to apply our normal inclusion standards instead of intentionally inserting controversial material because we can.
And in terms of subject matter, it's intended to reflect the encyclopedia as a whole. We might showcase an article about a mass murder one day and a pop singer the next.
and easily swayed by systemic bias at the English Wikipedia level, resulting in the identification of material widely regarded as objectionable only among members of certain cultures
Should I interpret this to mean that you don't recognize any material distinctions?
That may be what it says literally (it seems more like the page contradicts itself, ultimately),
but expectations on what to find in articles are not formed from nothing. (quote: respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible [...])
In that case, they should have been randomly selected with the only criterion being that notability is met. Instead, we only have featured articles in that spot, presumably because they make for a better reading.
Assessing notability is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen, just like assessing offensiveness is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen.
Indeed; and that's how everything goes here. We only have articles on subjects that we have people to write about, and we only have featured articles for the content that our authors cares enough about to make featured.
Here's another funny detail from notability: according to WP:NASTRO, a star is not inherently notable, even though it has much more influence on the Universe than any tiny hill down here on Earth that we may have an article on, and which it may outlive by billions of years.
They are no different in the sense that the topics are complicated with no ideal solution. Any solution is a compromise, but a solution is still possible.
To what contradiction are you referring? [...] Readers conventionally expect to find material that aids in their comprehension of the article's subject.
I was careful to preface my statement with the phrase "in terms of subject matter", precisely to avoid the above misinterpretation.
You're ignoring a fundamental distinction. Compiling information about notable subjects is key to Wikipedia's mission. Suppressing "offensive" words and images is not. [...] Yes, I'm well aware of the issues stemming from systemic bias. And I'm baffled as to why you wish to exacerbate the problem by allowing local majorities to vote away content that offends them.
I don't assert that our notability standards are perfect. Perhaps they should be changed to permit more articles about stars and/or fewer articles about tiny hills and such.
Only if it addresses an actual problem.
I think you have to make up your mind here: does WP:Offensive material exist because we want the articles to be on-topic or because we are catering to our readers? The two are not the same.
The featured articles will always represent a subset of the topics that we cover. They are by far the most visible on our main page.
The content is still there, but simply not reflected onto the main page.
That doesn't mean that we suppress it,
but that we do not actively promote it via our main page.
Otherwise, it is treated exactly the same any other content, as it should be
(with the exception of images, from my POV; but that is a separate topic).
You more or less used as an argument that any solution here will be flawed,
when in reality we already have lots of necessarily flawed policies in place.
The actual problem is that people may avoid the main page if they are "worried" about what they might encounter there.
When people search, they themselves control which articles they want to read
As explained above, it exists to discourage the insertion of "offensive" material for the sake of inserting "offensive" material. It doesn't mean that we should exclude material because it's "offensive"; it means that we shouldn't include "offensive" material that otherwise wouldn't make the cut (based on our normal content standards).
I'm unclear on what the above response is intended to convey. Please elaborate.
It isn't sufficient that the material in question remain available via some means. Treating it differently than we treat any other content (all else being equal) contradicts our fundamental principles. [...] Where in our policies and guidelines is it established that content deemed "offensive" is less worthy of promotion? Do you believe that removing an incentive to contribute such material would improve the encyclopedia?
You advocate suppressing material from the main page (by allowing users to "vote" away words that offend them).
The operative word is "otherwise".
I'm interested in reading your thoughts on the matter.
If we could ensure, with 100% certainty, that no one visiting the main page encounter material that he/she regards as objectionable, we still shouldn't. That's inconsistent with our mission. [...] As noted above, said policies are necessarily flawed because they cover matters that are necessary to the encyclopedia's operation.
You'd prefer that we lure readers into the encyclopedia by providing a false sense of security?
You'd prefer that we discriminate against certain cultures by demonstrating favoritism toward others?
And if someone is worried about being exposed to subjects that offend him/her, that's precisely what he/she should do. "Problem" solved.
That's contradicted by the sentence I quoted a part of, and which you referred to; hence my question. Perhaps the sentence should be modified or removed.
We do not reflect all of our content through the featured articles, and the featured articles are the best promoted articles.
The content is not available through "some means", it is avalable through the main method content is accessed through: searches and internal links.
When we first chose to have a more inviting main page, we should go all the way: be selective with what we put on it.
Now, if Frank's cock was a well-known film, it would seem silly to not have it featured; but when it is an obscure 20 year old short film with no interwiki, we have to consider whether including it on the main page is beneficial to our mission or not (the mission of spreading information).
Yes, from the main page.
I am not really interested in what offends Wikipedia users, but rather whether or not including certain forms of material on our main page is likely have us lose readers; or have readers frequent us/refer to us less than they otherwise would have.
Again, the main page is no normal page. Any article that is linked to from the main page is during that time given very special treatment; a special form of treatment a great many articles are likely to never receive.
The easiest solution to this would be to have an easily available turn on/off all images on Wikipedia.
A more time-consuming alternative would be to categorise images on Commons according to reactions they are likely to cause in a reader, and then let the individual wikipedias decide whether or not images of a certain category should require an extra click by default.
But what if we lost 80% of our readers because they felt that Wikipedia had a "gross" way of representing its content - how would that go along with our mission of spreading information?
It is no more "luring" than having featured articles on our main page could have readers think that most of our articles are of a similar standard.
Can all cultures reasonably expect that their sensitivies would simultaneously be taken notice of at the one same website? No.
But we can note the sensitivies that a) are shared among the majority of cultures, and b) apply to the culture(s) that make up the core of our reader base.
The main page is the landing page, so it's not quite that simple.
No contradiction exists, as I've attempted to explain.
not a determination that the subject matter was inappropriate
Others, applying similar logic and the same "the content is still there" argument, want it hidden within articles (requiring readers to click through warning messages to access it). Obviously, the latter is more extreme, but the underlying justification is not.
As soon as we single out "offensive" material for special treatment, we've failed in our mission to disseminate encyclopedic information without bias.
The main page is intended to invite readers to access the encyclopedia that actually exists, not a hypothetical variant containing only material that makes them happy.
You believe that our mission of spreading information is better accomplished by favoring subjects with which readers are more likely to be familiar already?
If our goal were to attract as many readers as possible (without regard for our fundamental principles), we could do all sorts of things differently. [...] And again, our goal isn't to draw in as many readers as possible by presenting whatever content makes them happy.
barring the Barack Obama article from the main page because most of our readers oppose miscegenation
Whatever the majority says goes.
Yes, if the point is to keep images as on-topic as possible, then "respect[ing] the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic" is irrelevant.
It is also contradicting since it could in theory lead to the exclusion of pictures that are relevant just because readers would not expect to find them there.
No subject matter is 'inappropriate' in itself; that's not what I have been arguing.
To avoid bias is practically impossible. At best, it is a question of attemptimg to minimalise it.
It is true that labelling certain forms of content as "offensive" is an obvious form for bias. However, by not putting it on the main page, we are not saying that it is offensive,
only recognising that putting it there does not fit convential standards and expectations for regular public websites.
The articles are there; as easily accessible as any other article; they are not put in a special place or subsection of the website.
With the enormous amount of articles we have, covering a vast amount of completely different topics, looking at the featured articles is not going to give a realistic idea of the total span of our articles; there are simply too many of them for true comprehension.
The context is potentially 'offensive' article titles; the topic's obscurity in itself is no issue.
Obviously, that cannot be the goal. At the same time, if we didn't care about attracting readers, we wouldn't need a main page like this.
I assume you mean that as a hypothetical to illustrate the principle, since it is an obvious absurdity by contemporary standards.
It's not a matter of what the majority says,
but about what expecations readers have for regular public websites.
There is an expectation that you may get offended, but more about opinions expressed rather than use of language (by the journalist, anyway) or graphic images.
@Crisco 1492 Now you are removing the statetment from its context. The context is "offensive material", not notability.
A word used in a certain meaning is no less offensive if it part of an extremely well known work than it is if it is in a work which is not as well known.
how well-known an article's subject is has nothing to do with its place in TFA
Furthermore, any exceptions based on a work being "well-known" would be purely subjective, simply because "well-known" varies between group to group
Readers don't conventionally expect images to be directly relevant to articles' subjects?
You seem to have forgotten about the "as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article" part (perhaps because you didn't quote it this time).
Indeed, it's an ongoing challenge. And for some reason, you want us to introduce additional bias.
You suggested that we vote on "which words are offensive" to establish "guidelines for what's considered appropriate for the front page". Those are your words.
Define "regular public websites".
We're discussing the main page.
And we're discussing the main page in its entirety, not merely TFA.
Firstly, all article titles are potentially offensive.
Secondly, you appear to assert that our "mission of spreading information" is fulfilled when we promote articles whose subjects are well known and articles whose subjects are obscure and "inoffensive", but not articles whose subjects are obscure and "offensive". I don't understand how a subject's prominence is even relevant, apart from the existence of a greater opportunity to "spread information" with which readers are heretofore unfamiliar.
We certainly care about attracting readers, but not at all costs.
Again, those are your words.
1. Wikipedia isn't a journalistic endeavor.
2. [citation needed].
Not according to current policy, perhaps, but this debate is about an hypothetical change to them, anyway.
It's a consideration similar to notability and what should make it to the ITN.
This part kills the part that precedes it. It's at the core of the contradiction.
Which expectations are we supposed to respect other than relevance to the article?
Does not a main page promoting articles add additional bias, perhaps? It really does.
It is about weighing pros and cons.
Sloppy wording on my part. It is intended to read something like "which words can be considered offensive in the English language".
I don't think it makes sense to treat the main page generally like a content page. We seem to simply disagree on this point.
Still far too many articles exist for readers to realistically make an assessment of our content span based on what we put on the main page.
They are, but I don't think you misunderstood what I meant. More accurate language just for the sake of it can quickly become too time-consuming.
The mission is fulfilled by people actually reading the encyclopedia. If they don't want to read it because it leaves a bad taste in their mouth, then the mission is failed.
The prominence is relevant in this context in the sense that people expect to see prominent things being covered. It would be weird if we didn't cover some of them just because a lot of people could find them distasteful. It would be much easier to defend putting articles like that on the main page.
No, certainly not. Good thing this is not "at all costs".
Yes, and I would like them to vote with the thought in mind what people expect to find on the main page of a website like this, and not merely what offends people.
I am sure one of those could have been added to some of your own statements.
It is my understanding from reading many of the most used websites.
Only if one believes that our mission is to cover the best-known subjects.
You simply aren't understanding why we've addressed said material.
Please elaborate.
I'm baffled as to what distinction you seek to draw.
If we include only the most popular topics and viewpoints, the majority will be happy and continue reading the encyclopedia. Mission accomplished!
Only if one believes that our mission is to cover the best-known subjects.
But okay, let's assume that this was an incomplete idea. What other criteria do you have in mind?
If you believe that I've made factual claims of questionable veracity, please bring them to my attention.
In other words, you've projected your personal expectations onto readers in general.
There exists only a vague link between our main page and our mission.
I've understood it perfectly well, which is why I am pointing out that the expectations of the readers are irrelevant, because ...the "offensive" material didn't belong in the first place.
We've already touched the topic. For starters, the featured articles receive the best promotion, and there can be a huge difference in the likelyhood of two random articles becoming featured, a difference rooted in who it is that is writing this encyclopedia.
cow dung tastes terrible vs most people think cow dung tastes terrible.
No, because if we are removing content, then there is less of a point in having people read us. They'd not necessarily be any wiser from it.
No more than banning troublemakers makes us believe that only "nice" people should be editing articles.
It was intended to introduce a new idea, not to be a detailed and well-crafted plan on how to arrive at a final solution. If the idea/principle does not receive much support, then it doesn't make that much sense to me to flesh it out.
This is largely a debate on principles, so the exact accuracy of facts isn't always that important; as long as things aren't too far off.
We pay special attention to what causes offense not because we want to do whatever it takes to avoid causing offense, but because we don't want to purposely cause offense.
As I've noted, the unfortunate existence of systemic bias doesn't justify the intentional introduction of systematic bias.
But what if people encounter articles (and elements thereof) that offend them, causing them to leave Wikipedia and never return? If we remove the content in question, at least they'll stay to read whatever's left. Right?
I'm not seeing the analogy.
So you don't have anything in mind other than voting "offensive" material off the main page?
There could be an elephant in the park photo; a park in a location were elephants do not live in the wild. The elephant is irrelevant to the topic, so a photo without the elephant would be preferred.
Very few people is likely to be offended by the presence of the elephant, but that is not really relevant;
So again, expectations are irrelevant – they do nowhere enter the equation of whether an image should be used or not.
The point was that a non-simplistic design of the main page introduces an extra layer of bias.
We'd have to live with that. There's a red line at censoring information.
If some content would be barred from the main page, that doesn't mean it is any less important or useful, even if the most common human reaction would be to interpret it like this.
My idea is to avoid people having a bad view of Wikipedia where pretty much unnecessary.
Expectations are relevant because certain editors seek to deliberately defy them (in a manner that adds no value to the encyclopedia) for the sake of provocation. There's nothing contradictory about advising against that.
My point is that the existence of unavoidable bias doesn't justify the intentional introduction of avoidable bias.
WP:Offensive material says that we should respect these expectations up to a certain point, when what we're actually supposed to do is to make sure that we neither ourselves attempt to be offensive for sake of it, nor let others get away with it.
I can't really put it in clearer terms than this.
And my point is that the main page does not need to be anything more than a search box. We can avoid the extra bias that the current main page design brings with it.
One problem is - there will always be a degree of subjectivity/local preference as to what constitutes 'Not my cup of tea while I am having a cup of tea.'
As 'the cup of tea' remark is taken from comments I made (and could add 'things which will annoy library and other computer blocking poliices( - I am referring 'to things encountered unexpectedly' (whether on the main page, through idly clicking on blue links/random article button) as distinct from 'deliberately looking for a topic' (shall we say for understanding a previously unknown term).
Entries on the main page involving 'sex, very medical/veterinary, war and similar, violence, and certain persons and events' and 'things constituting bad taste' are always likely to cause at least some degree of comment and complaint, however well the articles themselves are written.
I have said previously one of the benefits of the Main Page is to bring to the readers' attention to topics they would not otherwise be aware of, and it can be said of WP as well as the newspaper 'all human and other life (among many other things) can be found herein.'
There will always be degree of conflict between these two aspects - whatever arrangements WP makes to allow people to select which categories of topics they view. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Was thinking perhaps "re-legalize" is the correct term, as cannabis-consumption laws are only about a century old in most cases. Although I understand that "legalize" has a more direct meaning to most folks. 72.35.135.79 ( talk) 06:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The 'Other areas of Wikipedia' is currently a collection of 6 static links to areas of the 'community' side of the wiki, one of which is already linked in the side bar (community portal). I propose that we use this area like our other featured content sections, and shine a spotlight on areas that would otherwise get little exposure. Examples of the types of featured areas would be policy (such as 5 pillars), editing advice/tutorials, areas to make proposals, areas to request articles, how to start an article, find help (reference desk), information about WikiProjects, how to register an account, how to upload a photograph, how to nominate featured content, etc.
Like other featured content, items would be rotated at an interval to be determined by the community, and blurbs would have to be written and approved before content would be entered into the rotation. The goal of this program would be to show readers that there are simple ways to get involved, and to drive traffic to areas that might otherwise be unnoticed by our readership. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could convert his news entry, moving it up in the list, to something like "The body of Nelson Mandela lay in state from 11–13 December at the Union Buildings in Pretoria and a state funeral will be held on 15 December 2013 in Qunu, South Africa." The goal here would be to establish a new record for an image, ousting the current, uh, incumbent. <grin>-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You might use a more peripherally related illustration for Chang'e if there's no free-licensed image of the lander. But agreed there must be a free Mandela image somewhere. Wnt ( talk) 22:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Three extra-terrestial topics (but, as Hitchikers... says, the Universe is a Big Place). Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
IMO the design used for the sister projects list on Commons, commons:Template:Sisterprojects-en, is more visually appealing than the one used on en.wp today. It nicely wraps the projects under the Wikimedia logo, and de-emphasizes the project descriptions. How would people feel about using the same template here?-- Eloquence * 09:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
See here for another proposal and some discussion... Although I like the Commons version better... Thanks, Surfer43_ ¿qué_pasa? 20:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Two toxic critters on the main page.
Comment not complaint. 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 13:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
'Obscure Wikipedia games' numbers X and X + 1: getting several items in a (slightly obscure topic) on the MP on the same day - and/or a sequence of stories on a theme over several days. 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 13:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Today the lead DYK reads:
... that hōchōdō (庖丁道, the way of the cleaver) is a traditional Japanese culinary art form of filleting a fish or fowl without touching it with one's hands (demonstration pictured)?
Why was the non-English script so important to be presented on the main page? This after all in English Wikipedia, right? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 04:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
How come there is a picture of him in the article but not on the main page. Yugenftf ( talk) 00:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Münchsmünster Abbey — Now that's obscure! Sca ( talk) 02:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I need to know how to create a Wikipedia page or submit one Bobbybeefburger ( talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The Main Page Featured Portal drive was successfully completed.
This was a collaborative initiative created to get all portals linked from the top-right of the Main Page to Featured Portal quality status.
Thank you to all who participated or contributed towards this quality improvement effort in some way.
Happy Holidays,
— Cirt ( talk) 17:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Super Mario is the day's showcase. Who cares? Was there no other article to showcase? Just another thing that proves Wikipedia isn't a serious academic source, because the main editors are all teenagers who only care about video games and girls' breasts. Disappointing. Carrots Sucker ( talk) 01:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Can we have a Pussy Riot pic instead, please? Maybe a cropped version of -- 74.15.88.37 ( talk) 09:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
close trolling by static IP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I know it's Christmas but does every single inch of the Main page have to do something with Jesus, or Santa, or Lambs (for God's sakes, in the featured picture). It's highly irritating, and also completely disregarding the fact that not every one in the world is Christian, and may or may not (even if they are Christian) care for Christmas at all, and may not want to see such high public displays of affection, if you will, on the main page. You might as well rename Wikipedia to the Catholic Encyclopedia for this one day complete with a new logo with Santa's hat on it and a crucifix dangling from it somewhere. Pathetic! Sorry, but have respect for other religions and peoples. Don't enforce your majority in such a way that people, especially on a page such as this on a website that people all over the world read and access everyday, should feel disgusted or poorly represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.106.18.10 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
|
(reset) Is it not now traditional to switch to 'spot the first Easter Egg'? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK ... that a dead elephant is buried under a road junction in Brighton's Bear Road area?
I see what you guys did there. Good on ya people who scheduled that one in. GamerPro64 01:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The Latin Wikipedia now has over 100,000 articles; is there a reason why it does not appear in the over 50,000 section of other wikipedias?-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 15:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I ever saw a shorter feature to read! Are there any shorter?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriendlyreadervisiting ( talk • contribs)
The shortest FA was Tropical Storm Erick (2007), but that article has since been merged into another. Some pretty short ones include Missing My Baby, Nico Ditch, and Tropical Depression Ten (2005) (most storm FAs aren't long). I think Miss Meyers takes the cake in terms of prose size; it doesn't even crack 4k. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Tamil wikipedia is not included in the list of wikipedias that have more than 50000 articles. It has above 57000 articles. Please include that in the list too.-- G.Kiruthikan ( talk) 13:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed that redirect WP:MP be changed from Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy to Main Page. If you care either way, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Wikipedia:MP. John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
== Temporary cropped images
I fear you may misrepresent the subject article by having a picture of a regular potto. Please remove it as soon as you can. This blurb will have to go without an image to represent it. Stuart Pfanninstiel ( talk) 18:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"After years in opposition, in 1849, ..." Was this construction really intended? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 05:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Considering the historical importance of it (and that other, far lesser figures get death notice mentions), isn't it about time that Wikipedia announced the death of Arial Sharon?
Janet Yellen is the CHAIRMAN of the Fed - see the article. She's not the "chair" as it says on the main page. Can we get rid of this PC nonsense and accord her the proper title. Thanks. 86.29.246.113 ( talk) 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@ 86.29.246.113: - I've fixed the TFA template, so if you purge your cache the change should occur. I made the change per your request and as Chairman of the Federal Reserve seems to be the correct title. So this is now Done. :) Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article refers to Minas Gerais. Is this a real place? Sounds like something out of J.R.R. Tolkien. (Just kidding.) See Minas Tirith. (I'll go away now.) Sca ( talk) 18:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I find it a bit odd that the main page image of Ariel Sharon has him standing before what appears to be an American flag. Wouldn't it be more fitting for it to be an Israeli flag, or even no flag at all?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox&oldid=590546901 for a version of the Main Page with the two main columns set to the same width. I believe this looks better than the existing version when the typography refresh beta is turned on. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this. -- The Anome ( talk) 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The "Did you know..." today (Wed 15 Jan) about speed-skater Patrick Meek seems a bit unclear
... that speed skater Patrick Meek qualified for the 2014 Winter Olympics despite not being able to "really see anything"?
To me, that reads as if he were blind, or partially-blind, instead of simply losing contact lenses during the qualifications. -- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Nothing more than that. Just reminding people it's Wikipedia:Wikipedia_day. The project started 13 years ago today. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
... happenings at Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Was there really no interesting fact? Why did we resort to tooting our own horn? Beerest 2 talk 01:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there no separate article to update for ITN with Friday's Kabul bombing and attack, which killed 21 including IMF and U.N. officials? [3] [4] I could find only War in Afghanistan, which weighs in at 7,000 words and goes back to 1978. Sca ( talk) 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I see we have now started our main page with a commercial logo. I am not anti-business and have no objection to having a commercial product as our featured article but starting the the company's logo sets a bas precedent. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Today's featured list appear twice a week on the Main page, rather than just on Mondays?
In June 2011 a unanimously supported proposal to add Today's featured list (TFL) to the Main Page every Monday was passed. Since 13 June 2013 a FL has appeared on the front page every Monday. Following a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Expansion of TFL on the main page, it was agreed that there is sufficient interest to run the TFL at least twice a week.
The FL process is strong, healthy and can cope with a second slot on the front page. As of 3 December 2013 there are 2,533 featured lists; in the first 11 months of 2013, 209 lists were promoted (and 239 during 2012), and all naturally meet the current criteria demanded by the community. There are, therefore, a sufficient number of high-quality lists available from which to select.
Featured lists, like their article counterparts, cover a hugely wide-ranging set of topics. An extra day per week on the main page will allow the FL community to both increase the diversity of those lists featured and enable us to schedule time-specific lists on appropriate dates, or within a closer timeframe than we currently do.
Featured lists are a strong and healthy part of the project's output and they provide content whose standards are as exacting as other Featured output. In order to best showcase that output, it is considered appropriate to raise its profile by showcasing the finest lists we have on the main page.
Although there were calls during the discussion for lists to be run on three days, two days would enable a strong diversity to be maintained. A suggestion was also made for a "floating day", to be used intermittently on specific dates. Although the consensus was against this for a second day, it may be suitable as a potential third day, on an intermittant basis for key events.
There are currently over 2,500 featured lists, over 200 of which have been selected during 2013. These recently promoted articles will, by definition, meet the current criteria of featured status as defined by community consensus. Even through selection of just the articles passed this year, there is a sufficient number to be able to select two articles a week. There is also a sufficiently diverse pool of lists from which we are able to select the TFL, in order that we avoid appearing too Western-centric.
Technical impact on the main page is nil. The current code for TFL was written with the anticipation that it could be expanded to more then one day in the future.
Featured lists have enriched the main page now for over a year without any serious issues. I hope the community would agree that allowing us to feature at least twice a week would enrich the project. -
SchroCat (
talk) 08:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
198.169.113.63 (
talk)
02:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Before the discussion becomes muddled, I strongly suggest that the "floating third day" element be dropped. While it was proposed as a "floating second day" in the previous discussion, the concerns expressed therein point to consensus against a floating day in general; whether it's a second or third day makes no material difference (and I believe that you were the only respondent to draw such a distinction). — David Levy 08:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
When I raised this at the TFL talk page, my perception was that those more involved with it than I am were defensive about TFL's record. I fully understand that mindset – once upon a time I was heavily involed myself, and would have defended TFL from anyone I perceived to be giving it an unduly hard time. Nonetheless, I don't see anyone trying to explain why relatively obscure lists in 2012 were getting the sorts of attention that more mainstream lists got in 2013, and to do whatever can be done to reverse that trend without harming diversity. Interest in the Main Page overall has dipped a bit in the past couple of years – I was the one that pointed it out – but that is no reason to shy away from asking what we can do to maintain interest in TFL.
When was it blocked to those writing on their IP addresses? (Being of the category of 'persons not always signing in to correct the odd typo.) Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Probably 'a certain fraction' of IP changes are registered WPedians who are merely correcting typos or have not noticed the computer has signed them out and other equally 'innocent' reasons. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I see today's Mangrove Robin DYK pic is to be recycled in less than two weeks as a TFP. Isn't once a month enough? Sca ( talk) 15:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Today's Black-breasted Thrush DYK pic. is due back in less than two weeks (Feb. 5) as a TFP. Sigh. Sca ( talk) 14:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
hello article is crocodile not crocodilla please fix - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurugamash ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 January 2014
In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck (film) has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. Bencherlite Talk 12:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this appropriate, but I was almost looking for the article title to be "A battle took place", but somehow I'm thinking that the article title should actually be in the intro paragraph...could someone update that? Hires an editor ( talk) 02:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
His death should really be mentioned, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkinsonProject ( talk • contribs)
no other pics to choose from? where are the birdies and old churches when we need them? -- 76.64.180.9 ( talk) 14:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why was Daft Punk mentioned predominately when Macklemore was clearly the most influential artist at the Grammys? I hate pop culture, but obviously, some sort of favoritism is going on. Dirt290 ( talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
3/5 images are of Americans today. 5/7 of Did you know items are on US-centric things. Today's Featured article is on an American. Amazingly, only one piece of On this day... is American. They still got the picture though. -- 85.210.107.124 ( talk) 20:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
There's this one day in OTD this year that had 3 US and 2 UK and 0 ROTW blurbs. – H T D 03:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Watch the "Featured Article" and "In This Day in News". Those a predominately neutral topics, set on European events on the first page. All I hear is European unrest and cricket/football stats. I have yet to see any American topics covered on this shitboard. Dirt290 ( talk) 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
" Did you know...that a cup (pictured) is a small container for drinks?" Was that supposed to be some sort of joke? JDiala ( talk) 02:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous, non-registered user here; I don't know why - but I'm absolutely disgusting by the attempt at dry humor on the DYK page. Can somebody please change it, with perhaps a month-ban on the IP responsible? Thanks.
How is this phrase encyclopaedic?!? It reads like some puff piece in a magazine. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 05:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
this is off the main page. Further discussion about article content can happen at article talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The crap you are running about Sasheer Zamata is a total disgrace. Instead of telling me an interesting fact about her, you simply choose to sensationalize her race. Seriously, you guys WOULD NOT write "...that John Random is one of many white random people?" Utter crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D'urville ( talk • contribs)
|
I suggest that we add a section to the home page where we feature a different WikiProject each day. This will help recruit new editors to join editing topics of particular interest to them. Within the featured WikiProject box would be a brief description of the project, and a list of a few representative articles of high quality. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yet again I want to bring up the idea of a separate "Sports" section on the front page. There are normally a couple or several sports entries in the News section on the front page, a Sports section on the front page could be larger and keep News and Sport separate , for easier viewing and emphasis on sport. Cosprings ( talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
and War ... war (and wars) too. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)and art and natural sciences and politics ... and some other things I will think of later -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not sure why you write things in such an arrogant way. Also, no, not those things, just sports. Cosprings ( talk) 22:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sports are not the world and the world is not sports. The main page isn't big enough to contain a bunch of categories. All of the things mentioned by Demiurge1000 have an equal (or better!) claim to space.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Chronological summary of the 2014 Winter Olympics needs to be updated, or the link to this page should not be placed on ITN. -- 76.64.180.9 ( talk) 03:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
When the Main Page is first displayed, the vertical bar designating the place where user keyboard input is inserted should be in the Search box at the upper right. As it is, I cannot see where the insertion point or focus is located when the Main Page is first displayed. Pressing the TAB key moves the insertion point vertical bar to the Search box, but this is an extra and unnecessary keystroke imposed on users whose goal is searching for something. Repeated TAB key presses allow cycling through available links, which is fine. Maybe different browsers behave differently, not sure. Naive users will not know that the TAB key is the one to use, and they will be obliged to mouse over to the Search box and click it to get started with their encyclopedia research. Megapod ( talk) 12:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Is TFL becoming an everyday feature now or is it just starting to appear on Mondays and Fridays? Difficultly north ( talk) - Simply south alt. 01:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
the Waray-Waray and Cebuano Wikipedia have more than 400k articles. shouldnt they be listed here now? oh, and congrats to all the new 1m encyclopedias last year, which i hadnt noticed growing so fast. a little competition is good for the soul.( User:Mercurywoodrose not logged in. 99.14.216.18 ( talk) 06:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I remember reading somewhere many years ago that human footprints have been found on (I think) sandstone in material that was dated as being so old as to be impossible for them to actually be human – on the order of several million years old. This might have been in the context of disproving the way that scientists date sedimentary rock. I didn't think much about it until I took a geology class 30 or so years ago at North Carolina State University where the professor was showing slides that included a shot of footprints like those, and as I remember, they were in or near the United States somewhere (Kentucky?) in rock that was maybe 1.5 million years old. He presented it as a mystery that had not been explained up until that point in time. Anyone else out there have any such memories? Shocking Blue ( talk) 13:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
My edit above got auto-deleted. Apologies for the diversion but I believe the news item should reference hominid footprints, not human footprints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljamoquio ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's great to see a vegetable as TFA.
One thought. This is just a thought, not an error.
Lots of stupid people read the front page, and, even slightly less stupid people, like me, might read "Cabbage is prone to several nutrient deficiencies" as implying there might be something negative about eating cabbage. Admittedly, I only thought so for two seconds because then I worked it out.
For benefit of various stupid people, would it be ok to change it to "Cabbage plants are prone to several nutrient deficiencies, as well as multiple pests, bacteria and fungal diseases."
Clever people already know this is what it means, of course. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 07:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I hate veggies. – H T D 09:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know it may be tiresome, but it would be great if Wikipedia could use British English syntax when quoting an article about a British subject such as the Cornwell Scout Badge. It should be "named after" and not "named for". In hope and anticipation of the next occurrence. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 17:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It doesn't take me directly to articles, it keeps saying "a page containing [search term] exists" and I have to click on the article. It just seems unnecessary and clunky. Bananaj2 ( talk) 18:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
<br /
I definitely agree with this post
Is it just me, or does it seem like Wikipedia has been taken over by bird-watchers? It seems like every other featured picture in the past two months or so has featured some sort of bird. Can someone clue me in on why this is? Has everybody on the planet decided that birds are now interesting? Did I miss something? EbolaRocks08 ( talk) 10:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's because pretty much all of the bird pictures are from the same man called user:JJ Harrison. Th4n3r ( talk) 10:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Laraib ahmad was born sulanpur of a little village in dhakwa.but no he live in kanpur
See Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Is_it_time_to_revisit_the_protection_status_of_the_article_featured_on_the_main_page.3F. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Vill höra lite mer om A.Bagge, blev fascinerande att han har gjort så mycket för musiken. Dels på egen hand och tillsammans med andra. Förvånad över att jag är äldre, (två år). Annveas ( talk) 12:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Google translates this as "Want to hear a little more about A.Bagge, was fascinating that he has done so much for music. Both on their own and with others. Surprised that I'm older, (two years)"
No, not because of the above subject, but because we now have a cute cat picture as the Featured Picture of the Day.
Obviously it's all about getting clicks fom now on ... Daniel Case ( talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
We should have more articles on cats featured. I nominate Frank's Pussy. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic TFP of Martin Van Buren, by Mathew Brady ! A visage of true character... Sca ( talk) 00:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Time for a few more chappesses on the MP to match the chaps? 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone please answer in the "Errors in the current or next Did you know..." section. — Bill william compton Talk 13:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Cock "Frank" ? Why are you are showing an article about movie of the penis of the man ! I knew what I have come to expect from online encyclopedia, and it is not this. In addition, the page is locked, how am I supposed to edit ? You guys are slipping ... Frankscock ( talk) 13:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it was rude of the — Crisco 1492 ( talk) and the SchroCat ( talk) to tell me that my spelling was bad. It is not my fault, it has been limited to the translator. You should be more welcoming for new users create a fun alternative, Wikipedia, you guys are supposed to be to an experience collaborative. Franklin dfd ( talk) 15:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm offended by the image being used on the front page. How dare they show someone drinking orange juice out of a plastic cup? What image are we trying to show for our future generations to know such taboo was a thing? GamerPro64 17:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You know, I sympathize with OP here. TFA director/former TFA director Raul had blacklisted Jenna Jameson from appearing on the main page for the longest time because the subject matter was considered too provocative. Is that article any more provocative than what we have here, particularly the title? It's great to say that we, as editors, can take a sober, scholarly approach to all sorts of unorthodox subject matter. And we can; that's one of the many great things about Wikipedia. But today's featured article is primarily for readers, not editors, and we should at least take into consideration what our readers would expect to see on the main page of a top-ten website, rather than focusing solely on what we think they should see.
Let me offer one hypothetical: suppose the main page featured article was Nigger. For an entire day, we'd have that word displayed very prominently on our main page. Would that really be the type of image that we'd want to present? Is there any doubt whatsoever that the heaps of criticism that we'd receive would be richly deserved? -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit more nuanced than just bleating "NOTCENSORED" and doing whatever we want.
There are boatloads of words and images that are appropriate in an article context, but wouldn't be appropriate in a main page context.
(reset) When will we have the 'vanilla/work/library/school safe' and 'anything goes' versions of the MP? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The 'vanilla list' would probably cover the following.
One problem is - there will always be a degree of subjectivity/local preference as to what constitutes 'Not my cup of tea while I am having a cup of tea.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The point about Wikipedia:Offensive material is that we make considerations at all about what may shock readers.
The main page is about promotion of our content; and if our readers are turned away by it, it works against its own purpose.
NOTCENSORED does not apply to the main page,
because the main page does not hold any information on its own, it only reflects/summarises other pages where the information is actually stored.
Out notability guidelines are ultimately completely subjective; but we still need them. And we still manage to create a sensible encyclopedia despite this obvious imperfection (indeed, notability is its own form of censorship, since information is actively suppressed).
There are widely different views on what user behaviour should lead to a block, but we still have guidelines and block people to make things go smoother.
This topic is no different from the two previous ones.
But the idea isn't to exclude content simply because it's "offensive"; it's to apply our normal inclusion standards instead of intentionally inserting controversial material because we can.
And in terms of subject matter, it's intended to reflect the encyclopedia as a whole. We might showcase an article about a mass murder one day and a pop singer the next.
and easily swayed by systemic bias at the English Wikipedia level, resulting in the identification of material widely regarded as objectionable only among members of certain cultures
Should I interpret this to mean that you don't recognize any material distinctions?
That may be what it says literally (it seems more like the page contradicts itself, ultimately),
but expectations on what to find in articles are not formed from nothing. (quote: respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible [...])
In that case, they should have been randomly selected with the only criterion being that notability is met. Instead, we only have featured articles in that spot, presumably because they make for a better reading.
Assessing notability is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen, just like assessing offensiveness is somewhat objective once the entirely subjective relevant criteria have been chosen.
Indeed; and that's how everything goes here. We only have articles on subjects that we have people to write about, and we only have featured articles for the content that our authors cares enough about to make featured.
Here's another funny detail from notability: according to WP:NASTRO, a star is not inherently notable, even though it has much more influence on the Universe than any tiny hill down here on Earth that we may have an article on, and which it may outlive by billions of years.
They are no different in the sense that the topics are complicated with no ideal solution. Any solution is a compromise, but a solution is still possible.
To what contradiction are you referring? [...] Readers conventionally expect to find material that aids in their comprehension of the article's subject.
I was careful to preface my statement with the phrase "in terms of subject matter", precisely to avoid the above misinterpretation.
You're ignoring a fundamental distinction. Compiling information about notable subjects is key to Wikipedia's mission. Suppressing "offensive" words and images is not. [...] Yes, I'm well aware of the issues stemming from systemic bias. And I'm baffled as to why you wish to exacerbate the problem by allowing local majorities to vote away content that offends them.
I don't assert that our notability standards are perfect. Perhaps they should be changed to permit more articles about stars and/or fewer articles about tiny hills and such.
Only if it addresses an actual problem.
I think you have to make up your mind here: does WP:Offensive material exist because we want the articles to be on-topic or because we are catering to our readers? The two are not the same.
The featured articles will always represent a subset of the topics that we cover. They are by far the most visible on our main page.
The content is still there, but simply not reflected onto the main page.
That doesn't mean that we suppress it,
but that we do not actively promote it via our main page.
Otherwise, it is treated exactly the same any other content, as it should be
(with the exception of images, from my POV; but that is a separate topic).
You more or less used as an argument that any solution here will be flawed,
when in reality we already have lots of necessarily flawed policies in place.
The actual problem is that people may avoid the main page if they are "worried" about what they might encounter there.
When people search, they themselves control which articles they want to read
As explained above, it exists to discourage the insertion of "offensive" material for the sake of inserting "offensive" material. It doesn't mean that we should exclude material because it's "offensive"; it means that we shouldn't include "offensive" material that otherwise wouldn't make the cut (based on our normal content standards).
I'm unclear on what the above response is intended to convey. Please elaborate.
It isn't sufficient that the material in question remain available via some means. Treating it differently than we treat any other content (all else being equal) contradicts our fundamental principles. [...] Where in our policies and guidelines is it established that content deemed "offensive" is less worthy of promotion? Do you believe that removing an incentive to contribute such material would improve the encyclopedia?
You advocate suppressing material from the main page (by allowing users to "vote" away words that offend them).
The operative word is "otherwise".
I'm interested in reading your thoughts on the matter.
If we could ensure, with 100% certainty, that no one visiting the main page encounter material that he/she regards as objectionable, we still shouldn't. That's inconsistent with our mission. [...] As noted above, said policies are necessarily flawed because they cover matters that are necessary to the encyclopedia's operation.
You'd prefer that we lure readers into the encyclopedia by providing a false sense of security?
You'd prefer that we discriminate against certain cultures by demonstrating favoritism toward others?
And if someone is worried about being exposed to subjects that offend him/her, that's precisely what he/she should do. "Problem" solved.
That's contradicted by the sentence I quoted a part of, and which you referred to; hence my question. Perhaps the sentence should be modified or removed.
We do not reflect all of our content through the featured articles, and the featured articles are the best promoted articles.
The content is not available through "some means", it is avalable through the main method content is accessed through: searches and internal links.
When we first chose to have a more inviting main page, we should go all the way: be selective with what we put on it.
Now, if Frank's cock was a well-known film, it would seem silly to not have it featured; but when it is an obscure 20 year old short film with no interwiki, we have to consider whether including it on the main page is beneficial to our mission or not (the mission of spreading information).
Yes, from the main page.
I am not really interested in what offends Wikipedia users, but rather whether or not including certain forms of material on our main page is likely have us lose readers; or have readers frequent us/refer to us less than they otherwise would have.
Again, the main page is no normal page. Any article that is linked to from the main page is during that time given very special treatment; a special form of treatment a great many articles are likely to never receive.
The easiest solution to this would be to have an easily available turn on/off all images on Wikipedia.
A more time-consuming alternative would be to categorise images on Commons according to reactions they are likely to cause in a reader, and then let the individual wikipedias decide whether or not images of a certain category should require an extra click by default.
But what if we lost 80% of our readers because they felt that Wikipedia had a "gross" way of representing its content - how would that go along with our mission of spreading information?
It is no more "luring" than having featured articles on our main page could have readers think that most of our articles are of a similar standard.
Can all cultures reasonably expect that their sensitivies would simultaneously be taken notice of at the one same website? No.
But we can note the sensitivies that a) are shared among the majority of cultures, and b) apply to the culture(s) that make up the core of our reader base.
The main page is the landing page, so it's not quite that simple.
No contradiction exists, as I've attempted to explain.
not a determination that the subject matter was inappropriate
Others, applying similar logic and the same "the content is still there" argument, want it hidden within articles (requiring readers to click through warning messages to access it). Obviously, the latter is more extreme, but the underlying justification is not.
As soon as we single out "offensive" material for special treatment, we've failed in our mission to disseminate encyclopedic information without bias.
The main page is intended to invite readers to access the encyclopedia that actually exists, not a hypothetical variant containing only material that makes them happy.
You believe that our mission of spreading information is better accomplished by favoring subjects with which readers are more likely to be familiar already?
If our goal were to attract as many readers as possible (without regard for our fundamental principles), we could do all sorts of things differently. [...] And again, our goal isn't to draw in as many readers as possible by presenting whatever content makes them happy.
barring the Barack Obama article from the main page because most of our readers oppose miscegenation
Whatever the majority says goes.
Yes, if the point is to keep images as on-topic as possible, then "respect[ing] the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic" is irrelevant.
It is also contradicting since it could in theory lead to the exclusion of pictures that are relevant just because readers would not expect to find them there.
No subject matter is 'inappropriate' in itself; that's not what I have been arguing.
To avoid bias is practically impossible. At best, it is a question of attemptimg to minimalise it.
It is true that labelling certain forms of content as "offensive" is an obvious form for bias. However, by not putting it on the main page, we are not saying that it is offensive,
only recognising that putting it there does not fit convential standards and expectations for regular public websites.
The articles are there; as easily accessible as any other article; they are not put in a special place or subsection of the website.
With the enormous amount of articles we have, covering a vast amount of completely different topics, looking at the featured articles is not going to give a realistic idea of the total span of our articles; there are simply too many of them for true comprehension.
The context is potentially 'offensive' article titles; the topic's obscurity in itself is no issue.
Obviously, that cannot be the goal. At the same time, if we didn't care about attracting readers, we wouldn't need a main page like this.
I assume you mean that as a hypothetical to illustrate the principle, since it is an obvious absurdity by contemporary standards.
It's not a matter of what the majority says,
but about what expecations readers have for regular public websites.
There is an expectation that you may get offended, but more about opinions expressed rather than use of language (by the journalist, anyway) or graphic images.
@Crisco 1492 Now you are removing the statetment from its context. The context is "offensive material", not notability.
A word used in a certain meaning is no less offensive if it part of an extremely well known work than it is if it is in a work which is not as well known.
how well-known an article's subject is has nothing to do with its place in TFA
Furthermore, any exceptions based on a work being "well-known" would be purely subjective, simply because "well-known" varies between group to group
Readers don't conventionally expect images to be directly relevant to articles' subjects?
You seem to have forgotten about the "as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article" part (perhaps because you didn't quote it this time).
Indeed, it's an ongoing challenge. And for some reason, you want us to introduce additional bias.
You suggested that we vote on "which words are offensive" to establish "guidelines for what's considered appropriate for the front page". Those are your words.
Define "regular public websites".
We're discussing the main page.
And we're discussing the main page in its entirety, not merely TFA.
Firstly, all article titles are potentially offensive.
Secondly, you appear to assert that our "mission of spreading information" is fulfilled when we promote articles whose subjects are well known and articles whose subjects are obscure and "inoffensive", but not articles whose subjects are obscure and "offensive". I don't understand how a subject's prominence is even relevant, apart from the existence of a greater opportunity to "spread information" with which readers are heretofore unfamiliar.
We certainly care about attracting readers, but not at all costs.
Again, those are your words.
1. Wikipedia isn't a journalistic endeavor.
2. [citation needed].
Not according to current policy, perhaps, but this debate is about an hypothetical change to them, anyway.
It's a consideration similar to notability and what should make it to the ITN.
This part kills the part that precedes it. It's at the core of the contradiction.
Which expectations are we supposed to respect other than relevance to the article?
Does not a main page promoting articles add additional bias, perhaps? It really does.
It is about weighing pros and cons.
Sloppy wording on my part. It is intended to read something like "which words can be considered offensive in the English language".
I don't think it makes sense to treat the main page generally like a content page. We seem to simply disagree on this point.
Still far too many articles exist for readers to realistically make an assessment of our content span based on what we put on the main page.
They are, but I don't think you misunderstood what I meant. More accurate language just for the sake of it can quickly become too time-consuming.
The mission is fulfilled by people actually reading the encyclopedia. If they don't want to read it because it leaves a bad taste in their mouth, then the mission is failed.
The prominence is relevant in this context in the sense that people expect to see prominent things being covered. It would be weird if we didn't cover some of them just because a lot of people could find them distasteful. It would be much easier to defend putting articles like that on the main page.
No, certainly not. Good thing this is not "at all costs".
Yes, and I would like them to vote with the thought in mind what people expect to find on the main page of a website like this, and not merely what offends people.
I am sure one of those could have been added to some of your own statements.
It is my understanding from reading many of the most used websites.
Only if one believes that our mission is to cover the best-known subjects.
You simply aren't understanding why we've addressed said material.
Please elaborate.
I'm baffled as to what distinction you seek to draw.
If we include only the most popular topics and viewpoints, the majority will be happy and continue reading the encyclopedia. Mission accomplished!
Only if one believes that our mission is to cover the best-known subjects.
But okay, let's assume that this was an incomplete idea. What other criteria do you have in mind?
If you believe that I've made factual claims of questionable veracity, please bring them to my attention.
In other words, you've projected your personal expectations onto readers in general.
There exists only a vague link between our main page and our mission.
I've understood it perfectly well, which is why I am pointing out that the expectations of the readers are irrelevant, because ...the "offensive" material didn't belong in the first place.
We've already touched the topic. For starters, the featured articles receive the best promotion, and there can be a huge difference in the likelyhood of two random articles becoming featured, a difference rooted in who it is that is writing this encyclopedia.
cow dung tastes terrible vs most people think cow dung tastes terrible.
No, because if we are removing content, then there is less of a point in having people read us. They'd not necessarily be any wiser from it.
No more than banning troublemakers makes us believe that only "nice" people should be editing articles.
It was intended to introduce a new idea, not to be a detailed and well-crafted plan on how to arrive at a final solution. If the idea/principle does not receive much support, then it doesn't make that much sense to me to flesh it out.
This is largely a debate on principles, so the exact accuracy of facts isn't always that important; as long as things aren't too far off.
We pay special attention to what causes offense not because we want to do whatever it takes to avoid causing offense, but because we don't want to purposely cause offense.
As I've noted, the unfortunate existence of systemic bias doesn't justify the intentional introduction of systematic bias.
But what if people encounter articles (and elements thereof) that offend them, causing them to leave Wikipedia and never return? If we remove the content in question, at least they'll stay to read whatever's left. Right?
I'm not seeing the analogy.
So you don't have anything in mind other than voting "offensive" material off the main page?
There could be an elephant in the park photo; a park in a location were elephants do not live in the wild. The elephant is irrelevant to the topic, so a photo without the elephant would be preferred.
Very few people is likely to be offended by the presence of the elephant, but that is not really relevant;
So again, expectations are irrelevant – they do nowhere enter the equation of whether an image should be used or not.
The point was that a non-simplistic design of the main page introduces an extra layer of bias.
We'd have to live with that. There's a red line at censoring information.
If some content would be barred from the main page, that doesn't mean it is any less important or useful, even if the most common human reaction would be to interpret it like this.
My idea is to avoid people having a bad view of Wikipedia where pretty much unnecessary.
Expectations are relevant because certain editors seek to deliberately defy them (in a manner that adds no value to the encyclopedia) for the sake of provocation. There's nothing contradictory about advising against that.
My point is that the existence of unavoidable bias doesn't justify the intentional introduction of avoidable bias.
WP:Offensive material says that we should respect these expectations up to a certain point, when what we're actually supposed to do is to make sure that we neither ourselves attempt to be offensive for sake of it, nor let others get away with it.
I can't really put it in clearer terms than this.
And my point is that the main page does not need to be anything more than a search box. We can avoid the extra bias that the current main page design brings with it.
One problem is - there will always be a degree of subjectivity/local preference as to what constitutes 'Not my cup of tea while I am having a cup of tea.'
As 'the cup of tea' remark is taken from comments I made (and could add 'things which will annoy library and other computer blocking poliices( - I am referring 'to things encountered unexpectedly' (whether on the main page, through idly clicking on blue links/random article button) as distinct from 'deliberately looking for a topic' (shall we say for understanding a previously unknown term).
Entries on the main page involving 'sex, very medical/veterinary, war and similar, violence, and certain persons and events' and 'things constituting bad taste' are always likely to cause at least some degree of comment and complaint, however well the articles themselves are written.
I have said previously one of the benefits of the Main Page is to bring to the readers' attention to topics they would not otherwise be aware of, and it can be said of WP as well as the newspaper 'all human and other life (among many other things) can be found herein.'
There will always be degree of conflict between these two aspects - whatever arrangements WP makes to allow people to select which categories of topics they view. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Was thinking perhaps "re-legalize" is the correct term, as cannabis-consumption laws are only about a century old in most cases. Although I understand that "legalize" has a more direct meaning to most folks. 72.35.135.79 ( talk) 06:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The 'Other areas of Wikipedia' is currently a collection of 6 static links to areas of the 'community' side of the wiki, one of which is already linked in the side bar (community portal). I propose that we use this area like our other featured content sections, and shine a spotlight on areas that would otherwise get little exposure. Examples of the types of featured areas would be policy (such as 5 pillars), editing advice/tutorials, areas to make proposals, areas to request articles, how to start an article, find help (reference desk), information about WikiProjects, how to register an account, how to upload a photograph, how to nominate featured content, etc.
Like other featured content, items would be rotated at an interval to be determined by the community, and blurbs would have to be written and approved before content would be entered into the rotation. The goal of this program would be to show readers that there are simple ways to get involved, and to drive traffic to areas that might otherwise be unnoticed by our readership. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could convert his news entry, moving it up in the list, to something like "The body of Nelson Mandela lay in state from 11–13 December at the Union Buildings in Pretoria and a state funeral will be held on 15 December 2013 in Qunu, South Africa." The goal here would be to establish a new record for an image, ousting the current, uh, incumbent. <grin>-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You might use a more peripherally related illustration for Chang'e if there's no free-licensed image of the lander. But agreed there must be a free Mandela image somewhere. Wnt ( talk) 22:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Three extra-terrestial topics (but, as Hitchikers... says, the Universe is a Big Place). Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
IMO the design used for the sister projects list on Commons, commons:Template:Sisterprojects-en, is more visually appealing than the one used on en.wp today. It nicely wraps the projects under the Wikimedia logo, and de-emphasizes the project descriptions. How would people feel about using the same template here?-- Eloquence * 09:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
See here for another proposal and some discussion... Although I like the Commons version better... Thanks, Surfer43_ ¿qué_pasa? 20:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Two toxic critters on the main page.
Comment not complaint. 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 13:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
'Obscure Wikipedia games' numbers X and X + 1: getting several items in a (slightly obscure topic) on the MP on the same day - and/or a sequence of stories on a theme over several days. 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 13:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Today the lead DYK reads:
... that hōchōdō (庖丁道, the way of the cleaver) is a traditional Japanese culinary art form of filleting a fish or fowl without touching it with one's hands (demonstration pictured)?
Why was the non-English script so important to be presented on the main page? This after all in English Wikipedia, right? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 04:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
How come there is a picture of him in the article but not on the main page. Yugenftf ( talk) 00:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Münchsmünster Abbey — Now that's obscure! Sca ( talk) 02:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I need to know how to create a Wikipedia page or submit one Bobbybeefburger ( talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The Main Page Featured Portal drive was successfully completed.
This was a collaborative initiative created to get all portals linked from the top-right of the Main Page to Featured Portal quality status.
Thank you to all who participated or contributed towards this quality improvement effort in some way.
Happy Holidays,
— Cirt ( talk) 17:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Super Mario is the day's showcase. Who cares? Was there no other article to showcase? Just another thing that proves Wikipedia isn't a serious academic source, because the main editors are all teenagers who only care about video games and girls' breasts. Disappointing. Carrots Sucker ( talk) 01:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Can we have a Pussy Riot pic instead, please? Maybe a cropped version of -- 74.15.88.37 ( talk) 09:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
close trolling by static IP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I know it's Christmas but does every single inch of the Main page have to do something with Jesus, or Santa, or Lambs (for God's sakes, in the featured picture). It's highly irritating, and also completely disregarding the fact that not every one in the world is Christian, and may or may not (even if they are Christian) care for Christmas at all, and may not want to see such high public displays of affection, if you will, on the main page. You might as well rename Wikipedia to the Catholic Encyclopedia for this one day complete with a new logo with Santa's hat on it and a crucifix dangling from it somewhere. Pathetic! Sorry, but have respect for other religions and peoples. Don't enforce your majority in such a way that people, especially on a page such as this on a website that people all over the world read and access everyday, should feel disgusted or poorly represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.106.18.10 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
|
(reset) Is it not now traditional to switch to 'spot the first Easter Egg'? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK ... that a dead elephant is buried under a road junction in Brighton's Bear Road area?
I see what you guys did there. Good on ya people who scheduled that one in. GamerPro64 01:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The Latin Wikipedia now has over 100,000 articles; is there a reason why it does not appear in the over 50,000 section of other wikipedias?-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 15:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I ever saw a shorter feature to read! Are there any shorter?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriendlyreadervisiting ( talk • contribs)
The shortest FA was Tropical Storm Erick (2007), but that article has since been merged into another. Some pretty short ones include Missing My Baby, Nico Ditch, and Tropical Depression Ten (2005) (most storm FAs aren't long). I think Miss Meyers takes the cake in terms of prose size; it doesn't even crack 4k. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Tamil wikipedia is not included in the list of wikipedias that have more than 50000 articles. It has above 57000 articles. Please include that in the list too.-- G.Kiruthikan ( talk) 13:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed that redirect WP:MP be changed from Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy to Main Page. If you care either way, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Wikipedia:MP. John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
== Temporary cropped images
I fear you may misrepresent the subject article by having a picture of a regular potto. Please remove it as soon as you can. This blurb will have to go without an image to represent it. Stuart Pfanninstiel ( talk) 18:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"After years in opposition, in 1849, ..." Was this construction really intended? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 05:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Considering the historical importance of it (and that other, far lesser figures get death notice mentions), isn't it about time that Wikipedia announced the death of Arial Sharon?
Janet Yellen is the CHAIRMAN of the Fed - see the article. She's not the "chair" as it says on the main page. Can we get rid of this PC nonsense and accord her the proper title. Thanks. 86.29.246.113 ( talk) 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@ 86.29.246.113: - I've fixed the TFA template, so if you purge your cache the change should occur. I made the change per your request and as Chairman of the Federal Reserve seems to be the correct title. So this is now Done. :) Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article refers to Minas Gerais. Is this a real place? Sounds like something out of J.R.R. Tolkien. (Just kidding.) See Minas Tirith. (I'll go away now.) Sca ( talk) 18:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I find it a bit odd that the main page image of Ariel Sharon has him standing before what appears to be an American flag. Wouldn't it be more fitting for it to be an Israeli flag, or even no flag at all?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox&oldid=590546901 for a version of the Main Page with the two main columns set to the same width. I believe this looks better than the existing version when the typography refresh beta is turned on. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this. -- The Anome ( talk) 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The "Did you know..." today (Wed 15 Jan) about speed-skater Patrick Meek seems a bit unclear
... that speed skater Patrick Meek qualified for the 2014 Winter Olympics despite not being able to "really see anything"?
To me, that reads as if he were blind, or partially-blind, instead of simply losing contact lenses during the qualifications. -- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Nothing more than that. Just reminding people it's Wikipedia:Wikipedia_day. The project started 13 years ago today. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
... happenings at Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Was there really no interesting fact? Why did we resort to tooting our own horn? Beerest 2 talk 01:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there no separate article to update for ITN with Friday's Kabul bombing and attack, which killed 21 including IMF and U.N. officials? [3] [4] I could find only War in Afghanistan, which weighs in at 7,000 words and goes back to 1978. Sca ( talk) 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I see we have now started our main page with a commercial logo. I am not anti-business and have no objection to having a commercial product as our featured article but starting the the company's logo sets a bas precedent. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Today's featured list appear twice a week on the Main page, rather than just on Mondays?
In June 2011 a unanimously supported proposal to add Today's featured list (TFL) to the Main Page every Monday was passed. Since 13 June 2013 a FL has appeared on the front page every Monday. Following a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Expansion of TFL on the main page, it was agreed that there is sufficient interest to run the TFL at least twice a week.
The FL process is strong, healthy and can cope with a second slot on the front page. As of 3 December 2013 there are 2,533 featured lists; in the first 11 months of 2013, 209 lists were promoted (and 239 during 2012), and all naturally meet the current criteria demanded by the community. There are, therefore, a sufficient number of high-quality lists available from which to select.
Featured lists, like their article counterparts, cover a hugely wide-ranging set of topics. An extra day per week on the main page will allow the FL community to both increase the diversity of those lists featured and enable us to schedule time-specific lists on appropriate dates, or within a closer timeframe than we currently do.
Featured lists are a strong and healthy part of the project's output and they provide content whose standards are as exacting as other Featured output. In order to best showcase that output, it is considered appropriate to raise its profile by showcasing the finest lists we have on the main page.
Although there were calls during the discussion for lists to be run on three days, two days would enable a strong diversity to be maintained. A suggestion was also made for a "floating day", to be used intermittently on specific dates. Although the consensus was against this for a second day, it may be suitable as a potential third day, on an intermittant basis for key events.
There are currently over 2,500 featured lists, over 200 of which have been selected during 2013. These recently promoted articles will, by definition, meet the current criteria of featured status as defined by community consensus. Even through selection of just the articles passed this year, there is a sufficient number to be able to select two articles a week. There is also a sufficiently diverse pool of lists from which we are able to select the TFL, in order that we avoid appearing too Western-centric.
Technical impact on the main page is nil. The current code for TFL was written with the anticipation that it could be expanded to more then one day in the future.
Featured lists have enriched the main page now for over a year without any serious issues. I hope the community would agree that allowing us to feature at least twice a week would enrich the project. -
SchroCat (
talk) 08:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
198.169.113.63 (
talk)
02:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Before the discussion becomes muddled, I strongly suggest that the "floating third day" element be dropped. While it was proposed as a "floating second day" in the previous discussion, the concerns expressed therein point to consensus against a floating day in general; whether it's a second or third day makes no material difference (and I believe that you were the only respondent to draw such a distinction). — David Levy 08:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
When I raised this at the TFL talk page, my perception was that those more involved with it than I am were defensive about TFL's record. I fully understand that mindset – once upon a time I was heavily involed myself, and would have defended TFL from anyone I perceived to be giving it an unduly hard time. Nonetheless, I don't see anyone trying to explain why relatively obscure lists in 2012 were getting the sorts of attention that more mainstream lists got in 2013, and to do whatever can be done to reverse that trend without harming diversity. Interest in the Main Page overall has dipped a bit in the past couple of years – I was the one that pointed it out – but that is no reason to shy away from asking what we can do to maintain interest in TFL.
When was it blocked to those writing on their IP addresses? (Being of the category of 'persons not always signing in to correct the odd typo.) Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Probably 'a certain fraction' of IP changes are registered WPedians who are merely correcting typos or have not noticed the computer has signed them out and other equally 'innocent' reasons. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I see today's Mangrove Robin DYK pic is to be recycled in less than two weeks as a TFP. Isn't once a month enough? Sca ( talk) 15:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Today's Black-breasted Thrush DYK pic. is due back in less than two weeks (Feb. 5) as a TFP. Sigh. Sca ( talk) 14:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
hello article is crocodile not crocodilla please fix - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurugamash ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 January 2014
In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck (film) has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. Bencherlite Talk 12:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this appropriate, but I was almost looking for the article title to be "A battle took place", but somehow I'm thinking that the article title should actually be in the intro paragraph...could someone update that? Hires an editor ( talk) 02:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
His death should really be mentioned, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkinsonProject ( talk • contribs)
no other pics to choose from? where are the birdies and old churches when we need them? -- 76.64.180.9 ( talk) 14:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why was Daft Punk mentioned predominately when Macklemore was clearly the most influential artist at the Grammys? I hate pop culture, but obviously, some sort of favoritism is going on. Dirt290 ( talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
3/5 images are of Americans today. 5/7 of Did you know items are on US-centric things. Today's Featured article is on an American. Amazingly, only one piece of On this day... is American. They still got the picture though. -- 85.210.107.124 ( talk) 20:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
There's this one day in OTD this year that had 3 US and 2 UK and 0 ROTW blurbs. – H T D 03:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Watch the "Featured Article" and "In This Day in News". Those a predominately neutral topics, set on European events on the first page. All I hear is European unrest and cricket/football stats. I have yet to see any American topics covered on this shitboard. Dirt290 ( talk) 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
" Did you know...that a cup (pictured) is a small container for drinks?" Was that supposed to be some sort of joke? JDiala ( talk) 02:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous, non-registered user here; I don't know why - but I'm absolutely disgusting by the attempt at dry humor on the DYK page. Can somebody please change it, with perhaps a month-ban on the IP responsible? Thanks.
How is this phrase encyclopaedic?!? It reads like some puff piece in a magazine. Curly Turkey ( gobble) 05:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
this is off the main page. Further discussion about article content can happen at article talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The crap you are running about Sasheer Zamata is a total disgrace. Instead of telling me an interesting fact about her, you simply choose to sensationalize her race. Seriously, you guys WOULD NOT write "...that John Random is one of many white random people?" Utter crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D'urville ( talk • contribs)
|
I suggest that we add a section to the home page where we feature a different WikiProject each day. This will help recruit new editors to join editing topics of particular interest to them. Within the featured WikiProject box would be a brief description of the project, and a list of a few representative articles of high quality. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yet again I want to bring up the idea of a separate "Sports" section on the front page. There are normally a couple or several sports entries in the News section on the front page, a Sports section on the front page could be larger and keep News and Sport separate , for easier viewing and emphasis on sport. Cosprings ( talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
and War ... war (and wars) too. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)and art and natural sciences and politics ... and some other things I will think of later -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not sure why you write things in such an arrogant way. Also, no, not those things, just sports. Cosprings ( talk) 22:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sports are not the world and the world is not sports. The main page isn't big enough to contain a bunch of categories. All of the things mentioned by Demiurge1000 have an equal (or better!) claim to space.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Chronological summary of the 2014 Winter Olympics needs to be updated, or the link to this page should not be placed on ITN. -- 76.64.180.9 ( talk) 03:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
When the Main Page is first displayed, the vertical bar designating the place where user keyboard input is inserted should be in the Search box at the upper right. As it is, I cannot see where the insertion point or focus is located when the Main Page is first displayed. Pressing the TAB key moves the insertion point vertical bar to the Search box, but this is an extra and unnecessary keystroke imposed on users whose goal is searching for something. Repeated TAB key presses allow cycling through available links, which is fine. Maybe different browsers behave differently, not sure. Naive users will not know that the TAB key is the one to use, and they will be obliged to mouse over to the Search box and click it to get started with their encyclopedia research. Megapod ( talk) 12:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Is TFL becoming an everyday feature now or is it just starting to appear on Mondays and Fridays? Difficultly north ( talk) - Simply south alt. 01:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
the Waray-Waray and Cebuano Wikipedia have more than 400k articles. shouldnt they be listed here now? oh, and congrats to all the new 1m encyclopedias last year, which i hadnt noticed growing so fast. a little competition is good for the soul.( User:Mercurywoodrose not logged in. 99.14.216.18 ( talk) 06:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I remember reading somewhere many years ago that human footprints have been found on (I think) sandstone in material that was dated as being so old as to be impossible for them to actually be human – on the order of several million years old. This might have been in the context of disproving the way that scientists date sedimentary rock. I didn't think much about it until I took a geology class 30 or so years ago at North Carolina State University where the professor was showing slides that included a shot of footprints like those, and as I remember, they were in or near the United States somewhere (Kentucky?) in rock that was maybe 1.5 million years old. He presented it as a mystery that had not been explained up until that point in time. Anyone else out there have any such memories? Shocking Blue ( talk) 13:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
My edit above got auto-deleted. Apologies for the diversion but I believe the news item should reference hominid footprints, not human footprints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljamoquio ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's great to see a vegetable as TFA.
One thought. This is just a thought, not an error.
Lots of stupid people read the front page, and, even slightly less stupid people, like me, might read "Cabbage is prone to several nutrient deficiencies" as implying there might be something negative about eating cabbage. Admittedly, I only thought so for two seconds because then I worked it out.
For benefit of various stupid people, would it be ok to change it to "Cabbage plants are prone to several nutrient deficiencies, as well as multiple pests, bacteria and fungal diseases."
Clever people already know this is what it means, of course. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 07:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I hate veggies. – H T D 09:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know it may be tiresome, but it would be great if Wikipedia could use British English syntax when quoting an article about a British subject such as the Cornwell Scout Badge. It should be "named after" and not "named for". In hope and anticipation of the next occurrence. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 17:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It doesn't take me directly to articles, it keeps saying "a page containing [search term] exists" and I have to click on the article. It just seems unnecessary and clunky. Bananaj2 ( talk) 18:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
<br /
I definitely agree with this post
Is it just me, or does it seem like Wikipedia has been taken over by bird-watchers? It seems like every other featured picture in the past two months or so has featured some sort of bird. Can someone clue me in on why this is? Has everybody on the planet decided that birds are now interesting? Did I miss something? EbolaRocks08 ( talk) 10:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's because pretty much all of the bird pictures are from the same man called user:JJ Harrison. Th4n3r ( talk) 10:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)