This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | → | Archive 90 |
Hi! The link to the Wikipedia in Spanish should be in "More than 100,000 articles" instead of "More than 20,000 articles". It has more than 170,000 articles. Thanks. -- Kokoo 08:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I placed my problem in the error page. I'm quite capable of navigating. Thanks. Kaenei 13:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
How do you start a new category? xx
Today's Featured Article says "Igor Stravinsky was a Russian-born composer....." Was he not still a Russian when he died (despite working/living in several countries)? Would it be better to change it (and the main article) to read "Igor Stravinsky, émigré Russian composer.....?. Moriori 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
well, i think it would be a good idea if there was also a primary school and secondary school addition. To you get my idea? (I'm calling it primary and secondary school by Australian terms)
Pece Kocovski 02:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
([DAV])
why all versions of the "Main Page" have been removedall of a sudden?? Synchronicity I 17:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't there a QotD section on the front page? Didn't there use to be one?
Wikipedia is getting close to having 1,500,000 articles! What do you think the 1,500,000th article will be? Voortle 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I should just let you know that there is no longer a searching option on the main page. User:David Levy removed it here. Is it supposed to be missing?-- T o m I edit my userpage too much, 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we put up a main page banner for 1,500,000 articles? I was thinking something like this:
What do you think? (We don't have too long to decide :-) — Mets501 ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw either Alonzo_Jackson, Hotel Torni or some article I speedied called Gin-Song. Jaranda wat's sup 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It's somewhat interesting to note that shortly after hitting 1.5 million articles, the 6.5 million page mark was also passed. -- Czj 23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like the wording of this banner. Wikipedia is not separate from its contributors, so to say that "Wikipedia thanks its contributors" is a false disjunction. -- Oldak Quill 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
How can you tell what number a particular article was when it was created? Like, the 1,500,000th or the 1,500,001st, etc.? (And just for historical curiosity, what was our first ever article?) — BrianSmithson 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
i need to get some information on the facts regarding drug screening for methamphedamine and the duration it can be detected in you system (blood & urine) thank you
Please answer in 1 paragraph. (Its for my grade 9 science project and I need to know please. I will cite this page on my project (im not gonna plagiarize) :-) thanx. -- Storkian 00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dye"
Just wondering. Which article was th 1,500,000th article on the English Wikipedia? Simply south 23:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
GOOD JOB WIKIPEDIA!!!! 72.184.201.3 00:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
congrats,everyone!great job...im really happy to be a part of this as i think wikipedia will be hugh in the future. The Pink Panther 03:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
We are now at 15.0 Britannica Units. Bristow 07:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that occasionally an apostraphe appears on the Omega? Looks like this: 'Ω
is it just me or does the wikipuzzle globe have another piece on it so that it looks more complete? The Pink Panther 03:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The German Wiki reached 500.000 articles two i want my pillow cos im tired:(ays ago. Shouldnt on the Main Page the chapter Wikipedia languages changed to reflect that?-- Tresckow 03:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
What was this article? Was there a reason it wasn't included, as Jordanhill Railway Station was?Freakin Duh.
Can someone please remove the 1,500,000 tag. While I am very pleased that we have reached 1,500,000 articles do you realize how many are stubs? I doubt half of these qulaify as articles yet. But great work just remove the tag asap
Ernst Stavro Blofeld
12:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A new low I guess, an obviously Photoshopped image on the front page - a picture that's supposed to represent a real place. In an encyclopedia. Very nice. 68.231.49.252
This might be the wrong place for this, and I apologize if it is, but on the Featured Article I think it would be a lot better to have the Duke Chapel or at the very least the Emblem featured as the picture to go with the Featured Article for today rather than those science buildings.angie stevens 'shirley ' They're much more interesting to look at and represent Duke a lot better.
Suggestions: 100x100px Image:Duke shield.PNG
Mientkiewicz5508 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does the Emperor Penguin travel such distances as part of the mating instinct? Why don't they stay near the sea so they can obtain food instead of starving themselves and remain with their mates? 69.40.184.248 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)RKimb@aol.com
Is it just me or did the Duke picture get messed up?
This is what it looks like for me:
Nishkid 64 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Mientkiewicz5508 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
If IGN.COM's message boards are among one of the most popular on the internet, then what IS the most popular? Do we even know? And if so, will we need to start up an article about it? Or the website that hosts it? Zabrak 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The above 20 000 article group is not under alphabetical order. Could someone fix that? Thanks, -- Vanka5 00:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I really like the current selection of language links, both in the bottom section and the sidebar (+ the "complete list" link in sidebar). Good work, whoever all is responsible for the current incarnation of this much-discussed segment.. :) - Quiddity 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
When you mouse over the links, it gives the two letter prefix that the link goes to (e.g. Français shows "fr:"). However, there are two problems with this:
Either Telugu should be fixed, or all the mouseover texts should be changed. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As of late we have recognized that as a community, we need to focus more on quality than on quantity. Yet we continue to prominantly list the number of articles on EN (at the top, left-hand corner of the main page) while hiding the less-impressive total of Featured Articles. At the very least, we should list the two figures side by side. We're doing just fine in terms of numbers of articles but badly in terms of F.A.'s Let's stop patting ourselves on the back and start listing the number of F.A.'s on the front page. -- Zantastik talk 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. See Talk:Main Page/Archive 79. Hope these help. T ennis Dy N ami T e ( sign in) 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ten articles of high importance and unspectacular quality should be placed onto the front page each week. Maybe replace DYK, lawl. OK that was mean
Rampart
01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of a picture of Correa going up, someone who's just won an election, instead of Balkenende, who may well have lost his premiership in an election days ago?-- Nema Fakei 12:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Eh, what happened to the Wiki logo? Who is that?
was that vandalism? -- Darrendeng 10:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason there isn't a link to (Wait! see below -- this isn't the link I meant) MediaWiki from the English Wikipedia Main Page, for example among Sister Projects? Is it because they don't want people going there unless they've been around long enough to find it somehow? -- Coppertwig 12:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) OK, I'm confused. That link wasn't what I meant. That was wikimedia/Meta-wiki. I meant MediaWiki -- the pages with a sunflower as the logo: MediaWiki. Wikipedia has Meta listed under Sister Projects, but not MediaWiki. How are people supposed to find MediaWiki? Or bugzilla? Maybe a link should be added. -- Coppertwig 12:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose to reduce the number of links on the main page to put more emphasis on the important topics, and to make the text easier to read. So only the links that are bold at the moment should stay (as plain links). At the moment, the page is really a mess. -- Nina 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If someone is looking for something, he/she will find it in wikipedia. If you show a featured article on the front page and want to show every relevant topic as well, you just spoil the message. Then you don't need the text- you could simply display a list of links. -- Nina 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The entry about the Japan Diet refers to the Reichstag as an institution, which is wrong here, it should point to the Reichstag building article. See "On this day"-box November29 1890
Today's DYK has "...was destroyed no fewer than four times between ..." . Is there any reason why this verbose phrasing is used instead of simply saying "...was destroyed four times between ..."? Or is Wikipedia trying to take a position on the significance of this event? MrVoluntarist 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
<fun> This can't be a coincidence!! We've got two abbey artilces in DYK, Corcomroe Abbey and Marmoutier Abbey. Also, the FA is History of erotic depictions, and we all know how abbots and nuns and monks are depicted in certain movies ;) Todor → Bozhinov 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) </fun>
Can't stop beating a dead horse can you? 75.72.36.148 07:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please can you explain why the catergorised search had been altered. Also, please check the User: AntiVandalBot because there have been a load of complaints about it's behaviour and has blocked 10 users reasonless. Yours sincerely Xersyd 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. We should take this comment seriously The mission 11:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
While the polonium poisoning themselves are still quite big news, the focus has now shifted from Litvinenko himself to Mario Scaramella and possibly Yegor Gaidar. Perhaps ITN could be rewriten to something like " Mario Scaramella, a contact of secret agent Alexander Litvinenko, has also tested positive for polonium." La ï ka 20:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Should we not have the spelling as Tsar instead of Czar Alexander I as that is the spelling of its Wikipedia page and is generally held as the correct usage BritBoy 18:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.89.146 ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 November 2006
I predict this featured article will see a record number of vandalisms. Carcharoth 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are you guys thinking?! User:Madchester, apparently you are used to having to say that. So bluntly put. Wikipedia has become a very public site. User:Brian0918, thats what porn is. Kids don't have to click the link, but apparently they are. The thumbnail should either be smaller, or not there at all. And if your right, that its too small to see, what stops them from just clicking to see what the picture is? The link to this article shouldn't be here. Sure, this is an encyclopedia, right? The article should stay, they have this in the encyclopedia books. But to put it on the front page, kids WILL see this. This maybe put on the news. Little extreme, right? But parents do go that far, good parents. This is indeed promoting it. Saying erotic art is ok. If that's ok, what about pornography? Kids might think that's a minor step, so they look at pornsites. Maybe that's not real enough, they'll try this with their friends. STDS, early pregnancy, etc. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degredation in our country. - 69.67.230.47 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please understand the difference between a wall painting in ancient pompei and a DVD of Debbie Does Dallas. -- Monotonehell 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Come on! You're stressing me out! I've been told that I would have gray hair at 20 at this rate. The war in the middle east, the politics in this country, porn being called art, I'm going to die at 20. Please, gain common sense! This is porn. It was 2000 years ago, but its porn. They considered it art, but they promoted sex with whoever. It's porn, it's porn, it's porn, no matter what. - 69.67.230.47 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind any FAs appearing on the Main Page, but this does make me curious about what articles are on the list of FAs that won't. I'd have bet dollars to donuts that this would have been one of them. -- Maxamegalon2000 06:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at guys holding guns, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Homicide, suicide, are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal guns, shoot each other while quail hunting, and then finally start leading armies of moral destruction. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Theres no bad pics on the war page.
NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at mountains, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Erosion, diagenesis, earthquakes , are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal rocks and survey equipment, dig holes, and then finally start leading armies of moral destruction. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at guys learning, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Learning, free thought, empowerment, are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal books, and visit even more free thought websites. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, people here on Wikipedia have evidently completely lost the plot, and put ideology before rationality and common sense. What alternate Universe are you people living in to think that it will be acceptable in this world to have such an article as the main page FA? You may be diametrically opposed to excluding such articles from selection there, but who are you to not take account of your audience? It is not a matter of being asked to exclude content from the encyclopaedia. zoney ♣ talk 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What muppets! FA on erotic art, how very bold of you! How risque! Thumb your nose up at the prudes!
I don't mean in any way to argue that "erotic art" cough*porn*cough shouldn't be in wikipedia - it certainly should. However the front page it not like other pages. Many schools have it set up as the home page on all their computers. Kids are major users of wikipedia, and many parents (right or wrong) wish to shield the kids from "erotic art". You see, all other pages you only get to because you choose to. The main page is a default page that takes 5% of all wikipedia traffic. This act has simply caused a small amount of needless damage to the popularity of wikipedia. Never mind. -- User:Juicifer
Wikipedia, through their promotion of filth and depraved pornographic smut, should be ashamed of itself. Kids have no idea what sex is, and if they happen to come to Wikipedia (because coming to wikipedia to learn things is the hip, cool thing every teen is doing to shock their parents these days) then upon seeing sexual depictions their eyes will fall out and they will be scarred for life. Kids should stay on wholesome things, like movies that involve an action hero killing Arabs, or eating at Taco Bell.
Now I'm not saying we should censor Wikipedia. Gracious no. I merely mean we should impose a strict set of moral standards so unsuitable subjects like faggots or Calvinism so they don't get discussed. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.33.78 ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 30 November 2006
Personally, I'd rather my kids knew about porn than furry conventions, but whatever. Quarma 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This obviously should not be an FA, since it doesn't meet the high quality of FA's we normally use here at Wikipedia. Wasn't there a Gwen Stefani song that could have been featured instead? Or a random performance by a third-rate comedian? ("Carrot Top's 2006 Performance at the Laff Riot Bar in El Guano, California" or something?) Or maybe a Pokemon? 69.175.141.106 14:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added a related comment at Wikipedia talk:Pornography#Erotica on main page. — Alan ✉ 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I would rather have "young adults" lead in pages like this than "many" of the entries Uncyclopedia (and see my comments on this talk page a while back about "medical images" and the front page).
Perhaps there should be a "WikiYoungPersons front page" to deal with such matters - or "click here for non-vanilla version front page" (covering the more exotic articles).
There will always be some front pages which cause controversy.
(Anyone care to establish the "save the cyber trees - do not argue too much about such articles" group?) Jackiespeel 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll just remind to users,that wikipedia is not just in sweden or denmark,but also in pakistan and saudi arabia.So ignore the prudes,porn is good and children have a sexe too.We will not get hostage by medieval mentalities.-- Pixel ;-) 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If people are so concerned why do they not take part in nominating and voting for features articles rather than complain when those that they disapprove appear. 82.153.153.125 21:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion - when an article is replaced because it is perceived as inappropriate for the front page, an article of the same category is substituted (and certain categories of topic do not have an associated picture on the front page.
As there are several reasons why "certain articles" might be deemed as inappropriate for the ordinary front page (could I add "accessing Wikipedia in a public library" as another), how difficult would it be to set up a parallel "non-vanilla article" entry point (ie equivalent to the Simple English page) which deals with such topics. Perhaps signing in required (to discourage vandalism) - but "you know what you are letting yourself in for." (Before anyone tells me so, I do accept that this idea probably involves a lot of work - I am just putting the idea as one solution for consideration) Jackiespeel 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
cloviz 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion is to try and avoid the above scenario. (Would you like to develop the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells page btw?)
There will always be some topics which will cause much heat and light and squabbling - some aspects of ordinary human life, certain medical topics, certain political/cultural topics, topics which might cause problems if accessed from libraries, schools and cultures which have a particular viewpoint. Probably #most# cultures or states (and persons within cultures in general) have some topics which are regarded as particularly sensitive but which are viewed with indifference elsewhere. I am suggesting a way of catering for such preferences, and also allowing others to look at things which be seen as sensitive.
The motto should be "don't complain - suggest a solution."
It was amusing that in two or three of the above comments I couldn't work out if they were for the 'censor the main page' proposition or anti. The poster who wanted to add "accessing Wikipedia in a public library" might want to have a look at the books that libraries often provide as a side service to their computer pools. Several of them may actually contain the subject of the history of erotic depictions in art as well as illustrations. Next you'll be burning books (again). Evolve. -- Monotonehell 12:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The main points probably are:
The front/main page serves, inter alia, to bring topics that they might not otherwise have considered to the attention of the viewer.
Some cultures are more conservative than others/prefer certain topics to remain in the private domain. Some people think that certain topics should not be brought to the attention of children before they reach the stage that they go looking for them (this might well include eg war-related topics). There are some topics - probably different for most cultures/countries/groups - which are found distasteful/likely to cause unpleasantness, some of which they are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to (a vegetarian might accept a link to "how a carcass is jointed, an atheist to a religious page etc). In a library we choose which books to look at - and those put on display by the librarians tend to be the more anodyne ones. Many library computers have blocking policies (some of them slightly irrational) and the screens are visible to passers by. There is, probably, on these and other grounds, a level of courtesy in keeping the main page somewhat more anodyne rather than "more exotic." This is why I suggested that there could be a separately accessed "interesting article" page, where the viewer chooses to go. Those of us who are willing to be intrigued by such topics can then choose to do so and everybody is happy. (And there will be some topics which, while fairly tasteful in themselves, will generate long discussions on their acceptability.) Jackiespeel 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've not even read most of the comments here, but I am disgusted by what I've seen. People, this is not a children's site. That is something you have to deal with. Wikipedia is not censored, for good reason. If this was some sort of children's reference site, and that picture was put up, bring on the protests, but you have to remember that their are adults here to, and not to mention people who don't think sex is a bad thing. Come on; face it, over 60 % of teenagers are looking at porn. What with television and the general American culture, pretty much everyone knows what's going on. If some 8 year old sees it, I doubt he'll even understand what it is. If he's mentally shattered, I blame the parents for not censoring their computer. It's a damn good article; just because the subject's "offensive" to some doesn't mean we can't recognize it as one of Wikipedia's best. Dooms Day349 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is a picture of a woman's private part in the "Did you know"? This is ridiculous. BhaiSaab talk 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want now how it's receaved the idea of forking because of some recent developments with the way fair use rule is interpreted.If your not awhare of the isue see thies three link's to make an opinion.-- Pixel ;-) 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
All_images_with_no_fair_use_rationale All_replaceable_fair_use_images talk:Fair_use
first item
is it plurality or popularity ?-- Pixel ;-) 12:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
(undent) Nobody complained. Why are you being so high-handed about this? The original comment was is it plurality or popularity? — that's not a complaint. My comment also was that the use of the word in this case (as a technical election term) is not common — the subsequent linking of it would have helped at the time. You comment that the issue is being concise, accurate and ensuring that we can resonably expect people to either understand... — an observation reinforced above by the unsigned remark Why can't they make it simple and say "Christian Democrats remain the largest party"?. Bazza 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Caution my fellow discussing people. Remains the largest party is a clear defining characteristic. The article originally stated that the Christian Democrats lost their majority but remained the largest party. There is no difference in meaning between being the largest party (without majority) and retaining plurality in this case. I understand that plurality can also include being a majority. That concludes that! If I am wrong in my definition, tell me so.
I realise that this is not the first time this has been raised but... In the light of the recent 1.5million milestone, Jimbo's comments about quantity/quality, discussion on WP Weekly podcast, etc. Could we please get the number of Featured Articles and/or Good Articles listed on the front page alongside the total number of articles in English??? I'm not suggesting removing the count of the toal number of articles, just a small addition, so it would read something like:
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 1,513,706 articles in English, 1175 of which are Featured Articles.
Thanks for your consideration, Witt y lama 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
In reference to the main arguement of the previous airing of this idea (listed at Talk:Main Page/Archive 79) - that having a FA count would be either "self-congratulatory" or "editor centric" (as opposed to reader centric), I would argue that the total-article counter is both of these things already. Surely if we can justify having the total-count listed then we can justify having an indicator of quality as well. If the casual visitor does not know what "Featured Article" means then he need only click on the link to find out. It is a wiki afterall! Witty lama 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
We should think about what we want the main page for. If it's just to impress visitors, the current setup more or less works, and a FA counter inside the FA box (like replacing "more featured articles" with "all X featured articles" would be an improvement. If, OTOH, we want the main page to attract new contributors and channel them into doing useful work, we should resurrect the project box on the main page and list collaborations and open tasks. Zocky | picture popups 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
(reindent)Given that identification of a problem or potential problem on the wiki tends to result in increased efforts to fix it, I see this is a positive. There seems to be pretty strong support for the idea of putting a count in the FA box in the discussion above. As an initial step, I have created {{ FA number}}, which would have to be manually updated. I plugged the template into the {{ TFAfooter}} markup to see what it would look like:
I've asked Raul654 if there are any issues with updating {{ FA number}} in how he organizes FA. Otherwise, I am ready to implement. - Banyan Tree 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou BanyanTree, that's great! So, are there any hoops that we should jump through to impliment this (such as a poll advertised on the community bulletin board at the Community Portal)?? Witty lama 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to try it on a temporary basis and see if I like it. A technical solution (read: a bot) would be much appreciated, though. Raul654 03:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone comes up with a bot to automate the process, I would be happy to co-nom at RFA. I assume that the bot could run on an unprotected template to prove that it is reliable in producing the numbers. This was a major issue at the last admin bot nom that I saw - people wouldn't seriously consider the bot for permission until it passed RFA and the RFA voters wouldn't approve a bot that lacked permission. - Banyan Tree 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | → | Archive 90 |
Hi! The link to the Wikipedia in Spanish should be in "More than 100,000 articles" instead of "More than 20,000 articles". It has more than 170,000 articles. Thanks. -- Kokoo 08:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I placed my problem in the error page. I'm quite capable of navigating. Thanks. Kaenei 13:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
How do you start a new category? xx
Today's Featured Article says "Igor Stravinsky was a Russian-born composer....." Was he not still a Russian when he died (despite working/living in several countries)? Would it be better to change it (and the main article) to read "Igor Stravinsky, émigré Russian composer.....?. Moriori 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
well, i think it would be a good idea if there was also a primary school and secondary school addition. To you get my idea? (I'm calling it primary and secondary school by Australian terms)
Pece Kocovski 02:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
([DAV])
why all versions of the "Main Page" have been removedall of a sudden?? Synchronicity I 17:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't there a QotD section on the front page? Didn't there use to be one?
Wikipedia is getting close to having 1,500,000 articles! What do you think the 1,500,000th article will be? Voortle 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I should just let you know that there is no longer a searching option on the main page. User:David Levy removed it here. Is it supposed to be missing?-- T o m I edit my userpage too much, 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we put up a main page banner for 1,500,000 articles? I was thinking something like this:
What do you think? (We don't have too long to decide :-) — Mets501 ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw either Alonzo_Jackson, Hotel Torni or some article I speedied called Gin-Song. Jaranda wat's sup 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It's somewhat interesting to note that shortly after hitting 1.5 million articles, the 6.5 million page mark was also passed. -- Czj 23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like the wording of this banner. Wikipedia is not separate from its contributors, so to say that "Wikipedia thanks its contributors" is a false disjunction. -- Oldak Quill 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
How can you tell what number a particular article was when it was created? Like, the 1,500,000th or the 1,500,001st, etc.? (And just for historical curiosity, what was our first ever article?) — BrianSmithson 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
i need to get some information on the facts regarding drug screening for methamphedamine and the duration it can be detected in you system (blood & urine) thank you
Please answer in 1 paragraph. (Its for my grade 9 science project and I need to know please. I will cite this page on my project (im not gonna plagiarize) :-) thanx. -- Storkian 00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dye"
Just wondering. Which article was th 1,500,000th article on the English Wikipedia? Simply south 23:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
GOOD JOB WIKIPEDIA!!!! 72.184.201.3 00:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
congrats,everyone!great job...im really happy to be a part of this as i think wikipedia will be hugh in the future. The Pink Panther 03:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
We are now at 15.0 Britannica Units. Bristow 07:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that occasionally an apostraphe appears on the Omega? Looks like this: 'Ω
is it just me or does the wikipuzzle globe have another piece on it so that it looks more complete? The Pink Panther 03:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The German Wiki reached 500.000 articles two i want my pillow cos im tired:(ays ago. Shouldnt on the Main Page the chapter Wikipedia languages changed to reflect that?-- Tresckow 03:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
What was this article? Was there a reason it wasn't included, as Jordanhill Railway Station was?Freakin Duh.
Can someone please remove the 1,500,000 tag. While I am very pleased that we have reached 1,500,000 articles do you realize how many are stubs? I doubt half of these qulaify as articles yet. But great work just remove the tag asap
Ernst Stavro Blofeld
12:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A new low I guess, an obviously Photoshopped image on the front page - a picture that's supposed to represent a real place. In an encyclopedia. Very nice. 68.231.49.252
This might be the wrong place for this, and I apologize if it is, but on the Featured Article I think it would be a lot better to have the Duke Chapel or at the very least the Emblem featured as the picture to go with the Featured Article for today rather than those science buildings.angie stevens 'shirley ' They're much more interesting to look at and represent Duke a lot better.
Suggestions: 100x100px Image:Duke shield.PNG
Mientkiewicz5508 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does the Emperor Penguin travel such distances as part of the mating instinct? Why don't they stay near the sea so they can obtain food instead of starving themselves and remain with their mates? 69.40.184.248 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)RKimb@aol.com
Is it just me or did the Duke picture get messed up?
This is what it looks like for me:
Nishkid 64 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Mientkiewicz5508 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
If IGN.COM's message boards are among one of the most popular on the internet, then what IS the most popular? Do we even know? And if so, will we need to start up an article about it? Or the website that hosts it? Zabrak 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The above 20 000 article group is not under alphabetical order. Could someone fix that? Thanks, -- Vanka5 00:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I really like the current selection of language links, both in the bottom section and the sidebar (+ the "complete list" link in sidebar). Good work, whoever all is responsible for the current incarnation of this much-discussed segment.. :) - Quiddity 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
When you mouse over the links, it gives the two letter prefix that the link goes to (e.g. Français shows "fr:"). However, there are two problems with this:
Either Telugu should be fixed, or all the mouseover texts should be changed. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As of late we have recognized that as a community, we need to focus more on quality than on quantity. Yet we continue to prominantly list the number of articles on EN (at the top, left-hand corner of the main page) while hiding the less-impressive total of Featured Articles. At the very least, we should list the two figures side by side. We're doing just fine in terms of numbers of articles but badly in terms of F.A.'s Let's stop patting ourselves on the back and start listing the number of F.A.'s on the front page. -- Zantastik talk 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. See Talk:Main Page/Archive 79. Hope these help. T ennis Dy N ami T e ( sign in) 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ten articles of high importance and unspectacular quality should be placed onto the front page each week. Maybe replace DYK, lawl. OK that was mean
Rampart
01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of a picture of Correa going up, someone who's just won an election, instead of Balkenende, who may well have lost his premiership in an election days ago?-- Nema Fakei 12:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Eh, what happened to the Wiki logo? Who is that?
was that vandalism? -- Darrendeng 10:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason there isn't a link to (Wait! see below -- this isn't the link I meant) MediaWiki from the English Wikipedia Main Page, for example among Sister Projects? Is it because they don't want people going there unless they've been around long enough to find it somehow? -- Coppertwig 12:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) OK, I'm confused. That link wasn't what I meant. That was wikimedia/Meta-wiki. I meant MediaWiki -- the pages with a sunflower as the logo: MediaWiki. Wikipedia has Meta listed under Sister Projects, but not MediaWiki. How are people supposed to find MediaWiki? Or bugzilla? Maybe a link should be added. -- Coppertwig 12:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose to reduce the number of links on the main page to put more emphasis on the important topics, and to make the text easier to read. So only the links that are bold at the moment should stay (as plain links). At the moment, the page is really a mess. -- Nina 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If someone is looking for something, he/she will find it in wikipedia. If you show a featured article on the front page and want to show every relevant topic as well, you just spoil the message. Then you don't need the text- you could simply display a list of links. -- Nina 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The entry about the Japan Diet refers to the Reichstag as an institution, which is wrong here, it should point to the Reichstag building article. See "On this day"-box November29 1890
Today's DYK has "...was destroyed no fewer than four times between ..." . Is there any reason why this verbose phrasing is used instead of simply saying "...was destroyed four times between ..."? Or is Wikipedia trying to take a position on the significance of this event? MrVoluntarist 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
<fun> This can't be a coincidence!! We've got two abbey artilces in DYK, Corcomroe Abbey and Marmoutier Abbey. Also, the FA is History of erotic depictions, and we all know how abbots and nuns and monks are depicted in certain movies ;) Todor → Bozhinov 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) </fun>
Can't stop beating a dead horse can you? 75.72.36.148 07:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please can you explain why the catergorised search had been altered. Also, please check the User: AntiVandalBot because there have been a load of complaints about it's behaviour and has blocked 10 users reasonless. Yours sincerely Xersyd 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. We should take this comment seriously The mission 11:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
While the polonium poisoning themselves are still quite big news, the focus has now shifted from Litvinenko himself to Mario Scaramella and possibly Yegor Gaidar. Perhaps ITN could be rewriten to something like " Mario Scaramella, a contact of secret agent Alexander Litvinenko, has also tested positive for polonium." La ï ka 20:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Should we not have the spelling as Tsar instead of Czar Alexander I as that is the spelling of its Wikipedia page and is generally held as the correct usage BritBoy 18:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.89.146 ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 November 2006
I predict this featured article will see a record number of vandalisms. Carcharoth 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are you guys thinking?! User:Madchester, apparently you are used to having to say that. So bluntly put. Wikipedia has become a very public site. User:Brian0918, thats what porn is. Kids don't have to click the link, but apparently they are. The thumbnail should either be smaller, or not there at all. And if your right, that its too small to see, what stops them from just clicking to see what the picture is? The link to this article shouldn't be here. Sure, this is an encyclopedia, right? The article should stay, they have this in the encyclopedia books. But to put it on the front page, kids WILL see this. This maybe put on the news. Little extreme, right? But parents do go that far, good parents. This is indeed promoting it. Saying erotic art is ok. If that's ok, what about pornography? Kids might think that's a minor step, so they look at pornsites. Maybe that's not real enough, they'll try this with their friends. STDS, early pregnancy, etc. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degredation in our country. - 69.67.230.47 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please understand the difference between a wall painting in ancient pompei and a DVD of Debbie Does Dallas. -- Monotonehell 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Come on! You're stressing me out! I've been told that I would have gray hair at 20 at this rate. The war in the middle east, the politics in this country, porn being called art, I'm going to die at 20. Please, gain common sense! This is porn. It was 2000 years ago, but its porn. They considered it art, but they promoted sex with whoever. It's porn, it's porn, it's porn, no matter what. - 69.67.230.47 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind any FAs appearing on the Main Page, but this does make me curious about what articles are on the list of FAs that won't. I'd have bet dollars to donuts that this would have been one of them. -- Maxamegalon2000 06:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at guys holding guns, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Homicide, suicide, are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal guns, shoot each other while quail hunting, and then finally start leading armies of moral destruction. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Theres no bad pics on the war page.
NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at mountains, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Erosion, diagenesis, earthquakes , are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal rocks and survey equipment, dig holes, and then finally start leading armies of moral destruction. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at guys learning, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Learning, free thought, empowerment, are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal books, and visit even more free thought websites. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, people here on Wikipedia have evidently completely lost the plot, and put ideology before rationality and common sense. What alternate Universe are you people living in to think that it will be acceptable in this world to have such an article as the main page FA? You may be diametrically opposed to excluding such articles from selection there, but who are you to not take account of your audience? It is not a matter of being asked to exclude content from the encyclopaedia. zoney ♣ talk 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What muppets! FA on erotic art, how very bold of you! How risque! Thumb your nose up at the prudes!
I don't mean in any way to argue that "erotic art" cough*porn*cough shouldn't be in wikipedia - it certainly should. However the front page it not like other pages. Many schools have it set up as the home page on all their computers. Kids are major users of wikipedia, and many parents (right or wrong) wish to shield the kids from "erotic art". You see, all other pages you only get to because you choose to. The main page is a default page that takes 5% of all wikipedia traffic. This act has simply caused a small amount of needless damage to the popularity of wikipedia. Never mind. -- User:Juicifer
Wikipedia, through their promotion of filth and depraved pornographic smut, should be ashamed of itself. Kids have no idea what sex is, and if they happen to come to Wikipedia (because coming to wikipedia to learn things is the hip, cool thing every teen is doing to shock their parents these days) then upon seeing sexual depictions their eyes will fall out and they will be scarred for life. Kids should stay on wholesome things, like movies that involve an action hero killing Arabs, or eating at Taco Bell.
Now I'm not saying we should censor Wikipedia. Gracious no. I merely mean we should impose a strict set of moral standards so unsuitable subjects like faggots or Calvinism so they don't get discussed. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.33.78 ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 30 November 2006
Personally, I'd rather my kids knew about porn than furry conventions, but whatever. Quarma 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This obviously should not be an FA, since it doesn't meet the high quality of FA's we normally use here at Wikipedia. Wasn't there a Gwen Stefani song that could have been featured instead? Or a random performance by a third-rate comedian? ("Carrot Top's 2006 Performance at the Laff Riot Bar in El Guano, California" or something?) Or maybe a Pokemon? 69.175.141.106 14:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added a related comment at Wikipedia talk:Pornography#Erotica on main page. — Alan ✉ 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I would rather have "young adults" lead in pages like this than "many" of the entries Uncyclopedia (and see my comments on this talk page a while back about "medical images" and the front page).
Perhaps there should be a "WikiYoungPersons front page" to deal with such matters - or "click here for non-vanilla version front page" (covering the more exotic articles).
There will always be some front pages which cause controversy.
(Anyone care to establish the "save the cyber trees - do not argue too much about such articles" group?) Jackiespeel 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll just remind to users,that wikipedia is not just in sweden or denmark,but also in pakistan and saudi arabia.So ignore the prudes,porn is good and children have a sexe too.We will not get hostage by medieval mentalities.-- Pixel ;-) 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If people are so concerned why do they not take part in nominating and voting for features articles rather than complain when those that they disapprove appear. 82.153.153.125 21:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion - when an article is replaced because it is perceived as inappropriate for the front page, an article of the same category is substituted (and certain categories of topic do not have an associated picture on the front page.
As there are several reasons why "certain articles" might be deemed as inappropriate for the ordinary front page (could I add "accessing Wikipedia in a public library" as another), how difficult would it be to set up a parallel "non-vanilla article" entry point (ie equivalent to the Simple English page) which deals with such topics. Perhaps signing in required (to discourage vandalism) - but "you know what you are letting yourself in for." (Before anyone tells me so, I do accept that this idea probably involves a lot of work - I am just putting the idea as one solution for consideration) Jackiespeel 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
cloviz 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion is to try and avoid the above scenario. (Would you like to develop the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells page btw?)
There will always be some topics which will cause much heat and light and squabbling - some aspects of ordinary human life, certain medical topics, certain political/cultural topics, topics which might cause problems if accessed from libraries, schools and cultures which have a particular viewpoint. Probably #most# cultures or states (and persons within cultures in general) have some topics which are regarded as particularly sensitive but which are viewed with indifference elsewhere. I am suggesting a way of catering for such preferences, and also allowing others to look at things which be seen as sensitive.
The motto should be "don't complain - suggest a solution."
It was amusing that in two or three of the above comments I couldn't work out if they were for the 'censor the main page' proposition or anti. The poster who wanted to add "accessing Wikipedia in a public library" might want to have a look at the books that libraries often provide as a side service to their computer pools. Several of them may actually contain the subject of the history of erotic depictions in art as well as illustrations. Next you'll be burning books (again). Evolve. -- Monotonehell 12:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The main points probably are:
The front/main page serves, inter alia, to bring topics that they might not otherwise have considered to the attention of the viewer.
Some cultures are more conservative than others/prefer certain topics to remain in the private domain. Some people think that certain topics should not be brought to the attention of children before they reach the stage that they go looking for them (this might well include eg war-related topics). There are some topics - probably different for most cultures/countries/groups - which are found distasteful/likely to cause unpleasantness, some of which they are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to (a vegetarian might accept a link to "how a carcass is jointed, an atheist to a religious page etc). In a library we choose which books to look at - and those put on display by the librarians tend to be the more anodyne ones. Many library computers have blocking policies (some of them slightly irrational) and the screens are visible to passers by. There is, probably, on these and other grounds, a level of courtesy in keeping the main page somewhat more anodyne rather than "more exotic." This is why I suggested that there could be a separately accessed "interesting article" page, where the viewer chooses to go. Those of us who are willing to be intrigued by such topics can then choose to do so and everybody is happy. (And there will be some topics which, while fairly tasteful in themselves, will generate long discussions on their acceptability.) Jackiespeel 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've not even read most of the comments here, but I am disgusted by what I've seen. People, this is not a children's site. That is something you have to deal with. Wikipedia is not censored, for good reason. If this was some sort of children's reference site, and that picture was put up, bring on the protests, but you have to remember that their are adults here to, and not to mention people who don't think sex is a bad thing. Come on; face it, over 60 % of teenagers are looking at porn. What with television and the general American culture, pretty much everyone knows what's going on. If some 8 year old sees it, I doubt he'll even understand what it is. If he's mentally shattered, I blame the parents for not censoring their computer. It's a damn good article; just because the subject's "offensive" to some doesn't mean we can't recognize it as one of Wikipedia's best. Dooms Day349 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is a picture of a woman's private part in the "Did you know"? This is ridiculous. BhaiSaab talk 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want now how it's receaved the idea of forking because of some recent developments with the way fair use rule is interpreted.If your not awhare of the isue see thies three link's to make an opinion.-- Pixel ;-) 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
All_images_with_no_fair_use_rationale All_replaceable_fair_use_images talk:Fair_use
first item
is it plurality or popularity ?-- Pixel ;-) 12:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
(undent) Nobody complained. Why are you being so high-handed about this? The original comment was is it plurality or popularity? — that's not a complaint. My comment also was that the use of the word in this case (as a technical election term) is not common — the subsequent linking of it would have helped at the time. You comment that the issue is being concise, accurate and ensuring that we can resonably expect people to either understand... — an observation reinforced above by the unsigned remark Why can't they make it simple and say "Christian Democrats remain the largest party"?. Bazza 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Caution my fellow discussing people. Remains the largest party is a clear defining characteristic. The article originally stated that the Christian Democrats lost their majority but remained the largest party. There is no difference in meaning between being the largest party (without majority) and retaining plurality in this case. I understand that plurality can also include being a majority. That concludes that! If I am wrong in my definition, tell me so.
I realise that this is not the first time this has been raised but... In the light of the recent 1.5million milestone, Jimbo's comments about quantity/quality, discussion on WP Weekly podcast, etc. Could we please get the number of Featured Articles and/or Good Articles listed on the front page alongside the total number of articles in English??? I'm not suggesting removing the count of the toal number of articles, just a small addition, so it would read something like:
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 1,513,706 articles in English, 1175 of which are Featured Articles.
Thanks for your consideration, Witt y lama 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
In reference to the main arguement of the previous airing of this idea (listed at Talk:Main Page/Archive 79) - that having a FA count would be either "self-congratulatory" or "editor centric" (as opposed to reader centric), I would argue that the total-article counter is both of these things already. Surely if we can justify having the total-count listed then we can justify having an indicator of quality as well. If the casual visitor does not know what "Featured Article" means then he need only click on the link to find out. It is a wiki afterall! Witty lama 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
We should think about what we want the main page for. If it's just to impress visitors, the current setup more or less works, and a FA counter inside the FA box (like replacing "more featured articles" with "all X featured articles" would be an improvement. If, OTOH, we want the main page to attract new contributors and channel them into doing useful work, we should resurrect the project box on the main page and list collaborations and open tasks. Zocky | picture popups 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
(reindent)Given that identification of a problem or potential problem on the wiki tends to result in increased efforts to fix it, I see this is a positive. There seems to be pretty strong support for the idea of putting a count in the FA box in the discussion above. As an initial step, I have created {{ FA number}}, which would have to be manually updated. I plugged the template into the {{ TFAfooter}} markup to see what it would look like:
I've asked Raul654 if there are any issues with updating {{ FA number}} in how he organizes FA. Otherwise, I am ready to implement. - Banyan Tree 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou BanyanTree, that's great! So, are there any hoops that we should jump through to impliment this (such as a poll advertised on the community bulletin board at the Community Portal)?? Witty lama 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to try it on a temporary basis and see if I like it. A technical solution (read: a bot) would be much appreciated, though. Raul654 03:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone comes up with a bot to automate the process, I would be happy to co-nom at RFA. I assume that the bot could run on an unprotected template to prove that it is reliable in producing the numbers. This was a major issue at the last admin bot nom that I saw - people wouldn't seriously consider the bot for permission until it passed RFA and the RFA voters wouldn't approve a bot that lacked permission. - Banyan Tree 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)