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 95 | ← | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 |
I find this image associated with this article to be emotionally distressing. I do not like to see something so awful, where those men are literally in the act of dying. It is not visually graphic in the classic sense of gore and violence, but it most certainly is graphic to me, because I cannot help but imagine what they were going through at that point.
I doubt, if the featured article was for example suicide, there would be chosen an image of someone actually killing themselves; it would be considered obviously offensive.
Being on the main page, however, I have been *presented* with this emotional experience, without any choice; which I reject. Certainly articles themselves can contain graphic imagery, as necessary to their subject; but travelling to an article requires reading the article title which I have always found sufficient to give me choice over my decision.
However, I must be able to go to the main page without the risk of such unpleasentness, because it is impossible to reconnaitre the main page before viewing!
AS SUCH, I have removed the image from the main page.
Toby Douglass 05:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't something about the Petrol Rationing riots in Iran be included in the 'In the News" section? I've created an article about the riots which I edited into the reference to the riots on the Current Events page. Life, Liberty, Property 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't you liberal Wikipedians know that putting a picture of a women in a bra on the main page will scare any child for life! Wikipedia is obviously run by liberals, trying to destroy children's innocencr and Jimbo Wales probly gives all his money to Hillary Clinton!-- 208.19.13.102 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Just thought you might be interested to know that Wikipedia was featured on the June 27, 2007 Daily Show, during Lewis Black's segment. He was humorously commenting on conservatives either buying perceived left wing organizations or starting alternatives, and used Wikipedia's contrast with Conservapedia as an example, citing each site's article on homosexuality. There also was a picture of the main page. Dooms Day349 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this is too much or do you think that in the in the news it should mention that Tony Blair is stepping down from being prime minister today? (Not a typo above). 147.197.215.15 12:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My compliments on the fine advertisement for Wonderbra. I suppose we shall soon be seeing an article on Victoria's Secret PINK (TM). Writtenright 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Writtenright
I remember hearing the same complaints when that pregnancy test appeared on the Main Page, or some coffee brand (Afghanistan?) also appeared on the Main Page. Good times. hbdragon88 04:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow... wonderbra... just when I thought wiki couldn't sink any lower :|
-G
Meh. These complaints came up when Avatar: The Last Airbender was the TFA, too. I'm all for keeping adverts out, but overcompensating is just as bad.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been following CNN for a few hours and was wonderring if we should consider adding the 29th's London Bomb Scare to the 7/7 incident? I know they aren't in any known relation, but being so close, people are thinking that they are in relation, much like Virginia Tech Massacre's possible relation to Columbine (according to the date's anyways). I only suggest this for space saving.
NastalgicCam 7:18am, 29 June 2007
NastalgicCam 7:18am, 29 June 2007
Anyone else find it odd that real bombs go off daily and kill dozens, but an unexploded one makes all the news? — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-06-29 12:51Z
{{ editprotected}}
Between "Sections at bottom of page" and "Interwiki strapline" there seems a lot of unnecessary code:
-----------------------------Sections at bottom of page------------------------------> == Other areas of Wikipedia == {{WikipediaOther}} == Wikipedia's sister projects == {{WikipediaSister}} == Wikipedia languages == {{Wikipedialang}}<!-- <!--which divs to these close?:--></div></div><!-- -->__NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__<!-- <!----------Interwiki strapline---------->
I suggest most of the two empty divs, and the hidden messages to which they refer be removed for a quicker loading time. If it breaks it, you can always revert - 82.16.7.63 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I've searched the site for about an hour trying to figure out where to say this, but I couldn't find any so I am saying it here. I believe it would be a very good idea to change the Wikipedia background to black, the colour white is horrible on the eyes and some people are on this site for hours at a time, like myself. It would be a lot more convenient if the background colour was black, or another dark colour. I hope the Wikipedia administrators say this so they can talk to the head people about it. I think it is a very good idea and I would think many people agree with me on this. After a while on this site my eyes feel painful and I'm sure many other people have experienced this as well. This is a suggestion to change the entire Wikipedia website, so I won't be surprised if nothing changes. I just think it would be a lot more convenient.
There should also be a "Suggestions" page or something similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.192.185 ( talk • contribs).
Hey that's cool, where would I add that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrezb123 ( talk • contribs).
You are right about black providing best possible background.
However, as a cause, I gave up on it long ago.
Instead, I solve the problem for myself. I use Opera as my browser with my own style sheet with a black background and light yellow text and Georgia Ref font, a really good screen font.
You get used to reading text on all sites with a nice, large, uniform, distinct, print quality non-pixilated font.
Overriding page style sheets does change pages and create various problems, especially on pages that you are looking at for the first time. If necessary I just turn the page style sheet back on.
76.80.92.186 05:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you can change the background yourself, if you create an account... Secondly, black backgrounds are absolutely horrible. If we were forced to use such an atrocity, I and probably many other people would never use wikipedia again. Bushytails 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Those of you that, like me, use Macs (there must be at least one ot there somewhere :), you can hit ctrl-option-command-8 to invert your colors on the screen. Vbdrummer0 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Come on ....
If you are new to editing Wikipedia, you might be on the wrong page. This page is not meant for general questions or discussions about articles. This page is specifically for discussions about the Wikipedia page Main Page/Archive 102. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page instead. For help with using and editing Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Teahouse. |
-- 74.13.126.81 03:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless you could maybe out a link in the Toolbox saying Invert "Colours" or soso, but the Default should still be white, JoWal 11:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I love this monobook.ccs the white hurts after a few hours.
On the line at the top:
Overview · Editing · Questions · Help Contents · Categories · Featured content · A–Z in
there should be a little dot between help and contents, like between all the other entries on the line.
76.80.92.186 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
My best regards for feature the exquisite "Starry Night" as POTD. Kudos to everyone! -- ŴôôḌ ẼĿF 06:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The real Picture of the Day is the risque one in today's featured article. It surprised me to see Wikipedia display pornography on its front page. Christopher Connor 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
plz put hatshepsut back in. i dont wanna see some ugly britain.-- Studytheearths 19:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
12:56 PST The photo is Hatshepsut, but the text still claims that it is Gordon Brown who is pictured.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 19:57, 29 June 2007 ( talk • contribs) 75.165.9.239.
Maybe it should be changed slightly? It reads "Two attempted car bomb attacks in central London are foiled by the Metropolitan Police." - is 'foiled' really correct? In my mind, that would mean that their intelligence lead them to intercept both cars before anyone else reported anything...as it was, one was an eyewitness account (of a smoking car? I'm not quite sure), and the other was towed away before the company realized there was a bomb inside.
It doesn't really sound like the bombs were directly stopped by the police at all. -- Joewithajay 10:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What's up with the templates? E.G. "CEST" is broken as well as the templates main page... -- 88.134.83.112 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if this was discussed before (god I hope it was). Aren't fair use images disallowed on the main page? So why has one used in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 23, 2007? Is it allowed or was it an innocent accident? -- Cat chi? 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be included in the news now? CNN is reporting that it is very likely a deliberate attack. What do people think?-- Analogue Kid 16:50, 30 June 2007 (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 is troubling to see that wikipedia is running a featured article about islam, and this article contains almost no mention of terrorism. This is very clearly bias. While I am not suggesting that the article should say that all muslims are terrorists, the fact of the matter is the majority of terrorists in the world today are followers of this religion. Wikipedia should be in the business of reporting facts and unbiased knowledge, it should not be an arena for propaghanda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.61.226 ( talk • contribs)
The article does mention terrorism in the aforementioned section with a good link to Islamic terrorism. An entire section on terrorism is unwarranted. Dooms Day349 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I posted the original comment on this page. I aplogoze that the comment was posted anonymously, I was not logged in. I understand everyone's argument, but again we must weigh the value of political-correctness vs. the value of giving people complete information on the subject. Regardless of the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists, and regardless of how long terrorism has been a problem within Islam, it's a very significant issue in Islam today and one that is worthy of at least a paragraph of it's own in the article. I recall reading that featured articles in wikipedia are supposed to be high-quality, complete articles. I don't understand how this article made the cut, unless one or more of the decision-makers wanted to spread a message about Islam. This is why I mentioned using wikipedia for propaghanda purposes. This is by no means an unbiased article that shows the full picture of what is a very significant religious group in the world today. User:Rmisiak
As the one who removed mention of terrorism from the Jihad section, I assure you that political correctness had nothing to do with this. We have also resisted attempts to misinform readers that "jihad" means a peaceful spiritual struggle or the like, in favor of clearly presenting the most historical and orthodox doctrine. Jihad is part of Islam, no question about it. Terrorism is not, except insofar as one argues it to be a lawful component of jihad. The most salient issue isn't actually attacks on civilians, though this is certainly debatable, but who has the right to declare jihad, and who is obliged to carry it out? Islamist terrorists state that anyone may declare jihad, and that all able Muslims are obliged to pursue it. Though not obviously un-Islamic, this stance is at least innovative and unorthodox. Still, we have refrained from stating that terrorism is not part of Islam: this entire discussion is recentist and not nearly as core to Islam as such objections suggest. The Jihad section is hardly a whitewash. What it isn't is recentist, politicized or tendentious. I invite anyone here to remove that ridiculous tag atop the article. Proabivouac 08:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay guys, this thread was off topic from the beginning and has now skewed into specific article content. This talk page is supposed to be about discussing the Main Page, so please take this discussion to Talk:Islam or your user talk pages. Dragons flight 09:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The main page is transcluded to Main Pages/1 through to Main Page/10, just wondering what these are? SGGH speak! 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that perhaps we could have a note on the Concert for Diana in the news section. This is a huge concert airing in over 140 different countries with some of the most famous singers in the world performing. Eagle Owl 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
When you search Chris Benoit on Google, his image comes up about the edit thing. Has wikipedia been notified about the Benoit edit thingy? Kashakak 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
wot edit thingy Thinklikeatank! 01:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
hi all, first of let me state i like Frank Lloyd Wright's work, the 'water fall' hoose is a favourite, but what is it with the near constant (ok not constant, but you get my drift) mentioning of FLW buildings in DYK? Perry-mankster 10:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone ever heard of a book called Strike of Lightning by a Randy Prince? I've read it and it is a good book for young children. Do you think a page for this book can be put on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.216.44 ( talk • contribs).
Not to spoil anyones fun, but is it really appropriate to make fun of ethnicity on the main page? I am referring to the 'yump' line in the caption to the featured picture. I can think of several other ethnicities other than Swedish who would not be amused by a similar 'yoke' being directed at them. And no, it does not bother me, and if it is up to me, do keep it there by all means, but do give the matter some thought. Is it appropriate in this case but not in some others, or is it not appropriate equally no matter which ethnicity is being made fun of, good naturedly or not. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 14:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In the Bush commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, can you put a link to the page that has the story? All the links are for other stuff.
Which is the correct form in English (as oppose to the Serbian Monika Seleš)?
The way things are rendering on my end, the FA is taking up less space than the news, thus leaving a noticeable gap under the DYK. This could be easily changed by adding an item to DYK, but the DYK headline wouldn't align with the On this Day... headline. Bringing this to someones attention to see if it merits correction, and if so how to do that. - Andrew c [talk] 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please put that Alan Johnston has been released and it's breaking news!
Hurry and watch here. (Windows Media Player required) BBC News 24 - Live Broadcast. -- 96.224.7.204 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Surely more important that some reporter who was released??!???! 58.104.61.196 02:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me fellow Americans, but I would hardly call todays featured article random, considering 4 July is here. Tourskin 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking it's time for this now-pointless discussion to end... Jmlk 1 7 08:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hypocirtes? All I wanted to do was stir up some arguments make my British side a little happy. Who is the primeminister again? Happy July 4!!
Tourskin 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The spanish version of Wikipedia finally reaches 250,000 articles - can someone update the languages part at the bottom of the main page of English Wikipedia? ¡Muchas gracias! Dazissimo 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that on the main page said that "1776 – The Continental Congress of the Thirteen Colonies in British North America approved a Declaration of Independence" which is wrong, technically the Declaration of Independence was 'approved' on July 2, 1776 not July 4, 1776 (which is independence day). Also the word 'approved' should be ratified. Thank you, -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs talk) 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that articles linked from the main page (even the featured article itself) are generally not protected, and never simply BECAUSE they are linked from the main page, but images invariably are? I've double-checked -- the images actually inlined in the main page are thumbnails, and are not the same jpeg files as the big ones that are protected, although I assume they're protected too. Also interesting is the language used -- by an 850x356 image it may say "The image has been temporarily uploaded from the Wikimedia Commons and protected because it is, or shortly will be, on the Main Page". Is "on" the main page? Is linked from the main page. A thumbnail version that is a separate .jpeg file is actually on the main page. But the 850x356 (or whatever) jpeg itself is not actually on the main page. Strange choice of language.
I don't get why they don't just protect only the thumbnail. By analogy, the featured article is often not protected, though the text excerpted from it on the main page is (by virtue of being physically part of a protected page - the main page). Protecting the thumbnail but not the big version of some image would be the logical equivalent. Yet the big version gets protected too, unlike the FA.
Is there some sort of extra level of paranoia about images being vandalized? It's also the case that ALL images are apparently effectively semi-protected, unalterable without registering. This seems rather an excessive level of paranoia, given that the bigger threat isn't that an image will be replaced with something irrelevant, scribbled on, or changed in misleading or POV-pushing ways, but that the article text will. The article text is the far more important to keep NPOV and reasonably accurate, not to mention intact, as it's the bread and butter of the article. The images are gravy. If I wanted to make an article misleading, or turn it into a big self-promotion, or push a POV, I'd start with the text and probably completely ignore the images altogether!
Yet the behavior of Wikipedia is apparently to regard image tampering as the greater threat, to judge by the greater attention paid to defending images versus article text.
If anything seriously needs to be semi-protected by default, it's templates -- much less in need of regular updating or tweaking and much more capable of causing mayhem -- harder to trace mayhem and multiplied by every article that uses the template, directly or via other templates. Yet a ton of templates aren't even semi-protected ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.54.10.64 ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Does anybody know how many Pacific WW2 battles are featured articles?
Sixteen.
That's out of about 20 featured articles that are about WW2 battles. This isn't including WW2 military strategy and personalities, just battles. Does anybody else believe that this is grossly unrepresentative of the importance of the Pacific side of WW2? I know it's a contraversial thing to say, but some think that the crux of WW2 was the German Eastern front. That is, the fight between Germany and the Soviet Union. Certainly nobody could seriously contend that the Pacific theatre was the more important than the European one in terms of the nature and outcome of the war. So why the bias of featured articles towards the former?
Don't get me wrong, the Pacific war was important and deserves to be extensively convered, but I think it is wrong to have so much of it, when there are many many other great articles that can be featured. I don't want this to descend into yet another dull bun fight over systemic bias within Wikipedia, but I think it is worth considering that too little correction is being made for the fact that many more good articles are centred on the Western world. When choosing the 'featured article' consideration must be made of whether, because of the uneven distribution of technology, internet access and population in the world, such a bias might emerge.
Whatever the reason, I really do think that sixteen an out-of-proportion figure when compared with the proliferation other, similar, featured articles. 193.60.159.61 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, consider featuring Frida Kahlo tomorrow on her 100 birthday. I was looking for a better place to submit this proposal but I couldn't find it. Thank you. RC, New York.
How do you do this, as accents have been missed off a name. These occurrences in the text have been rectified but I do not know how to rename the article in general.
There is something about the line, "The 2012 Summer Olympics bids comprised bids by nine cities to host the 2012 Summer Olympics." that dosen't sound right. I think it should be "comprised of bids by nine cities". Aiden Fisher 09:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to make Wikipedia Main Page your Homepage? Please get back to me on my Talkpage user talk: krummy2
Krummy2 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, is it possible to make the cursor go directly to the search box when opening Wikipedia? For example, if you go to Google, you can immediately begin typing your query because the cursor is already in the search box. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
65.221.3.7 (
talk •
contribs).
Could some folks please keep an eye on Sochi, currently a high-profile article? There have been a few edit wars going on, revolving around whether Sochi is a Georgian or Russian city, and the addition of a biased and unsourced criticism section. After doing a little research, I can be reasonably certain that Sochi is in Russia, and I have removed the unsourced section. But I do not want to get involved in an edit war, nor do I want to protect a page that I have edited recently. Thanks all, Fang Aili talk 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
heyyy, well i think this page is very informational whoever did it, awesome job! thanks -- Michelle Shaw july 5, 2007 12:37PM
"1887 – King Kalākaua of Hawai'i was forced to sign the Bayonet Constitution, stripping the Hawaiian monarchy of much of its authority as well as disfranchising all Asians, most native Hawaiians, and the poor."
"Bayonet Consitution" isn't the name given to the article, which says it's a name adopted by the opponents. Not endorsing the consitution, just saying maybe this anniversary item should be rethought in light of NPOV. -- Samuel J. Howard 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"...that viable sperm has been extracted from cadavers up to 36 hours after the donor's death?"
What about the poor poor children? -Cam T| C 08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So since when does a local British Association Football team (Sorry, I and 3 quarters of the native English speaking world will NEVER call that game simply "football") team get a link on the main article and the Superbowl, one of the world's most broadcasted events doesn't even get a mention on Superbowl Sunday?
Again, I call Britocentrism on Wikipedia. Or should I say, Wikipaedia.
ColdRedRain 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
209.162.14.223 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
On a similar note, since when do local American football teams ONLY get on the main page, not once but twice – while British football teams have been on there multiple times such as here, here, here... :p Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed that a vast amount of people may not know where Norwich is or even Manchester is, Tho Manchester United has one of the biggest fan basses in the world which include non native english speakers even non english speakers. But its sport which is understood by both english and non english alike. Americans use soccer over Football due to the clash with American Football but lets see Football as most people around the world understand is kicking a ball and American Football is Thrown and Catched and not as occasionally kicked. Football originated in the UK yet American's Stole the name and then renamed UK Football to Soccer. So lets see... Britocentrism it may be to publish it as a main artical meaning we have more priority for it? Maybe if any american sport would live up to name not stolen would be used in a main artical. For Example Baseball or Basketball tho Baseball stole yet again from the British game of Rounders. Norwich is still renouned in the english speaking community which has a higher rate of football lovers.
I hate to interrupt this moving discourse, but where is "again" pronounced "agayn." I pronounce it /ə.gɛn/ but that's just me. Atropos 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
What is southern English English? :-o
Possibly "...I speak English with a southern English accent" is what was meant.
We last won the FOOTBALL world cup in 1966, but everyone seems to forget that football (soccer) is the most popular sport in the world. The only American sport to gain worldwide fame is basketball and I'd be the first to admit it's more popular than rugby and cricket by a mile. As for the language, who cares, it's all understandable. We used to speak German and French and the language has just evolved, but the thing I want to make clear is that England speaks Engliah and U.S.A speak U.S English Soopa hoops77 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
124.176.233.179 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A wonderful neologism, Britocentricism, and one that I assume refers to anglocentricism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.53.123 ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I read the comment about Britocentrism on Wikipedia and laughed. That is, until I looked at the "Featured content" page and sobered up. Look at the three prominently featured items:
Honestly, who cares about city status in the UK? Or lists of insects in Britain? It only got worse when I looked at the new featured content:
Æthelberht of Kent? Agatha Christie? Birchington-on-Sea? Daspletosaurus? "But, wait" you say, "Daspletosaurus is a dinosaur. Isn't this just another case of a Americans confusing Dinocentism with Britocentrism." Not so fast, I respond. Who is associated with the Daspletosaurus? None other than Darren Tanke, the paleontologist from Alberta. And we all know Canadians are nothing more than French fur trappers and Brits hiding out in North America. 128.61.52.152 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... given the amount of reversion of trolling there has been in this section recently, and how it is just over a fortnight old, perhaps it's time that this is manually archived? -- Dreaded Walrus t c 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 |
I find this image associated with this article to be emotionally distressing. I do not like to see something so awful, where those men are literally in the act of dying. It is not visually graphic in the classic sense of gore and violence, but it most certainly is graphic to me, because I cannot help but imagine what they were going through at that point.
I doubt, if the featured article was for example suicide, there would be chosen an image of someone actually killing themselves; it would be considered obviously offensive.
Being on the main page, however, I have been *presented* with this emotional experience, without any choice; which I reject. Certainly articles themselves can contain graphic imagery, as necessary to their subject; but travelling to an article requires reading the article title which I have always found sufficient to give me choice over my decision.
However, I must be able to go to the main page without the risk of such unpleasentness, because it is impossible to reconnaitre the main page before viewing!
AS SUCH, I have removed the image from the main page.
Toby Douglass 05:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't something about the Petrol Rationing riots in Iran be included in the 'In the News" section? I've created an article about the riots which I edited into the reference to the riots on the Current Events page. Life, Liberty, Property 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't you liberal Wikipedians know that putting a picture of a women in a bra on the main page will scare any child for life! Wikipedia is obviously run by liberals, trying to destroy children's innocencr and Jimbo Wales probly gives all his money to Hillary Clinton!-- 208.19.13.102 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Just thought you might be interested to know that Wikipedia was featured on the June 27, 2007 Daily Show, during Lewis Black's segment. He was humorously commenting on conservatives either buying perceived left wing organizations or starting alternatives, and used Wikipedia's contrast with Conservapedia as an example, citing each site's article on homosexuality. There also was a picture of the main page. Dooms Day349 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this is too much or do you think that in the in the news it should mention that Tony Blair is stepping down from being prime minister today? (Not a typo above). 147.197.215.15 12:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My compliments on the fine advertisement for Wonderbra. I suppose we shall soon be seeing an article on Victoria's Secret PINK (TM). Writtenright 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Writtenright
I remember hearing the same complaints when that pregnancy test appeared on the Main Page, or some coffee brand (Afghanistan?) also appeared on the Main Page. Good times. hbdragon88 04:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow... wonderbra... just when I thought wiki couldn't sink any lower :|
-G
Meh. These complaints came up when Avatar: The Last Airbender was the TFA, too. I'm all for keeping adverts out, but overcompensating is just as bad.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been following CNN for a few hours and was wonderring if we should consider adding the 29th's London Bomb Scare to the 7/7 incident? I know they aren't in any known relation, but being so close, people are thinking that they are in relation, much like Virginia Tech Massacre's possible relation to Columbine (according to the date's anyways). I only suggest this for space saving.
NastalgicCam 7:18am, 29 June 2007
NastalgicCam 7:18am, 29 June 2007
Anyone else find it odd that real bombs go off daily and kill dozens, but an unexploded one makes all the news? — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-06-29 12:51Z
{{ editprotected}}
Between "Sections at bottom of page" and "Interwiki strapline" there seems a lot of unnecessary code:
-----------------------------Sections at bottom of page------------------------------> == Other areas of Wikipedia == {{WikipediaOther}} == Wikipedia's sister projects == {{WikipediaSister}} == Wikipedia languages == {{Wikipedialang}}<!-- <!--which divs to these close?:--></div></div><!-- -->__NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__<!-- <!----------Interwiki strapline---------->
I suggest most of the two empty divs, and the hidden messages to which they refer be removed for a quicker loading time. If it breaks it, you can always revert - 82.16.7.63 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I've searched the site for about an hour trying to figure out where to say this, but I couldn't find any so I am saying it here. I believe it would be a very good idea to change the Wikipedia background to black, the colour white is horrible on the eyes and some people are on this site for hours at a time, like myself. It would be a lot more convenient if the background colour was black, or another dark colour. I hope the Wikipedia administrators say this so they can talk to the head people about it. I think it is a very good idea and I would think many people agree with me on this. After a while on this site my eyes feel painful and I'm sure many other people have experienced this as well. This is a suggestion to change the entire Wikipedia website, so I won't be surprised if nothing changes. I just think it would be a lot more convenient.
There should also be a "Suggestions" page or something similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.192.185 ( talk • contribs).
Hey that's cool, where would I add that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrezb123 ( talk • contribs).
You are right about black providing best possible background.
However, as a cause, I gave up on it long ago.
Instead, I solve the problem for myself. I use Opera as my browser with my own style sheet with a black background and light yellow text and Georgia Ref font, a really good screen font.
You get used to reading text on all sites with a nice, large, uniform, distinct, print quality non-pixilated font.
Overriding page style sheets does change pages and create various problems, especially on pages that you are looking at for the first time. If necessary I just turn the page style sheet back on.
76.80.92.186 05:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you can change the background yourself, if you create an account... Secondly, black backgrounds are absolutely horrible. If we were forced to use such an atrocity, I and probably many other people would never use wikipedia again. Bushytails 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Those of you that, like me, use Macs (there must be at least one ot there somewhere :), you can hit ctrl-option-command-8 to invert your colors on the screen. Vbdrummer0 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Come on ....
If you are new to editing Wikipedia, you might be on the wrong page. This page is not meant for general questions or discussions about articles. This page is specifically for discussions about the Wikipedia page Main Page/Archive 102. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page instead. For help with using and editing Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Teahouse. |
-- 74.13.126.81 03:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless you could maybe out a link in the Toolbox saying Invert "Colours" or soso, but the Default should still be white, JoWal 11:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I love this monobook.ccs the white hurts after a few hours.
On the line at the top:
Overview · Editing · Questions · Help Contents · Categories · Featured content · A–Z in
there should be a little dot between help and contents, like between all the other entries on the line.
76.80.92.186 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
My best regards for feature the exquisite "Starry Night" as POTD. Kudos to everyone! -- ŴôôḌ ẼĿF 06:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The real Picture of the Day is the risque one in today's featured article. It surprised me to see Wikipedia display pornography on its front page. Christopher Connor 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
plz put hatshepsut back in. i dont wanna see some ugly britain.-- Studytheearths 19:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
12:56 PST The photo is Hatshepsut, but the text still claims that it is Gordon Brown who is pictured.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 19:57, 29 June 2007 ( talk • contribs) 75.165.9.239.
Maybe it should be changed slightly? It reads "Two attempted car bomb attacks in central London are foiled by the Metropolitan Police." - is 'foiled' really correct? In my mind, that would mean that their intelligence lead them to intercept both cars before anyone else reported anything...as it was, one was an eyewitness account (of a smoking car? I'm not quite sure), and the other was towed away before the company realized there was a bomb inside.
It doesn't really sound like the bombs were directly stopped by the police at all. -- Joewithajay 10:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What's up with the templates? E.G. "CEST" is broken as well as the templates main page... -- 88.134.83.112 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if this was discussed before (god I hope it was). Aren't fair use images disallowed on the main page? So why has one used in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 23, 2007? Is it allowed or was it an innocent accident? -- Cat chi? 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be included in the news now? CNN is reporting that it is very likely a deliberate attack. What do people think?-- Analogue Kid 16:50, 30 June 2007 (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 is troubling to see that wikipedia is running a featured article about islam, and this article contains almost no mention of terrorism. This is very clearly bias. While I am not suggesting that the article should say that all muslims are terrorists, the fact of the matter is the majority of terrorists in the world today are followers of this religion. Wikipedia should be in the business of reporting facts and unbiased knowledge, it should not be an arena for propaghanda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.61.226 ( talk • contribs)
The article does mention terrorism in the aforementioned section with a good link to Islamic terrorism. An entire section on terrorism is unwarranted. Dooms Day349 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I posted the original comment on this page. I aplogoze that the comment was posted anonymously, I was not logged in. I understand everyone's argument, but again we must weigh the value of political-correctness vs. the value of giving people complete information on the subject. Regardless of the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists, and regardless of how long terrorism has been a problem within Islam, it's a very significant issue in Islam today and one that is worthy of at least a paragraph of it's own in the article. I recall reading that featured articles in wikipedia are supposed to be high-quality, complete articles. I don't understand how this article made the cut, unless one or more of the decision-makers wanted to spread a message about Islam. This is why I mentioned using wikipedia for propaghanda purposes. This is by no means an unbiased article that shows the full picture of what is a very significant religious group in the world today. User:Rmisiak
As the one who removed mention of terrorism from the Jihad section, I assure you that political correctness had nothing to do with this. We have also resisted attempts to misinform readers that "jihad" means a peaceful spiritual struggle or the like, in favor of clearly presenting the most historical and orthodox doctrine. Jihad is part of Islam, no question about it. Terrorism is not, except insofar as one argues it to be a lawful component of jihad. The most salient issue isn't actually attacks on civilians, though this is certainly debatable, but who has the right to declare jihad, and who is obliged to carry it out? Islamist terrorists state that anyone may declare jihad, and that all able Muslims are obliged to pursue it. Though not obviously un-Islamic, this stance is at least innovative and unorthodox. Still, we have refrained from stating that terrorism is not part of Islam: this entire discussion is recentist and not nearly as core to Islam as such objections suggest. The Jihad section is hardly a whitewash. What it isn't is recentist, politicized or tendentious. I invite anyone here to remove that ridiculous tag atop the article. Proabivouac 08:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay guys, this thread was off topic from the beginning and has now skewed into specific article content. This talk page is supposed to be about discussing the Main Page, so please take this discussion to Talk:Islam or your user talk pages. Dragons flight 09:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The main page is transcluded to Main Pages/1 through to Main Page/10, just wondering what these are? SGGH speak! 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that perhaps we could have a note on the Concert for Diana in the news section. This is a huge concert airing in over 140 different countries with some of the most famous singers in the world performing. Eagle Owl 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
When you search Chris Benoit on Google, his image comes up about the edit thing. Has wikipedia been notified about the Benoit edit thingy? Kashakak 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
wot edit thingy Thinklikeatank! 01:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
hi all, first of let me state i like Frank Lloyd Wright's work, the 'water fall' hoose is a favourite, but what is it with the near constant (ok not constant, but you get my drift) mentioning of FLW buildings in DYK? Perry-mankster 10:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone ever heard of a book called Strike of Lightning by a Randy Prince? I've read it and it is a good book for young children. Do you think a page for this book can be put on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.216.44 ( talk • contribs).
Not to spoil anyones fun, but is it really appropriate to make fun of ethnicity on the main page? I am referring to the 'yump' line in the caption to the featured picture. I can think of several other ethnicities other than Swedish who would not be amused by a similar 'yoke' being directed at them. And no, it does not bother me, and if it is up to me, do keep it there by all means, but do give the matter some thought. Is it appropriate in this case but not in some others, or is it not appropriate equally no matter which ethnicity is being made fun of, good naturedly or not. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 14:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In the Bush commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, can you put a link to the page that has the story? All the links are for other stuff.
Which is the correct form in English (as oppose to the Serbian Monika Seleš)?
The way things are rendering on my end, the FA is taking up less space than the news, thus leaving a noticeable gap under the DYK. This could be easily changed by adding an item to DYK, but the DYK headline wouldn't align with the On this Day... headline. Bringing this to someones attention to see if it merits correction, and if so how to do that. - Andrew c [talk] 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please put that Alan Johnston has been released and it's breaking news!
Hurry and watch here. (Windows Media Player required) BBC News 24 - Live Broadcast. -- 96.224.7.204 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Surely more important that some reporter who was released??!???! 58.104.61.196 02:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me fellow Americans, but I would hardly call todays featured article random, considering 4 July is here. Tourskin 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking it's time for this now-pointless discussion to end... Jmlk 1 7 08:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hypocirtes? All I wanted to do was stir up some arguments make my British side a little happy. Who is the primeminister again? Happy July 4!!
Tourskin 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The spanish version of Wikipedia finally reaches 250,000 articles - can someone update the languages part at the bottom of the main page of English Wikipedia? ¡Muchas gracias! Dazissimo 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that on the main page said that "1776 – The Continental Congress of the Thirteen Colonies in British North America approved a Declaration of Independence" which is wrong, technically the Declaration of Independence was 'approved' on July 2, 1776 not July 4, 1776 (which is independence day). Also the word 'approved' should be ratified. Thank you, -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs talk) 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that articles linked from the main page (even the featured article itself) are generally not protected, and never simply BECAUSE they are linked from the main page, but images invariably are? I've double-checked -- the images actually inlined in the main page are thumbnails, and are not the same jpeg files as the big ones that are protected, although I assume they're protected too. Also interesting is the language used -- by an 850x356 image it may say "The image has been temporarily uploaded from the Wikimedia Commons and protected because it is, or shortly will be, on the Main Page". Is "on" the main page? Is linked from the main page. A thumbnail version that is a separate .jpeg file is actually on the main page. But the 850x356 (or whatever) jpeg itself is not actually on the main page. Strange choice of language.
I don't get why they don't just protect only the thumbnail. By analogy, the featured article is often not protected, though the text excerpted from it on the main page is (by virtue of being physically part of a protected page - the main page). Protecting the thumbnail but not the big version of some image would be the logical equivalent. Yet the big version gets protected too, unlike the FA.
Is there some sort of extra level of paranoia about images being vandalized? It's also the case that ALL images are apparently effectively semi-protected, unalterable without registering. This seems rather an excessive level of paranoia, given that the bigger threat isn't that an image will be replaced with something irrelevant, scribbled on, or changed in misleading or POV-pushing ways, but that the article text will. The article text is the far more important to keep NPOV and reasonably accurate, not to mention intact, as it's the bread and butter of the article. The images are gravy. If I wanted to make an article misleading, or turn it into a big self-promotion, or push a POV, I'd start with the text and probably completely ignore the images altogether!
Yet the behavior of Wikipedia is apparently to regard image tampering as the greater threat, to judge by the greater attention paid to defending images versus article text.
If anything seriously needs to be semi-protected by default, it's templates -- much less in need of regular updating or tweaking and much more capable of causing mayhem -- harder to trace mayhem and multiplied by every article that uses the template, directly or via other templates. Yet a ton of templates aren't even semi-protected ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.54.10.64 ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Does anybody know how many Pacific WW2 battles are featured articles?
Sixteen.
That's out of about 20 featured articles that are about WW2 battles. This isn't including WW2 military strategy and personalities, just battles. Does anybody else believe that this is grossly unrepresentative of the importance of the Pacific side of WW2? I know it's a contraversial thing to say, but some think that the crux of WW2 was the German Eastern front. That is, the fight between Germany and the Soviet Union. Certainly nobody could seriously contend that the Pacific theatre was the more important than the European one in terms of the nature and outcome of the war. So why the bias of featured articles towards the former?
Don't get me wrong, the Pacific war was important and deserves to be extensively convered, but I think it is wrong to have so much of it, when there are many many other great articles that can be featured. I don't want this to descend into yet another dull bun fight over systemic bias within Wikipedia, but I think it is worth considering that too little correction is being made for the fact that many more good articles are centred on the Western world. When choosing the 'featured article' consideration must be made of whether, because of the uneven distribution of technology, internet access and population in the world, such a bias might emerge.
Whatever the reason, I really do think that sixteen an out-of-proportion figure when compared with the proliferation other, similar, featured articles. 193.60.159.61 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, consider featuring Frida Kahlo tomorrow on her 100 birthday. I was looking for a better place to submit this proposal but I couldn't find it. Thank you. RC, New York.
How do you do this, as accents have been missed off a name. These occurrences in the text have been rectified but I do not know how to rename the article in general.
There is something about the line, "The 2012 Summer Olympics bids comprised bids by nine cities to host the 2012 Summer Olympics." that dosen't sound right. I think it should be "comprised of bids by nine cities". Aiden Fisher 09:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to make Wikipedia Main Page your Homepage? Please get back to me on my Talkpage user talk: krummy2
Krummy2 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, is it possible to make the cursor go directly to the search box when opening Wikipedia? For example, if you go to Google, you can immediately begin typing your query because the cursor is already in the search box. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
65.221.3.7 (
talk •
contribs).
Could some folks please keep an eye on Sochi, currently a high-profile article? There have been a few edit wars going on, revolving around whether Sochi is a Georgian or Russian city, and the addition of a biased and unsourced criticism section. After doing a little research, I can be reasonably certain that Sochi is in Russia, and I have removed the unsourced section. But I do not want to get involved in an edit war, nor do I want to protect a page that I have edited recently. Thanks all, Fang Aili talk 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
heyyy, well i think this page is very informational whoever did it, awesome job! thanks -- Michelle Shaw july 5, 2007 12:37PM
"1887 – King Kalākaua of Hawai'i was forced to sign the Bayonet Constitution, stripping the Hawaiian monarchy of much of its authority as well as disfranchising all Asians, most native Hawaiians, and the poor."
"Bayonet Consitution" isn't the name given to the article, which says it's a name adopted by the opponents. Not endorsing the consitution, just saying maybe this anniversary item should be rethought in light of NPOV. -- Samuel J. Howard 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"...that viable sperm has been extracted from cadavers up to 36 hours after the donor's death?"
What about the poor poor children? -Cam T| C 08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So since when does a local British Association Football team (Sorry, I and 3 quarters of the native English speaking world will NEVER call that game simply "football") team get a link on the main article and the Superbowl, one of the world's most broadcasted events doesn't even get a mention on Superbowl Sunday?
Again, I call Britocentrism on Wikipedia. Or should I say, Wikipaedia.
ColdRedRain 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
209.162.14.223 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
On a similar note, since when do local American football teams ONLY get on the main page, not once but twice – while British football teams have been on there multiple times such as here, here, here... :p Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed that a vast amount of people may not know where Norwich is or even Manchester is, Tho Manchester United has one of the biggest fan basses in the world which include non native english speakers even non english speakers. But its sport which is understood by both english and non english alike. Americans use soccer over Football due to the clash with American Football but lets see Football as most people around the world understand is kicking a ball and American Football is Thrown and Catched and not as occasionally kicked. Football originated in the UK yet American's Stole the name and then renamed UK Football to Soccer. So lets see... Britocentrism it may be to publish it as a main artical meaning we have more priority for it? Maybe if any american sport would live up to name not stolen would be used in a main artical. For Example Baseball or Basketball tho Baseball stole yet again from the British game of Rounders. Norwich is still renouned in the english speaking community which has a higher rate of football lovers.
I hate to interrupt this moving discourse, but where is "again" pronounced "agayn." I pronounce it /ə.gɛn/ but that's just me. Atropos 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
What is southern English English? :-o
Possibly "...I speak English with a southern English accent" is what was meant.
We last won the FOOTBALL world cup in 1966, but everyone seems to forget that football (soccer) is the most popular sport in the world. The only American sport to gain worldwide fame is basketball and I'd be the first to admit it's more popular than rugby and cricket by a mile. As for the language, who cares, it's all understandable. We used to speak German and French and the language has just evolved, but the thing I want to make clear is that England speaks Engliah and U.S.A speak U.S English Soopa hoops77 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
124.176.233.179 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A wonderful neologism, Britocentricism, and one that I assume refers to anglocentricism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.53.123 ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I read the comment about Britocentrism on Wikipedia and laughed. That is, until I looked at the "Featured content" page and sobered up. Look at the three prominently featured items:
Honestly, who cares about city status in the UK? Or lists of insects in Britain? It only got worse when I looked at the new featured content:
Æthelberht of Kent? Agatha Christie? Birchington-on-Sea? Daspletosaurus? "But, wait" you say, "Daspletosaurus is a dinosaur. Isn't this just another case of a Americans confusing Dinocentism with Britocentrism." Not so fast, I respond. Who is associated with the Daspletosaurus? None other than Darren Tanke, the paleontologist from Alberta. And we all know Canadians are nothing more than French fur trappers and Brits hiding out in North America. 128.61.52.152 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... given the amount of reversion of trolling there has been in this section recently, and how it is just over a fortnight old, perhaps it's time that this is manually archived? -- Dreaded Walrus t c 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)