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 110 | ← | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | → | Archive 120 |
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 |
See Wikipedia:Today's featured list.
The Transhumanist 09:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, if we can make room. Ultimately though, people hardly see the featured picture as it is. Adding more stuff will just clutter it up more. snowball71 ( talk) 17:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
When is this Website is first formed and created? How did the makers made a website like this? How did the Admins create this? Where is the device that the people used to make this Website?( Thunderclacker the F22 ( talk) 07:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC))
When I select "View Source" on the main page, I get the message "You do not have permission to do that, for the following reasons: This page is currently protected from editing..."
That doesn't make sense. I didn't select an icon to edit the main page, only to view the source. I am allowed to view the source (but not edit the page). It does display the source of the page much further down.
Is there any way this can be amended please? 90.204.70.87 ( talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"killed and set aflame" - aside from the fact that "cremated" might be a more accurate description, it begs asking the question whether a dead body can be referred to as a "boy". Coupled with the fact that there is no comment on the allied soldiers casually strolling by, I'd say this is straight American propaganda. Shame on you! Let's be impartial ( talk) 06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Didn't Jimbo ban fair use images from the main page? Image:Angel-gabriel.jpg is clearly a fair use image since Folke Heybroek, the artist who created this work of art, died in 1983. The work of art depicted is not even 30 years old and Panoramafreiheit doesn't apply in Sweden. Valentinian T / C 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does it seem that many of the featured pictures are so disturbing, nauseating, and utterly disgusting? I know, I know, Wikipedia is not censored, but why must we have a picture of a boy burning to death? I know it is reality for him, but must this photo be viewed by millions of people every day? I really think that some more thought needs to be given to Wikipedia policies regarding, not all images, but the ones that go on the front page where they are viewed by a vastly greater audience. Ben ja min 01:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The problems is/are who decides and/or how should the community decide what image should appear. -- Howard the Duck 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The point is not whether these images should be included in Wikipedia but rather whether presenting them in the Front Page, which I (and other people) use as our home page, without any sort of warning, is fair. It's one thing to find these images while looking for them and another to have them shoved into our faces. For years I had little trouble with this but recently I've been fearing to scroll down to the bottom because of the disturbing imagery. I'm tired of this and will not check the Picture of the Day anymore until some guarantee is given to us that better judgment will be used in the picture selection. Alternatively: how about giving us the option of simply blocking the PotD image, as is the case with the ad for the Wikipedia donations? That would at least give those of us who check the Front Page regularly the ability to do so without effectively having to hide from our own Home Pages. - Wilfredo Martinez ( talk) 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikipedia should just go ahead an implement the "Featured Flower or Non-Predatory Insect That Is Not Mating" 72.10.110.107 ( talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
To Wilfredo Martinez, you have every right to not check the picture of the day, that is the proper response to something that disturbs you. You do not have the right, however, to prevent other people from viewing that content. This is an encyclopedia, and I oppose wholeheartedly any censorship, even on the main page. If you don't want to see it, don't scroll down that far. Mad031683 ( talk) 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you complaining? The picture isn't easy to see. All you have to do is read the comment. If you don't want to see a dead boy. You can safely avoid it. But this is important. To show the reality of war. Shielding reality is the reason why war hawks and armchair warriors drive nations to wage wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.107.45 ( talk) 21:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not advocating censorship *at all*, I'm defending the right of people not to see disturbing imagery if they don't want to. To those of you who think doing so would increase awareness of injustice, it's a noble idea but such shocking approaches can backfire by driving people *away* from the topics that you want to be discussed; think about that, or better yet, research it here in Wikipedia. Right now, I just want to be able to go back to reading the Main Page every morning without having to wonder what new disturbing image has been posted. I'm going to try the alternatives mentioned, because it would feel really silly to avoid the images just by not scrolling down, especially when many of the FPs HAVE been interesting and educative. - Wilfredo Martinez ( talk) 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering-have you considered spending your time at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates? I mean, there's always plenty of criticism when a controversial image is featured, but at that time nothing can be done about it. If you want such images not to appear on the main page, you should raise the concern at WP:FPC. This image's nomination passed with 15 supports, and 0 opposes. The only concern raised was the POV-ness of the caption, and that was fixed. Puchiko ( Talk- email) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, but no. I believe I have done my duty to Wikipedia by voicing my concerns here. I have now changed my Home Page to the NFA alternative, that is enough for me. Of course, this doesn't resolve the PR problems the image selection is causing Wikipedia, but that is in other people's hands now. - Wilfredo Martinez ( talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This debate is as gay as this. -- Howard the Duck 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The top one has links to content that could be harmful to children viewing the encyclopedia for school work or research.
Shouldn't the main page have censored content due to the traffic coming to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.130.174 ( talk) 00:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Again, Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Sorry, just something that is. < DREAMAFTER>< TALK> 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
We're so close to the quintuple combo... --- RockMFR 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikinews has just published its story on the World Economic Forum's 2008 Technology Pioneers. See Wikimedia Foundation among World Economic Forum's 2008 Technology Pioneers for details. I'd like to see this up on the main page news section, and passed around various other languages.
This has been done in secret over the last few days, the WEF have been most helpful, provided we stuck to their 15:00 CET embargo time today. Versions in a variety of languages will be available shortly after the English version. -- Brianmc ( talk) 14:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Any reason we list the other wikimedia projects and not [2]Wikijunior on the main page? Mbisanz 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In order to preserve NPOV, add the word "allegedly" before "insulting Muhammad" in the "In the News" section at the upper right. Chardish 06:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Help Desk and Reference Desk are not adequately separated on the Main Page. The Help Desk as an entity is only for questions about using Wikipedia as a whole, yet it is constantly barraged with questions that should clearly be asked at the Reference Desk. Perhaps the two could be more clearly distinguished here on the Main Page? Presently, it states that the Help Desk is for questions about using Wikipedia; perhaps it should say "using site functions of Wikipedia" instead? Just something that clarifies a little more that the Help Desk is only for using Wikipedia. Apologies, I'm sure this has been brought up before. Glass Cobra 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the listing of portals on the very top of the page, what ever happened to the major category called Health? You could easily add another row and/or column to this display section which would add back three more major portal categories. -- John Gohde ( talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to reframe the basic question so that the possible solutions might or might not be links about portals and they might or might not be to multiple pages. What is the best way to present topical navigation links on the Main Page? RichardF ( talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the {{ Topics Navchart}} to Portal:Contents as a way to show how topic classifications are covered on the contents pages. It offers a quick way to browse each section. It also can be used as a tool for topics classifications and contents pages or links discussions such as this. I doubt anything like that ever would make it to the Main Page, but it does show the scope and relationships of topical contents pages. At this point I don't see any "good" way of getting around multiple links to a single compilations page of some sort. Different topically named pages are insufficient IMHO for now. Mechanically, the alternative could be to create a new set of pages by topic that are populated by the sections from the current contents pages for each row of the chart. If all sections were subpages that could be transcluded by type and topic, then the editing redundancy problem wouldn't happen. But who would be crazy enough to do something like that?! ;-) RichardF 03:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The most active discussion on this topic these days is at Portal talk:Contents. Feel free to weigh in. RichardF 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The fundraising reached $1,000,000 today. -- Camptown 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"Venezuelan voters reject President Hugo Chávez's constitutional amendments."
However accurate that may be, the wording is way too strong for it. It should read something more to the effect of, "President Hugo Chávez's constitutional amendments are defeated in Venezuelan elections." That's off the top of my head but I do think it should be changed. Just my opinion. Fatla00 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this a new format, that the Wikipedia globe-logo now hangs out from the menu at left, obscuring the text and illustrations this way? Post-literate innovation! Let's do away with stodgy old text altogether! -- Wetman 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No objection to the Greek pornographic vase from some prudish family-values type? Aww, and when I saw it I was all geared up to mention that Wikipedia is not censored. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.158.179 ( talk) 08:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? Five days in a row? There have to be better new articles out there somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.148.103 ( talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Where is the article about main pages, what they are on different websites etc? Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected grammatical and spelling errors in previous FAs and see that a factual error was corrected in today's FA lead. Why aren't FAs scrutinized more thoroughly before being put on the main page? clariosophic ( talk) 15:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, you have one of the most difficult web sites to navigate that I have ever encountered. Everytime I have tried to do something or find something or edit something, I have become inundated with information and rules and regulations 90% of which had noting to do with what I was attempting. After hours of trying, I still haven't figured out how to comment on even a simple definition. Think its time for me to throw in the towel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drichar ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The quotes in the header are really obnoxious....there's something wrong with an encyclopedia posting self-praise at the top of every article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.106.251 ( talk) 17:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Firefox and AdBlock Plus will get rid of the whole annoying block. I've forgotten it's even there. 199.89.180.65 ( talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope there aren't many jokes about the current FA (Uranus). That's quite old now. Simply south ( talk) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you click on the Main page link in the navigation sidebar, you see (redirected from Main page) in the upper-left corner. I think you need to change MediaWiki:Mainpage or MediaWiki:Sidebar to fix this. - FISDOF 9 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The Main Page is unprotected right now, so please protect it. - FISDOF 9 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So... did anyone happen to notice if either of the backup systems kicked in while the main page was deleted? --- RockMFR 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the reason why it was "unprotected" was it was deleted, is it possible to "delete-protect" the page (ie only Stewards can delete it)? ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we should give these stories as little attention as possible, lets not play there game! AJUK Talk!! 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we get any newer news on the page? The shooter story has been there since the fifth, and now it's the 9th. Mac Davis ( talk) 11:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
what is he doing there for a month or something. he's not even in the news anymore. -- Leladax ( talk) 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in wikipedia about who globla warming affects the life cycle.And there is not much information about the life cycle either. How do you expect people to be informed??? You should add something about it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.60.123 ( talk) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What about the appointment in Argentina of the new President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner? It should be on "In the News". The ceremony just finished. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7136835.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.166.125 ( talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Next time lets not have 11 DYK's when theres only 5 Anniversaries, k? Kinda ruins the whole balance thing Tourskin ( talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the attack occurred at 10:50pm EST, wouldn't that make the death December 9, UTC? It always feels like I'm a bit into tomorrow when I log in during the evening, so I want to be sure that local time is the protocol for the event. What if an event occurs over several time zones? MMetro ( talk) 07:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
These can be found at the end of the page we don't need them at the top as well. Geni 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yasser freakin' Arafat. Oh, this ought to be good. HiramShadraski ( talk) 05:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this, but at the top of the page the Time till next update template is currently a harsh almost headache inducing red, which clashes with the rest of the pages light pastel colours. It also makes the black text rather hard to read on monitors running at non-naitive resolutions (as many do) and even on normal monitors, due to the colours not contrasting enough. Why is it like this? It is incredably jaring and doesn't suit the rest of the site at all. TheGreatZorko ( talk) 10:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Colombia-Nicaragua relations dispute finally solved by the International Court of Justice-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
yep-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion moved to where it should be -- Ouro ( blah blah) 07:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Has Wikimedia ever been threatened with legal action by the church of Scientology? 81.174.226.229 ( talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Why has the main page had the same Hitler picture for several days now? It seems to go away for one day and be replaced with a new one, and then come back the next day. Why? Knowitall ( talk) 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This story isn't significant enough to be a main news article. Why not keep things in perspective and only add major news items or items of global importance. Wikipedia isn't just for America? The Mitchell Report item is too specialised a subject and aimed at a niche market. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.208.27 ( talk) 11:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, international importance, meaning all nations, not just one or two. According to the Major League Baseball page on wikipedia: "Major League Baseball (MLB) is the highest level of play in North American professional baseball. More specifically, Major League Baseball refers to the organization that operates North American professional baseball's two major leagues, the National League and the American League..." The article then goes on to describe in depth the extent to which this sport is completely American. The only indication of the international element of Major League Baseball is the involvement of Canada, and the sometimes involvement of Japanese teams in exhibition games with their American counterparts. This article is definately not of enough INTERNATIONAL interest to be included in ITN. Really, is one country's sport drugs scandal as important as bombings in Algiers, a state of disaster in South Korea or an International Security Assistance Force military campaign in Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonzero2 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Ukrainian Wiki already has more, than 80 000 articles. This info should be edited on Main page... -- Yarko ( talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hungarian WP passed the 80 000 article milestone. Please updete the Main Page. -- 85.90.172.149 ( talk) 13:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit like talking about eggs? Though I've no idea if it's considered ok in certain local dialects. -- Leladax ( talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing offensive or inappropriate about the word dozen. It means twelve. Not everything needs to be base ten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyisland ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There's been a major UN climate conference going on in Bali. It just ended with some important results. You wouldn't know it by looking at wp main page. Instead, you get Mitchell Report for the last three days. -- 24.85.68.231 ( talk) 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Why that page protected? I think, allege that page no protected, because haven't a vandalisms. Sharon boyfriend talk to me? 08:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
End of talk ok? Sharon boyfriend talk to me? 10:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hungarian WP now passed 80,000. Please, update. -- Camptown ( talk) 15:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It could look quite a bit more professional.-- Billy ( talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
more professional? what's wrong with it now? freenaulij 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC) How do yall feel about st patricks day. (this comment was added by an unknown anoymous user)
Me Too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.194.134 ( talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Main Page should be more decorative and attractive by changing the backgroud and having all sorts of different news like new books and movies that have been released. -- Pure-intellect ( talk) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, the average user of Wikipedia hardly sees the main page. Most people just type in "wikipedia.com" or something along those lines, and end up at the welcome page and use search, bypassing the whole main page. Besides, I think the main page is perfect the way it is. It wouldn't be my homepage if it weren't. snowball71 ( talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to hide the donation message for all users in the main page? The donation message moves everything down far, and on my moniter, you only see the first five-six lines of the featured article and such. Can it just be hidden for this one page? Once I log in, I can hide the message, but say I didn't have an account--I'd be annoyed if I was looking. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ( Talk to Me) 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
hello
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 110 | ← | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | → | Archive 120 |
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 |
See Wikipedia:Today's featured list.
The Transhumanist 09:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, if we can make room. Ultimately though, people hardly see the featured picture as it is. Adding more stuff will just clutter it up more. snowball71 ( talk) 17:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
When is this Website is first formed and created? How did the makers made a website like this? How did the Admins create this? Where is the device that the people used to make this Website?( Thunderclacker the F22 ( talk) 07:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC))
When I select "View Source" on the main page, I get the message "You do not have permission to do that, for the following reasons: This page is currently protected from editing..."
That doesn't make sense. I didn't select an icon to edit the main page, only to view the source. I am allowed to view the source (but not edit the page). It does display the source of the page much further down.
Is there any way this can be amended please? 90.204.70.87 ( talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"killed and set aflame" - aside from the fact that "cremated" might be a more accurate description, it begs asking the question whether a dead body can be referred to as a "boy". Coupled with the fact that there is no comment on the allied soldiers casually strolling by, I'd say this is straight American propaganda. Shame on you! Let's be impartial ( talk) 06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Didn't Jimbo ban fair use images from the main page? Image:Angel-gabriel.jpg is clearly a fair use image since Folke Heybroek, the artist who created this work of art, died in 1983. The work of art depicted is not even 30 years old and Panoramafreiheit doesn't apply in Sweden. Valentinian T / C 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does it seem that many of the featured pictures are so disturbing, nauseating, and utterly disgusting? I know, I know, Wikipedia is not censored, but why must we have a picture of a boy burning to death? I know it is reality for him, but must this photo be viewed by millions of people every day? I really think that some more thought needs to be given to Wikipedia policies regarding, not all images, but the ones that go on the front page where they are viewed by a vastly greater audience. Ben ja min 01:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The problems is/are who decides and/or how should the community decide what image should appear. -- Howard the Duck 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The point is not whether these images should be included in Wikipedia but rather whether presenting them in the Front Page, which I (and other people) use as our home page, without any sort of warning, is fair. It's one thing to find these images while looking for them and another to have them shoved into our faces. For years I had little trouble with this but recently I've been fearing to scroll down to the bottom because of the disturbing imagery. I'm tired of this and will not check the Picture of the Day anymore until some guarantee is given to us that better judgment will be used in the picture selection. Alternatively: how about giving us the option of simply blocking the PotD image, as is the case with the ad for the Wikipedia donations? That would at least give those of us who check the Front Page regularly the ability to do so without effectively having to hide from our own Home Pages. - Wilfredo Martinez ( talk) 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikipedia should just go ahead an implement the "Featured Flower or Non-Predatory Insect That Is Not Mating" 72.10.110.107 ( talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
To Wilfredo Martinez, you have every right to not check the picture of the day, that is the proper response to something that disturbs you. You do not have the right, however, to prevent other people from viewing that content. This is an encyclopedia, and I oppose wholeheartedly any censorship, even on the main page. If you don't want to see it, don't scroll down that far. Mad031683 ( talk) 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you complaining? The picture isn't easy to see. All you have to do is read the comment. If you don't want to see a dead boy. You can safely avoid it. But this is important. To show the reality of war. Shielding reality is the reason why war hawks and armchair warriors drive nations to wage wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.107.45 ( talk) 21:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not advocating censorship *at all*, I'm defending the right of people not to see disturbing imagery if they don't want to. To those of you who think doing so would increase awareness of injustice, it's a noble idea but such shocking approaches can backfire by driving people *away* from the topics that you want to be discussed; think about that, or better yet, research it here in Wikipedia. Right now, I just want to be able to go back to reading the Main Page every morning without having to wonder what new disturbing image has been posted. I'm going to try the alternatives mentioned, because it would feel really silly to avoid the images just by not scrolling down, especially when many of the FPs HAVE been interesting and educative. - Wilfredo Martinez ( talk) 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering-have you considered spending your time at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates? I mean, there's always plenty of criticism when a controversial image is featured, but at that time nothing can be done about it. If you want such images not to appear on the main page, you should raise the concern at WP:FPC. This image's nomination passed with 15 supports, and 0 opposes. The only concern raised was the POV-ness of the caption, and that was fixed. Puchiko ( Talk- email) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, but no. I believe I have done my duty to Wikipedia by voicing my concerns here. I have now changed my Home Page to the NFA alternative, that is enough for me. Of course, this doesn't resolve the PR problems the image selection is causing Wikipedia, but that is in other people's hands now. - Wilfredo Martinez ( talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This debate is as gay as this. -- Howard the Duck 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The top one has links to content that could be harmful to children viewing the encyclopedia for school work or research.
Shouldn't the main page have censored content due to the traffic coming to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.130.174 ( talk) 00:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Again, Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Sorry, just something that is. < DREAMAFTER>< TALK> 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
We're so close to the quintuple combo... --- RockMFR 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikinews has just published its story on the World Economic Forum's 2008 Technology Pioneers. See Wikimedia Foundation among World Economic Forum's 2008 Technology Pioneers for details. I'd like to see this up on the main page news section, and passed around various other languages.
This has been done in secret over the last few days, the WEF have been most helpful, provided we stuck to their 15:00 CET embargo time today. Versions in a variety of languages will be available shortly after the English version. -- Brianmc ( talk) 14:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Any reason we list the other wikimedia projects and not [2]Wikijunior on the main page? Mbisanz 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In order to preserve NPOV, add the word "allegedly" before "insulting Muhammad" in the "In the News" section at the upper right. Chardish 06:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Help Desk and Reference Desk are not adequately separated on the Main Page. The Help Desk as an entity is only for questions about using Wikipedia as a whole, yet it is constantly barraged with questions that should clearly be asked at the Reference Desk. Perhaps the two could be more clearly distinguished here on the Main Page? Presently, it states that the Help Desk is for questions about using Wikipedia; perhaps it should say "using site functions of Wikipedia" instead? Just something that clarifies a little more that the Help Desk is only for using Wikipedia. Apologies, I'm sure this has been brought up before. Glass Cobra 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the listing of portals on the very top of the page, what ever happened to the major category called Health? You could easily add another row and/or column to this display section which would add back three more major portal categories. -- John Gohde ( talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to reframe the basic question so that the possible solutions might or might not be links about portals and they might or might not be to multiple pages. What is the best way to present topical navigation links on the Main Page? RichardF ( talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the {{ Topics Navchart}} to Portal:Contents as a way to show how topic classifications are covered on the contents pages. It offers a quick way to browse each section. It also can be used as a tool for topics classifications and contents pages or links discussions such as this. I doubt anything like that ever would make it to the Main Page, but it does show the scope and relationships of topical contents pages. At this point I don't see any "good" way of getting around multiple links to a single compilations page of some sort. Different topically named pages are insufficient IMHO for now. Mechanically, the alternative could be to create a new set of pages by topic that are populated by the sections from the current contents pages for each row of the chart. If all sections were subpages that could be transcluded by type and topic, then the editing redundancy problem wouldn't happen. But who would be crazy enough to do something like that?! ;-) RichardF 03:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The most active discussion on this topic these days is at Portal talk:Contents. Feel free to weigh in. RichardF 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The fundraising reached $1,000,000 today. -- Camptown 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"Venezuelan voters reject President Hugo Chávez's constitutional amendments."
However accurate that may be, the wording is way too strong for it. It should read something more to the effect of, "President Hugo Chávez's constitutional amendments are defeated in Venezuelan elections." That's off the top of my head but I do think it should be changed. Just my opinion. Fatla00 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this a new format, that the Wikipedia globe-logo now hangs out from the menu at left, obscuring the text and illustrations this way? Post-literate innovation! Let's do away with stodgy old text altogether! -- Wetman 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No objection to the Greek pornographic vase from some prudish family-values type? Aww, and when I saw it I was all geared up to mention that Wikipedia is not censored. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.158.179 ( talk) 08:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? Five days in a row? There have to be better new articles out there somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.148.103 ( talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Where is the article about main pages, what they are on different websites etc? Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected grammatical and spelling errors in previous FAs and see that a factual error was corrected in today's FA lead. Why aren't FAs scrutinized more thoroughly before being put on the main page? clariosophic ( talk) 15:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, you have one of the most difficult web sites to navigate that I have ever encountered. Everytime I have tried to do something or find something or edit something, I have become inundated with information and rules and regulations 90% of which had noting to do with what I was attempting. After hours of trying, I still haven't figured out how to comment on even a simple definition. Think its time for me to throw in the towel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drichar ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The quotes in the header are really obnoxious....there's something wrong with an encyclopedia posting self-praise at the top of every article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.106.251 ( talk) 17:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Firefox and AdBlock Plus will get rid of the whole annoying block. I've forgotten it's even there. 199.89.180.65 ( talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope there aren't many jokes about the current FA (Uranus). That's quite old now. Simply south ( talk) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you click on the Main page link in the navigation sidebar, you see (redirected from Main page) in the upper-left corner. I think you need to change MediaWiki:Mainpage or MediaWiki:Sidebar to fix this. - FISDOF 9 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The Main Page is unprotected right now, so please protect it. - FISDOF 9 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So... did anyone happen to notice if either of the backup systems kicked in while the main page was deleted? --- RockMFR 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the reason why it was "unprotected" was it was deleted, is it possible to "delete-protect" the page (ie only Stewards can delete it)? ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we should give these stories as little attention as possible, lets not play there game! AJUK Talk!! 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we get any newer news on the page? The shooter story has been there since the fifth, and now it's the 9th. Mac Davis ( talk) 11:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
what is he doing there for a month or something. he's not even in the news anymore. -- Leladax ( talk) 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in wikipedia about who globla warming affects the life cycle.And there is not much information about the life cycle either. How do you expect people to be informed??? You should add something about it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.60.123 ( talk) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What about the appointment in Argentina of the new President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner? It should be on "In the News". The ceremony just finished. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7136835.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.166.125 ( talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Next time lets not have 11 DYK's when theres only 5 Anniversaries, k? Kinda ruins the whole balance thing Tourskin ( talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the attack occurred at 10:50pm EST, wouldn't that make the death December 9, UTC? It always feels like I'm a bit into tomorrow when I log in during the evening, so I want to be sure that local time is the protocol for the event. What if an event occurs over several time zones? MMetro ( talk) 07:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
These can be found at the end of the page we don't need them at the top as well. Geni 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yasser freakin' Arafat. Oh, this ought to be good. HiramShadraski ( talk) 05:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this, but at the top of the page the Time till next update template is currently a harsh almost headache inducing red, which clashes with the rest of the pages light pastel colours. It also makes the black text rather hard to read on monitors running at non-naitive resolutions (as many do) and even on normal monitors, due to the colours not contrasting enough. Why is it like this? It is incredably jaring and doesn't suit the rest of the site at all. TheGreatZorko ( talk) 10:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Colombia-Nicaragua relations dispute finally solved by the International Court of Justice-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
yep-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion moved to where it should be -- Ouro ( blah blah) 07:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Has Wikimedia ever been threatened with legal action by the church of Scientology? 81.174.226.229 ( talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Why has the main page had the same Hitler picture for several days now? It seems to go away for one day and be replaced with a new one, and then come back the next day. Why? Knowitall ( talk) 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This story isn't significant enough to be a main news article. Why not keep things in perspective and only add major news items or items of global importance. Wikipedia isn't just for America? The Mitchell Report item is too specialised a subject and aimed at a niche market. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.208.27 ( talk) 11:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, international importance, meaning all nations, not just one or two. According to the Major League Baseball page on wikipedia: "Major League Baseball (MLB) is the highest level of play in North American professional baseball. More specifically, Major League Baseball refers to the organization that operates North American professional baseball's two major leagues, the National League and the American League..." The article then goes on to describe in depth the extent to which this sport is completely American. The only indication of the international element of Major League Baseball is the involvement of Canada, and the sometimes involvement of Japanese teams in exhibition games with their American counterparts. This article is definately not of enough INTERNATIONAL interest to be included in ITN. Really, is one country's sport drugs scandal as important as bombings in Algiers, a state of disaster in South Korea or an International Security Assistance Force military campaign in Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonzero2 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Ukrainian Wiki already has more, than 80 000 articles. This info should be edited on Main page... -- Yarko ( talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hungarian WP passed the 80 000 article milestone. Please updete the Main Page. -- 85.90.172.149 ( talk) 13:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit like talking about eggs? Though I've no idea if it's considered ok in certain local dialects. -- Leladax ( talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing offensive or inappropriate about the word dozen. It means twelve. Not everything needs to be base ten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyisland ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There's been a major UN climate conference going on in Bali. It just ended with some important results. You wouldn't know it by looking at wp main page. Instead, you get Mitchell Report for the last three days. -- 24.85.68.231 ( talk) 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Why that page protected? I think, allege that page no protected, because haven't a vandalisms. Sharon boyfriend talk to me? 08:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
End of talk ok? Sharon boyfriend talk to me? 10:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hungarian WP now passed 80,000. Please, update. -- Camptown ( talk) 15:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It could look quite a bit more professional.-- Billy ( talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
more professional? what's wrong with it now? freenaulij 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC) How do yall feel about st patricks day. (this comment was added by an unknown anoymous user)
Me Too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.194.134 ( talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Main Page should be more decorative and attractive by changing the backgroud and having all sorts of different news like new books and movies that have been released. -- Pure-intellect ( talk) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, the average user of Wikipedia hardly sees the main page. Most people just type in "wikipedia.com" or something along those lines, and end up at the welcome page and use search, bypassing the whole main page. Besides, I think the main page is perfect the way it is. It wouldn't be my homepage if it weren't. snowball71 ( talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to hide the donation message for all users in the main page? The donation message moves everything down far, and on my moniter, you only see the first five-six lines of the featured article and such. Can it just be hidden for this one page? Once I log in, I can hide the message, but say I didn't have an account--I'd be annoyed if I was looking. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ( Talk to Me) 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
hello