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 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | → | Archive 130 |
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 |
How have the fundraising ads been chosen? Where can I find discussions and more details about the 2008 fundraising program? Thank. 131.111.247.194 ( talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks but I don't see any information about the 2008 fundraising. Only the past fundraisers... 131.111.247.194 ( talk) 09:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting yet appalling that the flag of Germany was selected as the feature article one day after Israel was selected on its independence day. -- 165.124.138.191 ( talk) 03:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Why? Germany and Israel have friendly relations as they are both committed to the ideals of democracy. -anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 ( talk) 04:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Latin Wikipedia now has over 20,000 articles. Harris Morgan 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC).
merh. 86.137.221.99 ( talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
and yes yes i know, fix it myself, except that i cant edit this page 86.137.221.99 ( talk) 00:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Please bypass the redirect for worst films ever made in TFA. Thanks 117.193.34.227 ( talk) 13:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Death announced. Please could we put her in the 'In the news' section? Yours hopefully, -- Major Bonkers (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
...are featured on the Wikipedia Main Page. Sigh. Our systemic bias really shines through sometimes. Kaldari ( talk) 16:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, the next featured pic on DYK is a black woman.-- Bedford 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh... so based on one afternoon's collection of pictures you're saying what? That the internet is biased against women of color and non-avian species of animals? I'm sure there are appropriate political message boards where you can listen to yourself vent. (Pardon me for the use of English, I don't mean to be biased against the Dutch/Cantonese/Pulaar/Hindi speaking communities.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.72.30.67 ( talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait ... isn't bird an English slang term for woman? Does that help erase some of the male bias? -- Spiff666 ( talk) 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There are more ant species than humans, why isnt this reflected in news and DYK sections? This is an outrage. -Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 ( talk) 04:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
{{ sofixit}} ;) 68.101.123.219 ( talk) 02:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we use British or American for epicenter/epicentre?
Lu na ke et 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to align the 'Did you know?' and the 'On this day' tables? -- Ishikawa Minoru ( talk) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I almost laughed seeing next to Sports news that guy, I was expecting an athlete. plus, shouldn't this page have an '+' sign for fast adding comments? -- Leladax ( talk) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been experimenting with a shadowing template I created and decided to test it in my Main Page sandbox. Please check it out and give me feedback. ~ RayLast « Talk!» 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted your opinions on how it looked. I don't think it should be implemented anytime soon anyway. I'm thinking of adding some image buttons and test some other stuff to make it look nice, although I really like the current, simple, nice colored main page. I don't envy any other Wikipedia main pages in other languages. Simple is nice. ~ RayLast « Talk!» 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In Netscape I find gray boxes at the corners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.148.109 ( talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The boxes are shifted in Opera (9.27) down and to the right. Regardless, I took a look at FF3b5. While I do find it kind of distracting, if I had to have some form of it instituted, I'd go without the shadows on the images. The images are unbordered right now and should stay that way. Having borders/shadows is distracting. The freddinator ( talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys! I think I fixed it!! Please check it out and let me know if it works for all your browsers. If you like it we can put it on the Main Page! Regards. ~ RayLast « Talk!» 01:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it works on my version of firefox. (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.21.159 ( talk) 23:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
currently
|______ |____
my suggestion
|______ `------
I like it! Looks great in Safari. Lu na ke et 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I breifly switched templates for a while and realized that the main page is not fall under any category and is unnassessed. Should there be an official Main Page category that can be created so the main page is no longer unassessed? - -[ The Spooky One | [ t c r 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You know since the Main Page is in article space, what would happen if something notable called "Main Page" turned up sometime in the future? A band, a book, or if Jimmy has a daughter called Main who becomes famous? I mean we can't have disambiguating links right at the top of the Main Page can we? indopug ( talk) 09:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
A while ago people had a discussion (I think it was before we were in the 1xx archives) about whether to move the Main Page, along with the header. Since consensus can change, if people want to, we can revive that discussion. ff m 00:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This article was deemed FA in 2005, but it still hasn't appeared on the main page. I think it should be featured soon. ~ Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So, how much does it cost to get a business infomercial listed as Featured Article? -- Ralphbk ( talk) 06:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the first time in the Wikipedia history that the Featured Article is a commercial add. Shame.
Pedron (
talk) 08:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm absolutly amazed that this advertisment is allowed on the main page. people should do all they can to register their displeasure at what is without doubt one of the most corrupt pieces of sleeze in the history of Wikipedia history..... sad people. 84.69.114.24 ( talk) 10:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
First time I've seen such a negative reaction to a featured article on the WP:OTRS system. When did the notability requirements fall so much? -- Jeandré, 2008-05-22 t11:57z
Why does ITN have to be filled with death and dying? Why is the world like this? 70.16.29.26 ( talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What is this got to do with wikipedia?. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
maybe you should update tne news column more frequently```` —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
221.135.218.188 (
talk) 10:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Currently, in the "in the news" section there are seven topics. In comparison, in the German version there are only three, but additional three long term topics. This leads to both a long-term and a short-term view at topics currently in the news. In the English version even important topics like Cyclone Nargis will disappear when sidelined by other news. No distinction is possible between long-term topics (i.e. environment, Olympic Games) and short-term topics (i.e. death of a person, new president). What do you think about the 3+3 idea? 85.177.82.86 ( talk) 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
At the moment the article at the top of Wikinews is about a bomb explosion in Exeter, United Kingdom that may be related to Islamic extremism. See here. Meaty♠Weenies ( talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is Wikinews not the source of news for Wikipedia's Main page? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news source. News is Wikinews' territory. Personally, I think it unfortunate that Wikipedia is the only branch of Wikimedia that has truly taken off. My suggestion for the main page, therefore, is that it provide a section in which top stories or stories of general popular interest be listed. When one of the stories is clicked, it opens Wikinews and provides the story. This would be a start to a movement for people to use all of Wikimedia's projects. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so why are we filling it up with all sorts of things? Tomorrow, someone will be putting books and magazines on Wikipedia, Wikisource's territory.
Agomulka ( talk) 12:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about reforming "In The News". If you're interested, please see the debate at WT:ITN2. Lovelac 7 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
just noting that the juxtaposition of two Vietnam War-era FA's on consecutive days might be a bit disconcerting to some... and might be something better avoided in the future... ( related subject matter as FA on consecutive or nearly consecutive days, that is). 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I call for a semiprotection for articles linked from the main page because of the high degree of vandalism they obtain in result that again consumes much valuable time to fight manually. Wandalstouring ( talk) 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any simple way to use some kind of content filter (like seen on google images) so that i dont see pornographic content when looking up certain topics on Wikipedia that may be a little sexual but only looked up to learn not view porn... ((ex. images of full frontal nudity or close up of genitals (btw, where is the explicit porn content warning?)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.116.220 ( talk) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In the past few days, I've observed that the news are (again) lacking updates, because (again) the picture wasn't changed, the news stayed stuck In the same lines, and Sichuan doesn't disappear. I think that we should really start making a new news section criteria. The need for a change In the In The News section policy is not something we could need In two moths, but it'S something that we need now, and I'm not kidding. Or otherwise, we could just remove the section, because after all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. For the purpose of reading the news, we should reccomend visiting Wikinews. How about a banner with the Wikinews link and logo and a short description of Wikinews? Or At least giving some ideas? I don't really think it'S absolutely neccesary to have a news section In an encyclopedia, because Encarta and Brittanica have never had news sections, and they are (supposedly) prestigious encyclopedias. Hope we can reach a sort of agreement. -- J.C. ( talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well said the topic is beginning to loss interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platypus929 ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(Deliberate un-indent) Yes, but the fact that ITN is still viewed shows that there is no need to start updating it a ridiculous amount, that was my point. J Milburn ( talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The one-week trial for the new ITN candidates' structure will be coming to an end soon. I have started a section to gather opinion from editors who have been interacting with or observing the new system as to if the trial should be extended or ended as originally scheduled here. Thank you, Banyan Tree 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
At a quick glance, it appears the people in Sichuan are being evacuated on a futuristic craft with retrorockets. Jw6aa ( talk) 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
permanent link for the lulz. hbdragon88 ( talk) 08:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I tried to look for an article about main pages, but it keeps redirecting me here. If there is a one, where is it? 88.114.27.91 ( talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering "vandals" are currently mentioned on the front page, it would be moste fitting and just to vandalize wikipedia's frontpage! That would be a more lively and realistic venue of rememberance, compared to the current dry, ivory tower museum-ish presentation. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone here add some data on History and stats for the mainpage, see Wikipedia talk:FCDW/June 9, 2008#History; review of the article prior to publication would also help. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In the In the News section on the Main Page, how about having links to more information after the headline.
How many times have I read a one sentence headline and then tried to find more info and failed?
All it needs is More information after the end of each headline, and when you click on the link it takes you to the Wikinews story.
Yes, I know there's all kinds of ways to find out more info if you want to, but how much easier would it be to have an easy link to Wikinews?
Let's do it!
Nettyboo ( talk) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
<unindent>
Wikipedia is the 800lb gorilla of all the projects. Yes, the person raising this has suggested links to Wikinews, but why not take advantage of the power Wikipedia has to promote other projects? A link to a Wikinews article where one exists would be great. You could go further and have "Quote of the day" from Wikiquote. The projects need to work together and be less self-centered. -- Brian McNeil / talk 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
How many people really know about Wikinews? 76.71.6.119 ( talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The disadvantage of a "more" link to Wikinews is that newbies might be confused. They wouldnt know that they have left Wikipedia. Then theyd'd be confused why they can't find the encylopedic article they were looking for (they'd search Wikinews instead of Wikipedia).But what we could do is include a link "Read more news at Wikinews" in one of the lower corners of ITN.
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) 11:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Ooops, didn't notice that there already is such a link.
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) 11:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you're not giving enough credit to the reader. 76.68.75.206 ( talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As Someone who is primarily a reader I would like the Mainpage To remain free of both advertising and links whose purpose is primarily to promote other projects.
Give the reader a little credit. As it stands, it takes only a moment to locate Wikinews. If readers are not looking at the sister projects perhaps it is because they simply don't want to. Don't beat us over the head with links that try to trick us into generating traffic for some other project. Thank you. --
APL (
talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Cuba is now offering free sex reassignment surgery. [2] [3] Someone should add this to the "In the news" section of the Main page for Wikipedia.-- 71.118.38.128 ( talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
And it's his birthday ( Proof). His 50th one, I might add. Thus, he should have an appearance on the On This Day section.-- Montaced ( talk) 12:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else happen to think that the recent deaths section is, well, not very tasteful.While sure, it is a public manner, death that is, especially that which occurs to someone with celebrity status, do you think it should be something that we display so abruptly, especially on the front page? I feel that other things could be used to fill this space. Perhaps there should be a discussion held, and see what other Wikipedians have to say. -Cam T| C 03:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
i think milburn is right. obviously, we have to face what is supposedly distasteful, that's the whole point of getting news, it's not selective news, anyway. Arundhati Arjun ( talk) 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be theoretically possible for the main page to skip forward a day or backward a day based on time zone? I live several hours off of UTC and am constantly getting the date wrong because the date changes after 6:00pm. I really think it would clear a few things up. Googolme * 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hillary has already conceded (see hers and Obama's websites), so shouldn't the news be updated? -- M1ss1ontomars2k4 ( talk) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What is this kind of thing doing on the Main Page?
The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.
I thought Wikipedia holds a neutral point of view. This is very disappointing. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
They say "teach the controversy" but the only controversy is between the institution of science, which has proven its arguments beyond a reasonable doubt, and those who are vandalizing knowledge with their disregard for the scientific process or empirical evidence. MessedRocker ( talk) 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the main page lead is changed to read:
The formation and evolution of the Solar System is a theory which claims that the solar system began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.
I think this would be more neutral. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't apply here, it would apply if the line read The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud, but really didn't affect anything or other such point of view issues. If the article is properly referenced, and doesn't change the facts that are in those references, this is a non-issue. ☯ Ferdia O'Brien (T)/ (C) 21:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this could be solved by adding the word "estimated". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the more applicable policy/guideline here is Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. -- M1ss1ontomars2k4 ( talk) 23:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is moot, it is no longer on the main page. ff m 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a policy, or just a habit, of excluding the birth and death years of people when they are featured on the front page. I can't understand why this is done. The years appear in the article itself right after the person's name, and they have obvious relevance to understanding the context of the biography, just as it is relevant to describe someone's educational background. Whenever I read a biographical TFA, I find myself trying to figure out what period this person lived in, from various "hints" in the TFA blurb.
Example: Today's article is about Harold Innis and says he was a Canadian economic historian. Hmm, I think, that means he must have lived late enough to have had a sizable amount of economic history of Canada to work on. On the other hand, there's a black and white photo, so he can't have lived too recently... Wouldn't it be better if I didn't need to guess? -- Zvika ( talk) 06:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Today's FA ( George I) is another good example. It begins with the sentence: "George I was King of Great Britain and Ireland, from 1 August 1714 until his death." This sentence sounds weird: why are they telling us the date of his ascension to the throne, but not even the year of the end of his reign? The reason becomes clear if you click through: The date of death has already been written, together with the date of birth, in parentheses, right after the name. But this has been removed in the transition to the TFA blurb, making the sentence awkward. -- Zvika ( talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
On the main page is written in the news section loads of stuff in the present tense. Although this is what has already happened, otherwise it wouldn't be news! Why can't Wikipedia put stuff into the correct tense in the news section? Or am I missing something important that is a reason for the present tense. Cribrad ( talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (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 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | → | Archive 130 |
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 |
How have the fundraising ads been chosen? Where can I find discussions and more details about the 2008 fundraising program? Thank. 131.111.247.194 ( talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks but I don't see any information about the 2008 fundraising. Only the past fundraisers... 131.111.247.194 ( talk) 09:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting yet appalling that the flag of Germany was selected as the feature article one day after Israel was selected on its independence day. -- 165.124.138.191 ( talk) 03:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Why? Germany and Israel have friendly relations as they are both committed to the ideals of democracy. -anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 ( talk) 04:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Latin Wikipedia now has over 20,000 articles. Harris Morgan 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC).
merh. 86.137.221.99 ( talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
and yes yes i know, fix it myself, except that i cant edit this page 86.137.221.99 ( talk) 00:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Please bypass the redirect for worst films ever made in TFA. Thanks 117.193.34.227 ( talk) 13:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Death announced. Please could we put her in the 'In the news' section? Yours hopefully, -- Major Bonkers (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
...are featured on the Wikipedia Main Page. Sigh. Our systemic bias really shines through sometimes. Kaldari ( talk) 16:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, the next featured pic on DYK is a black woman.-- Bedford 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh... so based on one afternoon's collection of pictures you're saying what? That the internet is biased against women of color and non-avian species of animals? I'm sure there are appropriate political message boards where you can listen to yourself vent. (Pardon me for the use of English, I don't mean to be biased against the Dutch/Cantonese/Pulaar/Hindi speaking communities.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.72.30.67 ( talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait ... isn't bird an English slang term for woman? Does that help erase some of the male bias? -- Spiff666 ( talk) 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There are more ant species than humans, why isnt this reflected in news and DYK sections? This is an outrage. -Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 ( talk) 04:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
{{ sofixit}} ;) 68.101.123.219 ( talk) 02:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we use British or American for epicenter/epicentre?
Lu na ke et 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to align the 'Did you know?' and the 'On this day' tables? -- Ishikawa Minoru ( talk) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I almost laughed seeing next to Sports news that guy, I was expecting an athlete. plus, shouldn't this page have an '+' sign for fast adding comments? -- Leladax ( talk) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been experimenting with a shadowing template I created and decided to test it in my Main Page sandbox. Please check it out and give me feedback. ~ RayLast « Talk!» 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted your opinions on how it looked. I don't think it should be implemented anytime soon anyway. I'm thinking of adding some image buttons and test some other stuff to make it look nice, although I really like the current, simple, nice colored main page. I don't envy any other Wikipedia main pages in other languages. Simple is nice. ~ RayLast « Talk!» 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In Netscape I find gray boxes at the corners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.148.109 ( talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The boxes are shifted in Opera (9.27) down and to the right. Regardless, I took a look at FF3b5. While I do find it kind of distracting, if I had to have some form of it instituted, I'd go without the shadows on the images. The images are unbordered right now and should stay that way. Having borders/shadows is distracting. The freddinator ( talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys! I think I fixed it!! Please check it out and let me know if it works for all your browsers. If you like it we can put it on the Main Page! Regards. ~ RayLast « Talk!» 01:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it works on my version of firefox. (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.21.159 ( talk) 23:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
currently
|______ |____
my suggestion
|______ `------
I like it! Looks great in Safari. Lu na ke et 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I breifly switched templates for a while and realized that the main page is not fall under any category and is unnassessed. Should there be an official Main Page category that can be created so the main page is no longer unassessed? - -[ The Spooky One | [ t c r 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You know since the Main Page is in article space, what would happen if something notable called "Main Page" turned up sometime in the future? A band, a book, or if Jimmy has a daughter called Main who becomes famous? I mean we can't have disambiguating links right at the top of the Main Page can we? indopug ( talk) 09:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
A while ago people had a discussion (I think it was before we were in the 1xx archives) about whether to move the Main Page, along with the header. Since consensus can change, if people want to, we can revive that discussion. ff m 00:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This article was deemed FA in 2005, but it still hasn't appeared on the main page. I think it should be featured soon. ~ Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So, how much does it cost to get a business infomercial listed as Featured Article? -- Ralphbk ( talk) 06:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the first time in the Wikipedia history that the Featured Article is a commercial add. Shame.
Pedron (
talk) 08:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm absolutly amazed that this advertisment is allowed on the main page. people should do all they can to register their displeasure at what is without doubt one of the most corrupt pieces of sleeze in the history of Wikipedia history..... sad people. 84.69.114.24 ( talk) 10:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
First time I've seen such a negative reaction to a featured article on the WP:OTRS system. When did the notability requirements fall so much? -- Jeandré, 2008-05-22 t11:57z
Why does ITN have to be filled with death and dying? Why is the world like this? 70.16.29.26 ( talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What is this got to do with wikipedia?. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
maybe you should update tne news column more frequently```` —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
221.135.218.188 (
talk) 10:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Currently, in the "in the news" section there are seven topics. In comparison, in the German version there are only three, but additional three long term topics. This leads to both a long-term and a short-term view at topics currently in the news. In the English version even important topics like Cyclone Nargis will disappear when sidelined by other news. No distinction is possible between long-term topics (i.e. environment, Olympic Games) and short-term topics (i.e. death of a person, new president). What do you think about the 3+3 idea? 85.177.82.86 ( talk) 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
At the moment the article at the top of Wikinews is about a bomb explosion in Exeter, United Kingdom that may be related to Islamic extremism. See here. Meaty♠Weenies ( talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is Wikinews not the source of news for Wikipedia's Main page? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news source. News is Wikinews' territory. Personally, I think it unfortunate that Wikipedia is the only branch of Wikimedia that has truly taken off. My suggestion for the main page, therefore, is that it provide a section in which top stories or stories of general popular interest be listed. When one of the stories is clicked, it opens Wikinews and provides the story. This would be a start to a movement for people to use all of Wikimedia's projects. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so why are we filling it up with all sorts of things? Tomorrow, someone will be putting books and magazines on Wikipedia, Wikisource's territory.
Agomulka ( talk) 12:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about reforming "In The News". If you're interested, please see the debate at WT:ITN2. Lovelac 7 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
just noting that the juxtaposition of two Vietnam War-era FA's on consecutive days might be a bit disconcerting to some... and might be something better avoided in the future... ( related subject matter as FA on consecutive or nearly consecutive days, that is). 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I call for a semiprotection for articles linked from the main page because of the high degree of vandalism they obtain in result that again consumes much valuable time to fight manually. Wandalstouring ( talk) 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any simple way to use some kind of content filter (like seen on google images) so that i dont see pornographic content when looking up certain topics on Wikipedia that may be a little sexual but only looked up to learn not view porn... ((ex. images of full frontal nudity or close up of genitals (btw, where is the explicit porn content warning?)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.116.220 ( talk) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In the past few days, I've observed that the news are (again) lacking updates, because (again) the picture wasn't changed, the news stayed stuck In the same lines, and Sichuan doesn't disappear. I think that we should really start making a new news section criteria. The need for a change In the In The News section policy is not something we could need In two moths, but it'S something that we need now, and I'm not kidding. Or otherwise, we could just remove the section, because after all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. For the purpose of reading the news, we should reccomend visiting Wikinews. How about a banner with the Wikinews link and logo and a short description of Wikinews? Or At least giving some ideas? I don't really think it'S absolutely neccesary to have a news section In an encyclopedia, because Encarta and Brittanica have never had news sections, and they are (supposedly) prestigious encyclopedias. Hope we can reach a sort of agreement. -- J.C. ( talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well said the topic is beginning to loss interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platypus929 ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(Deliberate un-indent) Yes, but the fact that ITN is still viewed shows that there is no need to start updating it a ridiculous amount, that was my point. J Milburn ( talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The one-week trial for the new ITN candidates' structure will be coming to an end soon. I have started a section to gather opinion from editors who have been interacting with or observing the new system as to if the trial should be extended or ended as originally scheduled here. Thank you, Banyan Tree 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
At a quick glance, it appears the people in Sichuan are being evacuated on a futuristic craft with retrorockets. Jw6aa ( talk) 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
permanent link for the lulz. hbdragon88 ( talk) 08:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I tried to look for an article about main pages, but it keeps redirecting me here. If there is a one, where is it? 88.114.27.91 ( talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering "vandals" are currently mentioned on the front page, it would be moste fitting and just to vandalize wikipedia's frontpage! That would be a more lively and realistic venue of rememberance, compared to the current dry, ivory tower museum-ish presentation. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone here add some data on History and stats for the mainpage, see Wikipedia talk:FCDW/June 9, 2008#History; review of the article prior to publication would also help. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In the In the News section on the Main Page, how about having links to more information after the headline.
How many times have I read a one sentence headline and then tried to find more info and failed?
All it needs is More information after the end of each headline, and when you click on the link it takes you to the Wikinews story.
Yes, I know there's all kinds of ways to find out more info if you want to, but how much easier would it be to have an easy link to Wikinews?
Let's do it!
Nettyboo ( talk) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
<unindent>
Wikipedia is the 800lb gorilla of all the projects. Yes, the person raising this has suggested links to Wikinews, but why not take advantage of the power Wikipedia has to promote other projects? A link to a Wikinews article where one exists would be great. You could go further and have "Quote of the day" from Wikiquote. The projects need to work together and be less self-centered. -- Brian McNeil / talk 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
How many people really know about Wikinews? 76.71.6.119 ( talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The disadvantage of a "more" link to Wikinews is that newbies might be confused. They wouldnt know that they have left Wikipedia. Then theyd'd be confused why they can't find the encylopedic article they were looking for (they'd search Wikinews instead of Wikipedia).But what we could do is include a link "Read more news at Wikinews" in one of the lower corners of ITN.
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) 11:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Ooops, didn't notice that there already is such a link.
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) 11:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you're not giving enough credit to the reader. 76.68.75.206 ( talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As Someone who is primarily a reader I would like the Mainpage To remain free of both advertising and links whose purpose is primarily to promote other projects.
Give the reader a little credit. As it stands, it takes only a moment to locate Wikinews. If readers are not looking at the sister projects perhaps it is because they simply don't want to. Don't beat us over the head with links that try to trick us into generating traffic for some other project. Thank you. --
APL (
talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Cuba is now offering free sex reassignment surgery. [2] [3] Someone should add this to the "In the news" section of the Main page for Wikipedia.-- 71.118.38.128 ( talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
And it's his birthday ( Proof). His 50th one, I might add. Thus, he should have an appearance on the On This Day section.-- Montaced ( talk) 12:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else happen to think that the recent deaths section is, well, not very tasteful.While sure, it is a public manner, death that is, especially that which occurs to someone with celebrity status, do you think it should be something that we display so abruptly, especially on the front page? I feel that other things could be used to fill this space. Perhaps there should be a discussion held, and see what other Wikipedians have to say. -Cam T| C 03:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
i think milburn is right. obviously, we have to face what is supposedly distasteful, that's the whole point of getting news, it's not selective news, anyway. Arundhati Arjun ( talk) 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be theoretically possible for the main page to skip forward a day or backward a day based on time zone? I live several hours off of UTC and am constantly getting the date wrong because the date changes after 6:00pm. I really think it would clear a few things up. Googolme * 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hillary has already conceded (see hers and Obama's websites), so shouldn't the news be updated? -- M1ss1ontomars2k4 ( talk) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What is this kind of thing doing on the Main Page?
The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.
I thought Wikipedia holds a neutral point of view. This is very disappointing. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
They say "teach the controversy" but the only controversy is between the institution of science, which has proven its arguments beyond a reasonable doubt, and those who are vandalizing knowledge with their disregard for the scientific process or empirical evidence. MessedRocker ( talk) 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the main page lead is changed to read:
The formation and evolution of the Solar System is a theory which claims that the solar system began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.
I think this would be more neutral. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't apply here, it would apply if the line read The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud, but really didn't affect anything or other such point of view issues. If the article is properly referenced, and doesn't change the facts that are in those references, this is a non-issue. ☯ Ferdia O'Brien (T)/ (C) 21:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this could be solved by adding the word "estimated". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the more applicable policy/guideline here is Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. -- M1ss1ontomars2k4 ( talk) 23:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is moot, it is no longer on the main page. ff m 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a policy, or just a habit, of excluding the birth and death years of people when they are featured on the front page. I can't understand why this is done. The years appear in the article itself right after the person's name, and they have obvious relevance to understanding the context of the biography, just as it is relevant to describe someone's educational background. Whenever I read a biographical TFA, I find myself trying to figure out what period this person lived in, from various "hints" in the TFA blurb.
Example: Today's article is about Harold Innis and says he was a Canadian economic historian. Hmm, I think, that means he must have lived late enough to have had a sizable amount of economic history of Canada to work on. On the other hand, there's a black and white photo, so he can't have lived too recently... Wouldn't it be better if I didn't need to guess? -- Zvika ( talk) 06:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Today's FA ( George I) is another good example. It begins with the sentence: "George I was King of Great Britain and Ireland, from 1 August 1714 until his death." This sentence sounds weird: why are they telling us the date of his ascension to the throne, but not even the year of the end of his reign? The reason becomes clear if you click through: The date of death has already been written, together with the date of birth, in parentheses, right after the name. But this has been removed in the transition to the TFA blurb, making the sentence awkward. -- Zvika ( talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
On the main page is written in the news section loads of stuff in the present tense. Although this is what has already happened, otherwise it wouldn't be news! Why can't Wikipedia put stuff into the correct tense in the news section? Or am I missing something important that is a reason for the present tense. Cribrad ( talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)