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 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | → | 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 |
At the top of the Main Page it says "Welcome to wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", the word encyclopedia links to "Wikipeda:Mainpage/Encyclopedia", which is a redirect to the wikipedia article on encyclopedias. Can someone please fix this. Thanks. Five Years 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
These redirects are intentional. --- RockMFR 17:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If you have images turned on, you can click on the logo and it takes you to the Main Page. If you have images turned off, there is nothing to indicate the presence of a valid navigation element. If you know it is there, you can use it but that does not seem right to me. What do others think? Lightmouse ( talk) 21:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the first link under "navigation." Hey, why aren't those headings capitalized? -- Maxa megalon 2000 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Aesthetics. If you don't like it, you can add (I think) .portlet h5 {text-transform:none;}
to
your user CSS file, which should restore normal capitalisation.
Sam Korn
(smoddy) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is not aesthetics. As I understand it, the navigation title should match the destination page title and I think that is the case in that list. And I further understand it that Wikipedia generally uses Sentence case for its pages. Thanks for pointing out where the 'Main Page' navigation can be seen. That gives me another question: should the image have an alt tag as per W3C guidelines for accessibility? Lightmouse ( talk) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the image for To Kill a Mockingbird isn't supposed to be Bush giving a Medal of Freedom. Can someone change it please? Paragon12321 ( talk) 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There's not a reason for the color attribute on the left-hand portal list, is there? --- RockMFR 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well someone has very badly vandalised this featured ]article - I can't even see the edit button to revert it. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia logo should have a short text alternative according to W3C. Perhaps new designs should be assessed for accessibility. Lightmouse ( talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
At featured portal candidates, both the nominations for featured portals and the lack of reviews for them seems to be becoming an increasing problem. After consultation between the other 'directors' of the featured portal co-ordination, it is believed that with more publicity, so to speak, it will help draw attention and bring much needed participation to the area. Thoughts? Rudget ( logs) 13:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Today's page featuring a link to conservatorship is a good example of Main Page links that point to articles that need cleanup, sources, etc ...(in this case, neutrality is the issue). I wonder if there shouldn't be a threshold that an article could reach before having a Main Page link. I really wanted to know about conservatorship, but I stopped reading after seeing the neutrality warning. Another thought would be a 3rd color (green) for links to articles needing improvement (complementing blue - article, and red - no article). Thoughts? NeWDaC ( talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the main image for the TFA article isn't of Palpatine, but that of Ian McDiarmid. In fact the image currently in place isn't even one of the images featured in the Palpatine article. What's up? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we change the caption to "Palpatine disguised as an actor from Earth". --- RockMFR 05:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you know currently states that The hogarth painting was originally that of a dog urinating on some paintings -- the reference for this is "The national gallery" -- To me that seems *very* un-specfic. I can't seem to track down any corroboration for this in my brief search; can anyone actually verify this source or this statement? It is somewhat suspicious in my opinion. User A1 ( talk) 13:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I created a sharpened version (as the original seemed to be suffering softness as if it had been downsized without resharpening). It's switched in the article, if anyone wants to change the version on the main page, the sharpened version is commons:Image:GardenED edit1.jpg Mfield ( talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What is main about this page? Should it not be called the Front page or Cover page instead?-- ProperFraction ( talk) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe " First Page"? -- Howard the Duck 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
As you are or should be well aware of the first page in any internet site is comainly refered to as the main page..a newspaper would be refered to as the front page...wikipedia is electronic not written in an ink based form...Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryncrndll ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the previous response - the only other description I can consider would be "starting page" (since other suggestions have already been addressed), but then the rest of the site would have to be updated with any change, so, as Acalamari said, it's better to leave it as is. Allstargeneral ( talk) 00:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Allstargeneral
Perhaps this discussion should be merged with the redesign proposal here as it might be a good idea to do both together. I'll make a section there about the renaming. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard ( talk) 02:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
If there was a "front page" to Wikipedia is this not it? Should the "Main Page" not be called the Home Page or First Page? Gavin Scott ( talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Why should the Main Page not be called the Main Page? It welcomes you, it has an article count, it provides links to portals, it has all those featured sections like In the news, and Today's featured article and Picture etc, it has links to other Wiki projects... Basically it gives people who are not deeply involved with Wikipedia a convenient introduction to the website. It also acts like a little pulse of the site, in a way. To me all of this seems pretty "main". MrPMonday ( talk) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see the log for commons:Image:Morgan_Tsvangirai.jpg, it has been deleted as a copyvio (it can be seen here amongst other websites), yet it was used on the main page on the 5th of June rev. Adding to the previous 2 this makes quite a lot in one month. Please be cautious if you find a low resolution press looking photo. Especially if it was uploaded by a user with many copyvio warnings as it was in this case. Jackaranga ( talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I know that half of Wikipedia users are nerds or computer geeks, but this has completely gone out of control. Guitar Hero 3 is featured?! Oh my god, this is outrageous! Have you ever seen an encyclopedia covering video games? That's what gamespot is for, but an encyclopedia is not the place to post video game reviews. Please, go read gamespot and stop posting video game content in Wikipedia! Oh, and here's the link: [2] J.C.( talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC).
Okay, so Dreaded Walrus, you're right. I'm being sarcastic. When I saw the Guitar Hero on the Main Page, I was going to write telling you that you should be ready for criticism, but then I decided to complain. But I was really close to taking my complaint seriously.-- 190.137.224.112 ( talk) 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is that picture really freakin' creepy? Can we change it to Image:Hawk eye.jpg? And yes, I'm fully aware of that "not censored" stuff, I just wanted to ask if it could be changed. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Just an idea to have templates featured on the main page to show the diversity of work that is done on Wikipedia. I don't know what the criteria would be, but as a person who does a lot of work on templates, they could be shown some small appreciation. - LA @ 09:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Try Portal:Cats. Geni 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It should include those adorable hairless cats:
How could anyone say no to a face like that? Raul654 ( talk) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait! Shouldn't a proposal like this be made at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal? Spencer T♦ C 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
While I have no problem with a daily kitten, a cursory inspection of the Main Page history shows that the true demand is for images of cocks, tits, and boobies. Why not respond to the real demands of the community? -- Allen3 talk 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me if this has been brought up before, but I have to say that I find the picture placement for the "In the News" section disconcerting. It seems that the picture is rarely placed next to the news item it accompanies. I realize that news item that accompanies the picture has the "(pictured)" caption, but I still don't like the aesthetics of it. Usually I just bite my lip, but I had to say something after I momentarily thought we were saying that Salman Rushdie had been crowned Miss Universe.
My suggestion is that the news item with the picture should always be on top.-- Kubigula ( talk) 22:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Kubigula is correct, we look collectively stupid every time the headline associated with the picture slips, and the lazy counterargument is that there are several infrequently-seen pages that would be affected in some way by fixing it; and no editor has the energy (including me) to get off their ass and fix it. I'll give you $1.00 US if you do. I'll note that the French Wikipedia handles this correctly. Tempshill ( talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
On the Welcome to Wikipedia the Wikipedia is a redirect, can this not be changed to a direct link, or is there a reason for it going through the redirect? Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The redirect has only existed since 8 July. And the redirect isn't protected. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, I couldn't see a lock. Makes sense now. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The 100,000th article has just written in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Please move it to the correct section. Thanks! Quisczicza ( talk) 13:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The 300,000th article was just written in the Russian Wikipedia. Please move it to the correct section. Thanks! Mhym ( talk) 03:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
A discussion about moving this page to the Wikipedia namespace is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal: Move main page to Wikipedia namespace. This will be primarily a technical change, the transition will be smooth, and it will fix some issues like the top-left tab reading "article" when the main page is clearly not an article. — Remember the dot ( talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"His string of election wins was assisted by a system ..." Steve Edgel ( talk) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Trying to make a verb ("was/were") agree with a plural noun ("wins") that is the object of a preposition intervening between said verb and the singular subject of a sentence is certainly not "pond-side specific". I believe the British English REQUIRES number matching between subject and predicate just as we Americans do. I am unwilling to concede that this error is committed as often as conjectured by Mr. Lapella--I think 75-80% of English-speaking people still get it right. However, it is distressing when one hears it (yesterday evening) from a young (and beautiful) reporter on the prestigious and conservative Fox News--people who really know better and should "focus," as Mr. Miagi was wont to say.
This is not at WP:ERRORS for two reasons: (a) it is not a factual/content error,merely a minor grammatical one, and (b) it is my first time daring to enter realm of editing the Wikipedia. I didn't want to make time to do several days' research on HOW to do it, and the instructions tell you to just jump right in and "do it"; the administrators will clean up any messes. Steve Edgel ( talk) 22:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
In the DYK for Neafie & Levy, the the link to "first submarine" goes to USS Alligator, a disambiguation page. It should go to USS Alligator (1862). Mycroft7 ( talk) 19:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
See the Saudi Arabia page. Somebody will fix it fast i'm sure. It is (plainly) not realy, but an extreme edit. I do not know where to put this, and I can't put it on that page. please do not penalise me, as this is a legitimate request —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.206.93 ( talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
[3]. It happened with 4 or 5 pages. Is there a hacker on Wikipedia? Looks the zodiac killed striked again. -- Fixman ( talk) 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
someone has vandalized the "chrysler 300" page, and it says "vandalized by hitler" on top, anyone know how to fix it? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.5.14.23 (
talk) 04:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Why must we make a link from the main page to an article that is not even half finished? This article is in serious need of help; but enough about the article - my point here is that we shouldn't make links to articles that are so poorly written. Tourskin ( talk) 05:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There is currently approximately 3 pixels of whitespace below the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section that is being caused by an empty table created by Template:WikipediaOther. This is the HTML being generated:
<table align="center" width="100%" style="background:none;"> <tr> <td></td> </tr> </table>
Obviously it does nothing. User:David Levy believes that this whitespace should be there, apparently for aesthetic reasons; however, I see no reason for this. I am proposing that it be removed. --- RockMFR 06:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember there being a little link in Special:Statistics ( this edit removed it) that brought users to a page that showed the most viewed articles for each month, though it was taken down because it stopped working. Will that ever come back again??-- Newcloud1 ( talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia Talk:Village pump (technical):
I would like to propose that we move the Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page. This would offer a number of benefits, including:
- Causing the top-left tab to read "project page" instead of "article"
- Making it easier to make a mass-copy of Wikipedia's articles without picking up project-specific pages like the main page
There would of course be a redirect from Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page, and we could even hide the "redirected from Main Page" notice using CSS, making the transition virtually seamless. The German Wikipedia has actually already moved their main page to the Wikipedia namespace and it is working great for them. — Remember the dot ( talk) 05:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I find illogical that the Main Page be in the article namespace, too, but wouldn't this proposal belong to Talk:Main Page? -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! 09:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
-- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! 09:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Been proposed many times the answer is no. Geni 11:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a summary of one of the "for" arguments from last time:
Against (I'm biased, someone else want to write a better one?):
The Main Page is on its on mainspace. As for Talk:Main Page... -- Howard the Duck 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the first time I've seen two pictures of women on the main page. It's usually a bunch of dudes. It shocked me. Way to go. — jwillbur 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove it :), though I'm very glad Sarah did. Seraphim♥ Whipp 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to add a link from Template:In the news to an Olympics highlights page for the course of the 2008 Summer Olympics is currently up at Template talk:In the news. The highlights page will presumably be 2008 Summer Olympics highlights, which follows the format of similar pages from previous Olympics. Comments, and editors interested in maintaining such a highlights page, are welcome. - Banyan Tree 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Editprotected}}
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Stub12718696 (
talk •
contribs) 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought, we have a main-page that is dedicated to providing encyclopedic content to visitors and users but why not have a secondary main-page that is similar but more devoted to those who are more inclined to edit pages. So by-default the main-page is uncluttered and easy to navigate to different areas of reasearch, news etc. whilst a link is placed to the secondary main-page which is designed for regular editors with easy navigation to articles in need of attention and community areas. Just an idea. Lympathy Talk 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd note that you don't need approval of the denizen of "Talk:Main_Page" to start such a thing. I would recommend that a person so interested should first make a mock-up at a sub-page of their own user page, showing what they envision an "Editor's Main Page" to be. If others find that such a page would be useful, it can likely be moved to the Wikipedia: space as an "unofficial" resource. Once there, if there is wide consensus as to its usefulness (probably in several months time), someone can come back here ("Talk:Main_Page") and propose adding a link from the regular Main Page to the new "Editor's Main Page." Even if such official support never materializes, this "Wikipedia:Editor's Main Page" could still be an unofficial resource for its loyal followers, much like the other numerous project pages in the Wikipedia space. -- 128.104.112.147 ( talk) 16:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I have a few eyes with a variety of browsers to make sure that Main Page/1 still looks right? As you can see, the only thing I'm trying to do is add ids for easy skinning... but I have too many (ie more than 0) trouts for screwing the Main Page :D Happy‑ melon 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be headlines covering the events in Turkey, that the AK Parti has survived from a ban by the constitutional court? M Miah ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the words "primary election" in the news item regarding Olmert's decision not to run in the Kadima party primary election in September should link to that article. -- Nudve ( talk) 07:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
For about two weeks this month, many of the links on the main page were changed to redirects following this discussion in order to figure out how the main page is actually used. Hits listed are for a period of approximately 7 days. During this time period, it seems there were about 60 million hits on the main page itself. --- RockMFR 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Page | Stats | Hits |
---|---|---|
Banner | ||
Wikipedia | [4] | 18436 |
Encyclopedia | [5] | 6573 |
Wikipedia:Introduction | [6] | 9478 |
English language (banner and bottom) | [7] | 4817 |
Portal:Arts | [8] | 25430 |
Portal:Biography | [9] | 24239 |
Portal:Geography | [10] | 19847 |
Portal:History | [11] | 32150 |
Portal:Mathematics | [12] | 19882 |
Portal:Science | [13] | 34362 |
Portal:Society | [14] | 10484 |
Portal:Technology and applied sciences | [15] | 21641 |
Portal:Contents/Portals | [16] | 34877 |
Below banner | ||
Wikipedia:About | [17] | 3411 |
Wikipedia:Tutorial | [18] | 4155 |
Wikipedia:Questions | [19] | 6993 |
Help:Contents | [20] | 2361 |
Portal:Contents | [21] | 3710 |
Portal:Contents/Categorical index | [22] | 7268 |
Portal:Featured content | [23] | 2876 |
Portal:Contents/Quick index | [24] | 16807 |
Bottom | ||
Wikipedia:Help desk | [25] | 3387 |
Wikipedia:Reference desk | [26] | 5626 |
Wikipedia:Village pump | [27] | 1948 |
Wikipedia:Community Portal | [28] | 1719 |
Wikipedia:News | [29] | 1387 |
Wikipedia:Local Embassy | [30] | 1515 |
Wikimedia Foundation | [31] | 1331 |
Great work. We still need to be careful not to conclude simply that things with less clicks shouldn't be on the main page. It's quite possible that it just means that the links need better names or that they should be positioned better. I'd say that the links in the "other areas of Wikipedia" are positioned way too low. Another idea could be renaming "Featured Content" (which sounds somewhat marketroidy) to something like "Best of Wikipedia". Zocky | picture popups 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, any redesign should place Wikipedia:Introduction and/or Wikipedia:Tutorial more prominently, or at least make the link text explicitly state what the links are. We also need to cut out pages that are not updated or have been abandoned (i.e., Wikipedia:Local Embassy). --- RockMFR 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I find this deeply interesting.. but the numbers perhaps deserve a little most context, for example comparing them to the total number of hits. Consider, for example, the traffic for Portal:Arts (which is decimated to 10% once the main page link is taken away), and Portal:Quick_index (which is reduced to about 30%) and Portal:Featured content (where over 95% of the hits don't come from the main page link).
These percentages give more context and a better understanding of what people us the main page for. Perhaps someone who knows how to get more exact numbers could add them to the table? 82.6.96.66 ( talk) 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there an admin around to copy the hooks from Template:Did you know/Next update to Template:Did you know? I can do all the other technical stuff if said admin is unsure of the details, or guide him or her through the process. Thanks, CB ( ö) 22:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(If this has already been discussed before, please point me to the discussion.)
The main page doesn't explain the meaning of "free" in "The free encyclopedia".
For comparison, on the main pages of Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias the word "free" is a link to their respective language versions of free content.
Although it is better than nothing, i don't think that it's an excellent solution.
There should be a page in the Wikipedia namespace where the "free"-ness of Wikipedia is properly explained in plain language. It's a core policy, even a meta-policy. Links to the GFDL that appear on every page are certainly far from enough: GFDL is too legalese. WP:FAQ and WP:ABOUT are also very thin on explaining what does it mean that Wikipedia is free.
If such a page indeed does not exist, i can write it myself. If it does exist, then it is probably quite hard to find it. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In the interim, would anyone object to the linking of "free" to free content? If no objections are voiced within 4 days, I'll make the change. ff m 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Wasn´t it going to change its name like two months ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.165.114 ( talk) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Less chit-chat about renaming the main page. Less food on the main page. MAOR KATZ! Ceiling Cat ( talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess another demonstration is in order:
Conclusion - less hair = more cute. Clearly we MAOR KATZ on the main page (the daily kitten feature I suggested earlier) and they need to be of the huggable hairless variety. Ceiling Cat ( talk) 18:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh... how is this newsworthy??-- Dramawoes00 ( talk) 15:52, 4 August 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 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | → | 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 |
At the top of the Main Page it says "Welcome to wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", the word encyclopedia links to "Wikipeda:Mainpage/Encyclopedia", which is a redirect to the wikipedia article on encyclopedias. Can someone please fix this. Thanks. Five Years 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
These redirects are intentional. --- RockMFR 17:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If you have images turned on, you can click on the logo and it takes you to the Main Page. If you have images turned off, there is nothing to indicate the presence of a valid navigation element. If you know it is there, you can use it but that does not seem right to me. What do others think? Lightmouse ( talk) 21:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the first link under "navigation." Hey, why aren't those headings capitalized? -- Maxa megalon 2000 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Aesthetics. If you don't like it, you can add (I think) .portlet h5 {text-transform:none;}
to
your user CSS file, which should restore normal capitalisation.
Sam Korn
(smoddy) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is not aesthetics. As I understand it, the navigation title should match the destination page title and I think that is the case in that list. And I further understand it that Wikipedia generally uses Sentence case for its pages. Thanks for pointing out where the 'Main Page' navigation can be seen. That gives me another question: should the image have an alt tag as per W3C guidelines for accessibility? Lightmouse ( talk) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the image for To Kill a Mockingbird isn't supposed to be Bush giving a Medal of Freedom. Can someone change it please? Paragon12321 ( talk) 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There's not a reason for the color attribute on the left-hand portal list, is there? --- RockMFR 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well someone has very badly vandalised this featured ]article - I can't even see the edit button to revert it. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia logo should have a short text alternative according to W3C. Perhaps new designs should be assessed for accessibility. Lightmouse ( talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
At featured portal candidates, both the nominations for featured portals and the lack of reviews for them seems to be becoming an increasing problem. After consultation between the other 'directors' of the featured portal co-ordination, it is believed that with more publicity, so to speak, it will help draw attention and bring much needed participation to the area. Thoughts? Rudget ( logs) 13:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Today's page featuring a link to conservatorship is a good example of Main Page links that point to articles that need cleanup, sources, etc ...(in this case, neutrality is the issue). I wonder if there shouldn't be a threshold that an article could reach before having a Main Page link. I really wanted to know about conservatorship, but I stopped reading after seeing the neutrality warning. Another thought would be a 3rd color (green) for links to articles needing improvement (complementing blue - article, and red - no article). Thoughts? NeWDaC ( talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the main image for the TFA article isn't of Palpatine, but that of Ian McDiarmid. In fact the image currently in place isn't even one of the images featured in the Palpatine article. What's up? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we change the caption to "Palpatine disguised as an actor from Earth". --- RockMFR 05:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you know currently states that The hogarth painting was originally that of a dog urinating on some paintings -- the reference for this is "The national gallery" -- To me that seems *very* un-specfic. I can't seem to track down any corroboration for this in my brief search; can anyone actually verify this source or this statement? It is somewhat suspicious in my opinion. User A1 ( talk) 13:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I created a sharpened version (as the original seemed to be suffering softness as if it had been downsized without resharpening). It's switched in the article, if anyone wants to change the version on the main page, the sharpened version is commons:Image:GardenED edit1.jpg Mfield ( talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What is main about this page? Should it not be called the Front page or Cover page instead?-- ProperFraction ( talk) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe " First Page"? -- Howard the Duck 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
As you are or should be well aware of the first page in any internet site is comainly refered to as the main page..a newspaper would be refered to as the front page...wikipedia is electronic not written in an ink based form...Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryncrndll ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the previous response - the only other description I can consider would be "starting page" (since other suggestions have already been addressed), but then the rest of the site would have to be updated with any change, so, as Acalamari said, it's better to leave it as is. Allstargeneral ( talk) 00:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Allstargeneral
Perhaps this discussion should be merged with the redesign proposal here as it might be a good idea to do both together. I'll make a section there about the renaming. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard ( talk) 02:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
If there was a "front page" to Wikipedia is this not it? Should the "Main Page" not be called the Home Page or First Page? Gavin Scott ( talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Why should the Main Page not be called the Main Page? It welcomes you, it has an article count, it provides links to portals, it has all those featured sections like In the news, and Today's featured article and Picture etc, it has links to other Wiki projects... Basically it gives people who are not deeply involved with Wikipedia a convenient introduction to the website. It also acts like a little pulse of the site, in a way. To me all of this seems pretty "main". MrPMonday ( talk) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see the log for commons:Image:Morgan_Tsvangirai.jpg, it has been deleted as a copyvio (it can be seen here amongst other websites), yet it was used on the main page on the 5th of June rev. Adding to the previous 2 this makes quite a lot in one month. Please be cautious if you find a low resolution press looking photo. Especially if it was uploaded by a user with many copyvio warnings as it was in this case. Jackaranga ( talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I know that half of Wikipedia users are nerds or computer geeks, but this has completely gone out of control. Guitar Hero 3 is featured?! Oh my god, this is outrageous! Have you ever seen an encyclopedia covering video games? That's what gamespot is for, but an encyclopedia is not the place to post video game reviews. Please, go read gamespot and stop posting video game content in Wikipedia! Oh, and here's the link: [2] J.C.( talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC).
Okay, so Dreaded Walrus, you're right. I'm being sarcastic. When I saw the Guitar Hero on the Main Page, I was going to write telling you that you should be ready for criticism, but then I decided to complain. But I was really close to taking my complaint seriously.-- 190.137.224.112 ( talk) 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is that picture really freakin' creepy? Can we change it to Image:Hawk eye.jpg? And yes, I'm fully aware of that "not censored" stuff, I just wanted to ask if it could be changed. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Just an idea to have templates featured on the main page to show the diversity of work that is done on Wikipedia. I don't know what the criteria would be, but as a person who does a lot of work on templates, they could be shown some small appreciation. - LA @ 09:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Try Portal:Cats. Geni 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It should include those adorable hairless cats:
How could anyone say no to a face like that? Raul654 ( talk) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait! Shouldn't a proposal like this be made at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal? Spencer T♦ C 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
While I have no problem with a daily kitten, a cursory inspection of the Main Page history shows that the true demand is for images of cocks, tits, and boobies. Why not respond to the real demands of the community? -- Allen3 talk 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me if this has been brought up before, but I have to say that I find the picture placement for the "In the News" section disconcerting. It seems that the picture is rarely placed next to the news item it accompanies. I realize that news item that accompanies the picture has the "(pictured)" caption, but I still don't like the aesthetics of it. Usually I just bite my lip, but I had to say something after I momentarily thought we were saying that Salman Rushdie had been crowned Miss Universe.
My suggestion is that the news item with the picture should always be on top.-- Kubigula ( talk) 22:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Kubigula is correct, we look collectively stupid every time the headline associated with the picture slips, and the lazy counterargument is that there are several infrequently-seen pages that would be affected in some way by fixing it; and no editor has the energy (including me) to get off their ass and fix it. I'll give you $1.00 US if you do. I'll note that the French Wikipedia handles this correctly. Tempshill ( talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
On the Welcome to Wikipedia the Wikipedia is a redirect, can this not be changed to a direct link, or is there a reason for it going through the redirect? Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The redirect has only existed since 8 July. And the redirect isn't protected. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, I couldn't see a lock. Makes sense now. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The 100,000th article has just written in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Please move it to the correct section. Thanks! Quisczicza ( talk) 13:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The 300,000th article was just written in the Russian Wikipedia. Please move it to the correct section. Thanks! Mhym ( talk) 03:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
A discussion about moving this page to the Wikipedia namespace is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal: Move main page to Wikipedia namespace. This will be primarily a technical change, the transition will be smooth, and it will fix some issues like the top-left tab reading "article" when the main page is clearly not an article. — Remember the dot ( talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"His string of election wins was assisted by a system ..." Steve Edgel ( talk) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Trying to make a verb ("was/were") agree with a plural noun ("wins") that is the object of a preposition intervening between said verb and the singular subject of a sentence is certainly not "pond-side specific". I believe the British English REQUIRES number matching between subject and predicate just as we Americans do. I am unwilling to concede that this error is committed as often as conjectured by Mr. Lapella--I think 75-80% of English-speaking people still get it right. However, it is distressing when one hears it (yesterday evening) from a young (and beautiful) reporter on the prestigious and conservative Fox News--people who really know better and should "focus," as Mr. Miagi was wont to say.
This is not at WP:ERRORS for two reasons: (a) it is not a factual/content error,merely a minor grammatical one, and (b) it is my first time daring to enter realm of editing the Wikipedia. I didn't want to make time to do several days' research on HOW to do it, and the instructions tell you to just jump right in and "do it"; the administrators will clean up any messes. Steve Edgel ( talk) 22:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
In the DYK for Neafie & Levy, the the link to "first submarine" goes to USS Alligator, a disambiguation page. It should go to USS Alligator (1862). Mycroft7 ( talk) 19:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
See the Saudi Arabia page. Somebody will fix it fast i'm sure. It is (plainly) not realy, but an extreme edit. I do not know where to put this, and I can't put it on that page. please do not penalise me, as this is a legitimate request —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.206.93 ( talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
[3]. It happened with 4 or 5 pages. Is there a hacker on Wikipedia? Looks the zodiac killed striked again. -- Fixman ( talk) 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
someone has vandalized the "chrysler 300" page, and it says "vandalized by hitler" on top, anyone know how to fix it? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.5.14.23 (
talk) 04:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Why must we make a link from the main page to an article that is not even half finished? This article is in serious need of help; but enough about the article - my point here is that we shouldn't make links to articles that are so poorly written. Tourskin ( talk) 05:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There is currently approximately 3 pixels of whitespace below the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section that is being caused by an empty table created by Template:WikipediaOther. This is the HTML being generated:
<table align="center" width="100%" style="background:none;"> <tr> <td></td> </tr> </table>
Obviously it does nothing. User:David Levy believes that this whitespace should be there, apparently for aesthetic reasons; however, I see no reason for this. I am proposing that it be removed. --- RockMFR 06:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember there being a little link in Special:Statistics ( this edit removed it) that brought users to a page that showed the most viewed articles for each month, though it was taken down because it stopped working. Will that ever come back again??-- Newcloud1 ( talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia Talk:Village pump (technical):
I would like to propose that we move the Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page. This would offer a number of benefits, including:
- Causing the top-left tab to read "project page" instead of "article"
- Making it easier to make a mass-copy of Wikipedia's articles without picking up project-specific pages like the main page
There would of course be a redirect from Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page, and we could even hide the "redirected from Main Page" notice using CSS, making the transition virtually seamless. The German Wikipedia has actually already moved their main page to the Wikipedia namespace and it is working great for them. — Remember the dot ( talk) 05:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I find illogical that the Main Page be in the article namespace, too, but wouldn't this proposal belong to Talk:Main Page? -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! 09:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
-- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! 09:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Been proposed many times the answer is no. Geni 11:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a summary of one of the "for" arguments from last time:
Against (I'm biased, someone else want to write a better one?):
The Main Page is on its on mainspace. As for Talk:Main Page... -- Howard the Duck 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the first time I've seen two pictures of women on the main page. It's usually a bunch of dudes. It shocked me. Way to go. — jwillbur 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove it :), though I'm very glad Sarah did. Seraphim♥ Whipp 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to add a link from Template:In the news to an Olympics highlights page for the course of the 2008 Summer Olympics is currently up at Template talk:In the news. The highlights page will presumably be 2008 Summer Olympics highlights, which follows the format of similar pages from previous Olympics. Comments, and editors interested in maintaining such a highlights page, are welcome. - Banyan Tree 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Editprotected}}
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Stub12718696 (
talk •
contribs) 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought, we have a main-page that is dedicated to providing encyclopedic content to visitors and users but why not have a secondary main-page that is similar but more devoted to those who are more inclined to edit pages. So by-default the main-page is uncluttered and easy to navigate to different areas of reasearch, news etc. whilst a link is placed to the secondary main-page which is designed for regular editors with easy navigation to articles in need of attention and community areas. Just an idea. Lympathy Talk 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd note that you don't need approval of the denizen of "Talk:Main_Page" to start such a thing. I would recommend that a person so interested should first make a mock-up at a sub-page of their own user page, showing what they envision an "Editor's Main Page" to be. If others find that such a page would be useful, it can likely be moved to the Wikipedia: space as an "unofficial" resource. Once there, if there is wide consensus as to its usefulness (probably in several months time), someone can come back here ("Talk:Main_Page") and propose adding a link from the regular Main Page to the new "Editor's Main Page." Even if such official support never materializes, this "Wikipedia:Editor's Main Page" could still be an unofficial resource for its loyal followers, much like the other numerous project pages in the Wikipedia space. -- 128.104.112.147 ( talk) 16:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I have a few eyes with a variety of browsers to make sure that Main Page/1 still looks right? As you can see, the only thing I'm trying to do is add ids for easy skinning... but I have too many (ie more than 0) trouts for screwing the Main Page :D Happy‑ melon 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be headlines covering the events in Turkey, that the AK Parti has survived from a ban by the constitutional court? M Miah ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the words "primary election" in the news item regarding Olmert's decision not to run in the Kadima party primary election in September should link to that article. -- Nudve ( talk) 07:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
For about two weeks this month, many of the links on the main page were changed to redirects following this discussion in order to figure out how the main page is actually used. Hits listed are for a period of approximately 7 days. During this time period, it seems there were about 60 million hits on the main page itself. --- RockMFR 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Page | Stats | Hits |
---|---|---|
Banner | ||
Wikipedia | [4] | 18436 |
Encyclopedia | [5] | 6573 |
Wikipedia:Introduction | [6] | 9478 |
English language (banner and bottom) | [7] | 4817 |
Portal:Arts | [8] | 25430 |
Portal:Biography | [9] | 24239 |
Portal:Geography | [10] | 19847 |
Portal:History | [11] | 32150 |
Portal:Mathematics | [12] | 19882 |
Portal:Science | [13] | 34362 |
Portal:Society | [14] | 10484 |
Portal:Technology and applied sciences | [15] | 21641 |
Portal:Contents/Portals | [16] | 34877 |
Below banner | ||
Wikipedia:About | [17] | 3411 |
Wikipedia:Tutorial | [18] | 4155 |
Wikipedia:Questions | [19] | 6993 |
Help:Contents | [20] | 2361 |
Portal:Contents | [21] | 3710 |
Portal:Contents/Categorical index | [22] | 7268 |
Portal:Featured content | [23] | 2876 |
Portal:Contents/Quick index | [24] | 16807 |
Bottom | ||
Wikipedia:Help desk | [25] | 3387 |
Wikipedia:Reference desk | [26] | 5626 |
Wikipedia:Village pump | [27] | 1948 |
Wikipedia:Community Portal | [28] | 1719 |
Wikipedia:News | [29] | 1387 |
Wikipedia:Local Embassy | [30] | 1515 |
Wikimedia Foundation | [31] | 1331 |
Great work. We still need to be careful not to conclude simply that things with less clicks shouldn't be on the main page. It's quite possible that it just means that the links need better names or that they should be positioned better. I'd say that the links in the "other areas of Wikipedia" are positioned way too low. Another idea could be renaming "Featured Content" (which sounds somewhat marketroidy) to something like "Best of Wikipedia". Zocky | picture popups 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, any redesign should place Wikipedia:Introduction and/or Wikipedia:Tutorial more prominently, or at least make the link text explicitly state what the links are. We also need to cut out pages that are not updated or have been abandoned (i.e., Wikipedia:Local Embassy). --- RockMFR 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I find this deeply interesting.. but the numbers perhaps deserve a little most context, for example comparing them to the total number of hits. Consider, for example, the traffic for Portal:Arts (which is decimated to 10% once the main page link is taken away), and Portal:Quick_index (which is reduced to about 30%) and Portal:Featured content (where over 95% of the hits don't come from the main page link).
These percentages give more context and a better understanding of what people us the main page for. Perhaps someone who knows how to get more exact numbers could add them to the table? 82.6.96.66 ( talk) 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there an admin around to copy the hooks from Template:Did you know/Next update to Template:Did you know? I can do all the other technical stuff if said admin is unsure of the details, or guide him or her through the process. Thanks, CB ( ö) 22:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(If this has already been discussed before, please point me to the discussion.)
The main page doesn't explain the meaning of "free" in "The free encyclopedia".
For comparison, on the main pages of Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias the word "free" is a link to their respective language versions of free content.
Although it is better than nothing, i don't think that it's an excellent solution.
There should be a page in the Wikipedia namespace where the "free"-ness of Wikipedia is properly explained in plain language. It's a core policy, even a meta-policy. Links to the GFDL that appear on every page are certainly far from enough: GFDL is too legalese. WP:FAQ and WP:ABOUT are also very thin on explaining what does it mean that Wikipedia is free.
If such a page indeed does not exist, i can write it myself. If it does exist, then it is probably quite hard to find it. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In the interim, would anyone object to the linking of "free" to free content? If no objections are voiced within 4 days, I'll make the change. ff m 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Wasn´t it going to change its name like two months ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.165.114 ( talk) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Less chit-chat about renaming the main page. Less food on the main page. MAOR KATZ! Ceiling Cat ( talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess another demonstration is in order:
Conclusion - less hair = more cute. Clearly we MAOR KATZ on the main page (the daily kitten feature I suggested earlier) and they need to be of the huggable hairless variety. Ceiling Cat ( talk) 18:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh... how is this newsworthy??-- Dramawoes00 ( talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)