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 125 | ← | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | → | Archive 135 |
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 |
Barring objections, I intend to update the Main Page with some slightly cleaner code. It's almost entirely removing spaces in strange places or changing things like 0px to 0. Mostly pedantic stuff. A diff of the changes is available here for those interested. There should be no change whatsoever to the visible output of the page. Please let me know if you have any concerns / comments / questions. Thanks! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is the name of this page "Main Page" instead of "Main page". General article naming rule says that only the first letter of articles must be capital letter. Bekiroflaz ( talk) 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a wonder, what will happen if someone writes a notable book about Wikipedia, titled Main Page? Domthedude001 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
ff m 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Now en:Wikipedia:Main Page and en:Wikipedia:Main page redirect to en:Main Page. On other Wikipedias it's not that way. For example de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite, es:Wikipedia:Portada and fi:Wikipedia:Etusivu.
Rrupo ( talk) 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Are we running off british time zone? cause i have no idea why we would be but it seems so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 ( talk • contribs) at 04:22, October 30, 2008
Thank God. When searching and an incorrect spelling is entered, the software now suggests the correct spelling. Cheers to those repsonsible for the change. OSX ( talk • contributions) 06:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
After an extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#November_4a that garnered the support of many Wikipedia contributors (myself included), the featured article director, Raul654 decided to run two featured articles for November 4, John McCain and Barack Obama. Any questions one might have about this may be in the linked discussion.-- chaser - t 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
John McCain was above Barack Obama, a fair compromise I would say since Obama had the better placement in the article, then someone moved them. I don't really care where they are placed, but the immaturity of the editors is laughable. I expected more from a Wikipedia Editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 ( talk) 05:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Just because the united states is holding a presidential election doesn't warrant having two featured articles, neither of which can be fully comprehensive as the results of the said election are unknown. How can an article about the next president ever be comprehensive, when his actions as present would be impossible to record until after their term had expired. This is quite frankly ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys ( talk • contribs) 00:07, November 4, 2008
Sorry. It's just... our election is more important than yours. Lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.157.155 ( talk) 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the articles are comprehensive to this date. No article about a currently living person ever purports to be complete through the person's death. Date relevance is a common criteria in picking the Featured Articles, and non-US topics are exactly the same as US topics in that they're more likely to be placed on the Main Page for a relevant date. As it happens, November 4 is the most relevant date for these two articles. And of course it's silly to pretend that the US president is only important to US citizens. It'd be silly to pretend the Chinese president is only important to Chinese, the British Prime Minister only important to Britain, etc. -- JayHenry ( talk) 00:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say this is the most important English-language election happening today, so on the English-language Wikipedia I think it's fine, and clever. Tempshill ( talk) 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I fully support this inclusion, and am not American. It is relevant, and I applaud Raul for having the balls to run the double-TFA on this date. That being said, this page is gonna be a hell of a mess very quickly, and it will just get worse when Europe wakes up tomorrow morning... Random 89 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
As a former contributor, admin, and FA writer I must say how impressed I am with the double TFA - it looks very good and was a very good idea. Well done. 91.110.133.193 ( talk) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
there is nothing wrong with having current event article as featured article but i must agree that it makes wikipedia look highly US-centric when rules are bent and 2 featured articles are posted only during US events. either post more relevant to the day/2 feautred articles for other countries or keep it random. Wikipedia looked like 911 memorial site on sept 11. now it looks like pro US election. Again there is nothing wrong with it but if u gonna choose days like this u have to do it for other countries too otherwise people will obviously complain...
99.237.123.217 (
talk) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Basser g ( talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
McCain is trailing in the polls, even Karl Rove predicts that Obama will win. So why the hell is he at the bottom? Fourtyearswhat ( talk) 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope that, when the next election comes around for one of the "more powerful" nations, that they will adamantly insist their candidates be included on the main page. NorthernThunder ( talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I'm surprised someone hasn't said anything about a possible theme with Hamilton and Obama both on the main page at the same time.... YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I dunno whether this is the right subsection for this, but what percentage of the US population are going to be coming to Wikipedia today to decide who they're going to vote for? The UK coverage of this election has been going on for months (since 2007, or was it 2006?), so I can't imagine how tedious it must be for everyone who has to suffer it first-hand. Presumably, every candidate will have their own website where they can explain their position, and no doubt there will be one or two local news websites who will provide comparisons too. If someone is coming here to chose between McCain and Obama then they have the facts for both candidates readily to hand, but I find it hard to believe that there are many people who still haven't made up their minds.
I did see some of the discussions about the TFA choice before today, and I wholeheartedly agree: both main candidates have articles at FA status, so both are eligible for the Main Page...but when should they appear? The action chosen is very sensible since it allows the majority of TFA rules to be upheld. As a born-and-bred Englishman I do not regard this action as showing US-bias (although some of the sport articles in ITN are rather more suspect). But I would hope that the same two-article solution would be adopted if appropriate for other situations in the future.
(PS - there is an amazing similarity between Obama and Hamiltion, isn't there?)
--
EdJogg (
talk) 10:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I added JavaScript to randomize the order of the candidates as displayed on the main page. I figured it was the most fair thing to do. It was good enough for our candidate listings during the WMF Board elections, so why not the US Presidential elections as well? :-P
Cyde Weys 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, with Obama's picture on the left and McCain's on the right, whenever Obama is on top, it looks like a featured article only for him. When McCain is on top, it looks like it's for both of them. 12.203.112.157 ( talk) 05:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, with all these kudos about the random flip-flopping, we don't get that on IE7 (which I believe is the most popular browser), so it's not doing anything. Just Obama on top, FWIW. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Where can we see the script for the randomization? V-sleeper-cell ( talk) 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The randomisation - bloody good idea. Also, I think it's an excellent arrangment that Obama is on the left and McCain is centre-right, even if that is unintentional. Orpheus ( talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
...Rather than just "2008 presidential election". Explicit context. — ¾-10 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've never discussed the main page of wikipedia before, but I felt like WP:BB being bold and discussing how in addition to it being US Centric and all that, it diminishes the importance of the third party candidates. By putting only Obama and McCain as the double featured article it makes a political statement that they are the better choice. I mean i assume good faith and all, but by doing this Wikipedia is enodrsing McCain and Obama, but none of the other people running for president, which is bias and partisan. Just Sayin' Scott Oglesby ( talk) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that a more Neutral Point of View featured article for today would be United States Presidential Election 2008 because that would be less bias. Catch my drift? Scott Oglesby ( talk) 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
While it is disheartening that the candidate I voted for isn't on the main page, that person's biography isn't a featured article, and these two yahoos' biographies are. We're already bending the rules enough by having two TFAs and by putting Barack Obama on the main page twice. Putting non-featured articles up would really be beyond the pale. — An gr 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ya'll are just Nader Haters. But really, before you bring any of this up, honestly tell me that any of the 3rd party candidates have a chance. -- Domthedude001 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I wish :) Digital Ninja 23:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
But that is all over. I thought it would last until21 minutes from now, but UTC waits not for daylight savings time. Excellent discussion everyone, and I hope my favorite thing in the world, Wikipedia, doesn't do something of that nature again. Peace 76.19.42.233 ( talk) 00:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally I am not that concerned that we have a US election related TFA on the mainpage on the day of the election (makes a change from yet more video game articles), the TFA should always be relevant to the date where possible. I am not even overly concerned over the accusations of US centricity or bias on Wikipedia as we must surely expect some element of that when the largest national group of contributors is from the US. However I am worried about the breaking of two rules of TFA. These being that an article can never be on the mainpage more than once and that only one article is featured at a time. Admittedly the latter is more of a tradition than a rule but I am still concerned. I hope this is not the start of a slippery slope where we will see suggestions for multiple TFAs for more and more trivial occasions (sports events etc) or articles being featured more than once (eg "this article was featured three years ago but it's improved a lot since then so it should get on the main page again"). What happens in another four years when it is the US election again? Will we see (for example) Palin and Obama on the mainpage (with Obama appearing for the third time) because this has set the precedent? What is to stop that from happening?
I would rather see TFA return to its previous format for good and not see a re-run of this style again (not even for the British elections, which are much more important to me!). Anyone else have any opinions on this? - Dumelow ( talk) 12:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I honestly wouldn't mind if we started seeing more than one FA on the front page on a regular basis. I don't really see any opposition to it other than resistive inertia. Personally, I think it's a good idea to give coverage to two FAs that are tightly linked on the day of their peak importance. It's the best way to handle the event without giving the appearance of bias by having to select one over the other. -- Cyde Weys 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I would support seeing more than one TFA per day, it would help get more FA's noticed. Whether the FA's are linked or completely different it wouldn't matter. At present there are hundreds of FA's that have not been "main paged", it's not like we'd run out of FA's to use. Plus it would help to get more of our FA's noticed by the public. Zunaid 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul,
I have to give you my kudos to the Obama/McCain double TFA. By giving us the change we need, you've proved yourself a maverick.
Lovelac 7 02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I read that guy saying how the Zimbabwe elections should be FA instead. Now that was funny, especially since the en in en.wikipedia.org means English, not African, things important to the Anglo world. There are other Wikis for other places in the world.-- 69.229.173.135 ( talk) 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul - What a pleasant surprise! Excellent job, and the flip-flopping has me refreshing far more often than should be considered healthy. Really, I can't imagine a better way to have done this (well, except maybe add some javascript so that the bottom article's portrait is always on the left), but really, fantastic work. -- Grahamdubya ( talk) 06:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Credit where credit is due: the original idea for both at once belongs to User:Remember. -- Herald Alberich ( talk) 09:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that today's featured article should NOT be fully protected. Why are these two? You cannot have it both ways - either remove the protection or remove them from the main page. Exxolon ( talk) 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
i dont wanna create another section for this but why is there a republican logo on top right corner of this page... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.237.123.217 (
talk) 04:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone better stop placing Obama above McCain on the front page. It's alphabetical not biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.61.189 ( talk) 05:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
-
C
hrishy
06:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I tend to vote Republican, but i absolutly hate the alphabetical order is a fair compromise argument...alphabetical order is a sort of discimination as one is born with thier last name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 ( talk) 05:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Great job with the script, creative way to solve the problem. That and the two FAs were quite graceful ways to avoid "endorsing" either candidate. Scapler ( talk) 11:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Very Interesting that before the US presidential election, both candidates are shown as featured articles. Good idea so as to not promote bias. Dumoren ( talk) 12:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Last I checked my ballot (in Arizona), there were 5 presidential candidates: Obama, McCain, McKinney, Barr, and Nader. There was even a spot for a write-in. So, why is Wikipedia only focusing on the Republican and Democratic candidates? Oh, and why did you do this at all? What about other countries' elections? Have you placed their candidates on the main page on their election days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.35.152 ( talk) 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Featured articles? Since when does TFA do two articles at once? Simply south ( talk) 12:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry why hes first on the page? The page seem to be biased now. The both candidates should be put equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.107.236 ( talk) 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
See McCain 133.2k visits so far today
Obama 245.2k visits
Well its probably not as accurate as the exit polls! Smallbones ( talk) 13:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way: You can track those Election 2008 page hits hourly ("live"), see Wikipedia/Template:Popular pages.( history) --- Best regards, Melancholie ( talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the main page is biased towards John McCain. On the official ballot, Obama is placed before McCain. Therefore, on the main page Obama should also be placed before McCain. Thanks, ~ electricRush ( T C) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
hi can someone teach me how to make a bot that will keep going to one of those pages over and over so it will get high up on that list? just post it below cus i dont want to give out my email. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.148.127 ( talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
For heaven's sake! If a significant number of voters in the US are influenced by the ordering of the candidates names on Wikipedia, then America is already beyond hope! DJ Clayworth ( talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
can we change lewis hamilton's pic so he does not look like carbon copy of obama. LOL! im sure he got other pics. 209.82.15.17 ( talk) 16:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a problem with this megasection being archived at 0100h UTC tomorrow, rather than staying up for another 3 days? It's not too relevent after today, as all this verbage was about the US election. ff m 21:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that Tomorrow's (Nov 4th) TFA has yet to be chosen? Aren't these things done well in advance? Justice America ( talk) 06:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
How do I get a link to the Halloween mainpage, to add to this article: Wikipedia:FCDW/October 27, 2008? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Signature to disable archiving: ff m 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's time to move forwards with adding featured sounds to the main page. There are 98 featured sound files, representing 65 distinct compositions (symphonies and such can contain multiple files because of the various movements) Our statistics are reasonably good, with about a dozen per month in the last three months, and October looking good for a strong increase on that.
And, of course, the greater visibility can reasonably be presumed to attract more people to Featured sounds, increasing these numbers.
This will need some set-up time, of course, so I'd suggest that we start by putting in featured sounds in place of the weekend featured pictures in, say, November or December (I have discussed such a move with Howcheng) and plan on starting a daily run of featured sounds in the new year. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll support a rename of "Featured Picture" to "Featured Media" and the inclusion of sounds, but only if one sound is chosen per composition (such as the first movement of la primavera) for now. ff m 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
One problem with swapping a Featured Picture out with a Featured Sound is that the FPs currently have about a six-month backlog before appearing on the Main Page. Adding Sounds only increases that backlog. Additionally, there's a lot of technical template work to incorporate sounds, which may or may not be feasibly done. howcheng { chat} 17:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea, if it could be implemented, and suggest it begin by pairing this featured sound with either of these featured pictures. (Note that Wikipedia has already done this once on 9/11/2008 when it ran George W. Bush's 9/11/2001 speech (a featured sound) in tandem with a featured picture of the World Trade Center wreckage). Howcheng, you are welcome to push back my featured pictures in the queue in order to mix in featured sounds. That would reduce about 1/3 of the backlog? Durova Charge! 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, there's a few ways to do this:
I would suggest that, whatever we do, that the new inclusion of featured sounds is worth a Wikimedia foundation press release, explicitly encouraging people to submit their sounds. Wikipedia can do sounds very well, which print encyclopedias can't, but we do need to make it known that Wikipedia welcomes and encourages such submissions, or we won't get 'em. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.241.102 ( talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The four-month FP promotion rate is around 10.4/week, slightly less than as proposed above. I don't know how things are going over at FS, but what concerns me is that sometimes we have a lull where the rate drops below 7/week for a few consecutive weeks. Maybe a 10/4 partition?
And how thwould e main page look like when we have a panorama, especially at lower resolutions (800 x 600 in particular)? If I did POTD, I would run only one item those days. This would scuttle more than a few designs in the 2008 main page redesign proposal. MER-C 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't suppose there's any hope for the idea that WP shouldn't try to cram something into every last square inch of its mainpage? The Mozart example above reminds me
of this.
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 125 | ← | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | → | Archive 135 |
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 |
Barring objections, I intend to update the Main Page with some slightly cleaner code. It's almost entirely removing spaces in strange places or changing things like 0px to 0. Mostly pedantic stuff. A diff of the changes is available here for those interested. There should be no change whatsoever to the visible output of the page. Please let me know if you have any concerns / comments / questions. Thanks! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is the name of this page "Main Page" instead of "Main page". General article naming rule says that only the first letter of articles must be capital letter. Bekiroflaz ( talk) 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a wonder, what will happen if someone writes a notable book about Wikipedia, titled Main Page? Domthedude001 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
ff m 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Now en:Wikipedia:Main Page and en:Wikipedia:Main page redirect to en:Main Page. On other Wikipedias it's not that way. For example de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite, es:Wikipedia:Portada and fi:Wikipedia:Etusivu.
Rrupo ( talk) 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Are we running off british time zone? cause i have no idea why we would be but it seems so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 ( talk • contribs) at 04:22, October 30, 2008
Thank God. When searching and an incorrect spelling is entered, the software now suggests the correct spelling. Cheers to those repsonsible for the change. OSX ( talk • contributions) 06:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
After an extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#November_4a that garnered the support of many Wikipedia contributors (myself included), the featured article director, Raul654 decided to run two featured articles for November 4, John McCain and Barack Obama. Any questions one might have about this may be in the linked discussion.-- chaser - t 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
John McCain was above Barack Obama, a fair compromise I would say since Obama had the better placement in the article, then someone moved them. I don't really care where they are placed, but the immaturity of the editors is laughable. I expected more from a Wikipedia Editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 ( talk) 05:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Just because the united states is holding a presidential election doesn't warrant having two featured articles, neither of which can be fully comprehensive as the results of the said election are unknown. How can an article about the next president ever be comprehensive, when his actions as present would be impossible to record until after their term had expired. This is quite frankly ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys ( talk • contribs) 00:07, November 4, 2008
Sorry. It's just... our election is more important than yours. Lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.157.155 ( talk) 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the articles are comprehensive to this date. No article about a currently living person ever purports to be complete through the person's death. Date relevance is a common criteria in picking the Featured Articles, and non-US topics are exactly the same as US topics in that they're more likely to be placed on the Main Page for a relevant date. As it happens, November 4 is the most relevant date for these two articles. And of course it's silly to pretend that the US president is only important to US citizens. It'd be silly to pretend the Chinese president is only important to Chinese, the British Prime Minister only important to Britain, etc. -- JayHenry ( talk) 00:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say this is the most important English-language election happening today, so on the English-language Wikipedia I think it's fine, and clever. Tempshill ( talk) 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I fully support this inclusion, and am not American. It is relevant, and I applaud Raul for having the balls to run the double-TFA on this date. That being said, this page is gonna be a hell of a mess very quickly, and it will just get worse when Europe wakes up tomorrow morning... Random 89 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
As a former contributor, admin, and FA writer I must say how impressed I am with the double TFA - it looks very good and was a very good idea. Well done. 91.110.133.193 ( talk) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
there is nothing wrong with having current event article as featured article but i must agree that it makes wikipedia look highly US-centric when rules are bent and 2 featured articles are posted only during US events. either post more relevant to the day/2 feautred articles for other countries or keep it random. Wikipedia looked like 911 memorial site on sept 11. now it looks like pro US election. Again there is nothing wrong with it but if u gonna choose days like this u have to do it for other countries too otherwise people will obviously complain...
99.237.123.217 (
talk) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Basser g ( talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
McCain is trailing in the polls, even Karl Rove predicts that Obama will win. So why the hell is he at the bottom? Fourtyearswhat ( talk) 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope that, when the next election comes around for one of the "more powerful" nations, that they will adamantly insist their candidates be included on the main page. NorthernThunder ( talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I'm surprised someone hasn't said anything about a possible theme with Hamilton and Obama both on the main page at the same time.... YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I dunno whether this is the right subsection for this, but what percentage of the US population are going to be coming to Wikipedia today to decide who they're going to vote for? The UK coverage of this election has been going on for months (since 2007, or was it 2006?), so I can't imagine how tedious it must be for everyone who has to suffer it first-hand. Presumably, every candidate will have their own website where they can explain their position, and no doubt there will be one or two local news websites who will provide comparisons too. If someone is coming here to chose between McCain and Obama then they have the facts for both candidates readily to hand, but I find it hard to believe that there are many people who still haven't made up their minds.
I did see some of the discussions about the TFA choice before today, and I wholeheartedly agree: both main candidates have articles at FA status, so both are eligible for the Main Page...but when should they appear? The action chosen is very sensible since it allows the majority of TFA rules to be upheld. As a born-and-bred Englishman I do not regard this action as showing US-bias (although some of the sport articles in ITN are rather more suspect). But I would hope that the same two-article solution would be adopted if appropriate for other situations in the future.
(PS - there is an amazing similarity between Obama and Hamiltion, isn't there?)
--
EdJogg (
talk) 10:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I added JavaScript to randomize the order of the candidates as displayed on the main page. I figured it was the most fair thing to do. It was good enough for our candidate listings during the WMF Board elections, so why not the US Presidential elections as well? :-P
Cyde Weys 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, with Obama's picture on the left and McCain's on the right, whenever Obama is on top, it looks like a featured article only for him. When McCain is on top, it looks like it's for both of them. 12.203.112.157 ( talk) 05:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, with all these kudos about the random flip-flopping, we don't get that on IE7 (which I believe is the most popular browser), so it's not doing anything. Just Obama on top, FWIW. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Where can we see the script for the randomization? V-sleeper-cell ( talk) 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The randomisation - bloody good idea. Also, I think it's an excellent arrangment that Obama is on the left and McCain is centre-right, even if that is unintentional. Orpheus ( talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
...Rather than just "2008 presidential election". Explicit context. — ¾-10 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've never discussed the main page of wikipedia before, but I felt like WP:BB being bold and discussing how in addition to it being US Centric and all that, it diminishes the importance of the third party candidates. By putting only Obama and McCain as the double featured article it makes a political statement that they are the better choice. I mean i assume good faith and all, but by doing this Wikipedia is enodrsing McCain and Obama, but none of the other people running for president, which is bias and partisan. Just Sayin' Scott Oglesby ( talk) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that a more Neutral Point of View featured article for today would be United States Presidential Election 2008 because that would be less bias. Catch my drift? Scott Oglesby ( talk) 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
While it is disheartening that the candidate I voted for isn't on the main page, that person's biography isn't a featured article, and these two yahoos' biographies are. We're already bending the rules enough by having two TFAs and by putting Barack Obama on the main page twice. Putting non-featured articles up would really be beyond the pale. — An gr 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ya'll are just Nader Haters. But really, before you bring any of this up, honestly tell me that any of the 3rd party candidates have a chance. -- Domthedude001 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I wish :) Digital Ninja 23:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
But that is all over. I thought it would last until21 minutes from now, but UTC waits not for daylight savings time. Excellent discussion everyone, and I hope my favorite thing in the world, Wikipedia, doesn't do something of that nature again. Peace 76.19.42.233 ( talk) 00:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally I am not that concerned that we have a US election related TFA on the mainpage on the day of the election (makes a change from yet more video game articles), the TFA should always be relevant to the date where possible. I am not even overly concerned over the accusations of US centricity or bias on Wikipedia as we must surely expect some element of that when the largest national group of contributors is from the US. However I am worried about the breaking of two rules of TFA. These being that an article can never be on the mainpage more than once and that only one article is featured at a time. Admittedly the latter is more of a tradition than a rule but I am still concerned. I hope this is not the start of a slippery slope where we will see suggestions for multiple TFAs for more and more trivial occasions (sports events etc) or articles being featured more than once (eg "this article was featured three years ago but it's improved a lot since then so it should get on the main page again"). What happens in another four years when it is the US election again? Will we see (for example) Palin and Obama on the mainpage (with Obama appearing for the third time) because this has set the precedent? What is to stop that from happening?
I would rather see TFA return to its previous format for good and not see a re-run of this style again (not even for the British elections, which are much more important to me!). Anyone else have any opinions on this? - Dumelow ( talk) 12:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I honestly wouldn't mind if we started seeing more than one FA on the front page on a regular basis. I don't really see any opposition to it other than resistive inertia. Personally, I think it's a good idea to give coverage to two FAs that are tightly linked on the day of their peak importance. It's the best way to handle the event without giving the appearance of bias by having to select one over the other. -- Cyde Weys 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I would support seeing more than one TFA per day, it would help get more FA's noticed. Whether the FA's are linked or completely different it wouldn't matter. At present there are hundreds of FA's that have not been "main paged", it's not like we'd run out of FA's to use. Plus it would help to get more of our FA's noticed by the public. Zunaid 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul,
I have to give you my kudos to the Obama/McCain double TFA. By giving us the change we need, you've proved yourself a maverick.
Lovelac 7 02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I read that guy saying how the Zimbabwe elections should be FA instead. Now that was funny, especially since the en in en.wikipedia.org means English, not African, things important to the Anglo world. There are other Wikis for other places in the world.-- 69.229.173.135 ( talk) 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul - What a pleasant surprise! Excellent job, and the flip-flopping has me refreshing far more often than should be considered healthy. Really, I can't imagine a better way to have done this (well, except maybe add some javascript so that the bottom article's portrait is always on the left), but really, fantastic work. -- Grahamdubya ( talk) 06:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Credit where credit is due: the original idea for both at once belongs to User:Remember. -- Herald Alberich ( talk) 09:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that today's featured article should NOT be fully protected. Why are these two? You cannot have it both ways - either remove the protection or remove them from the main page. Exxolon ( talk) 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
i dont wanna create another section for this but why is there a republican logo on top right corner of this page... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.237.123.217 (
talk) 04:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone better stop placing Obama above McCain on the front page. It's alphabetical not biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.61.189 ( talk) 05:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
-
C
hrishy
06:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I tend to vote Republican, but i absolutly hate the alphabetical order is a fair compromise argument...alphabetical order is a sort of discimination as one is born with thier last name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 ( talk) 05:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Great job with the script, creative way to solve the problem. That and the two FAs were quite graceful ways to avoid "endorsing" either candidate. Scapler ( talk) 11:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Very Interesting that before the US presidential election, both candidates are shown as featured articles. Good idea so as to not promote bias. Dumoren ( talk) 12:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Last I checked my ballot (in Arizona), there were 5 presidential candidates: Obama, McCain, McKinney, Barr, and Nader. There was even a spot for a write-in. So, why is Wikipedia only focusing on the Republican and Democratic candidates? Oh, and why did you do this at all? What about other countries' elections? Have you placed their candidates on the main page on their election days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.35.152 ( talk) 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Featured articles? Since when does TFA do two articles at once? Simply south ( talk) 12:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry why hes first on the page? The page seem to be biased now. The both candidates should be put equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.107.236 ( talk) 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
See McCain 133.2k visits so far today
Obama 245.2k visits
Well its probably not as accurate as the exit polls! Smallbones ( talk) 13:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way: You can track those Election 2008 page hits hourly ("live"), see Wikipedia/Template:Popular pages.( history) --- Best regards, Melancholie ( talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the main page is biased towards John McCain. On the official ballot, Obama is placed before McCain. Therefore, on the main page Obama should also be placed before McCain. Thanks, ~ electricRush ( T C) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
hi can someone teach me how to make a bot that will keep going to one of those pages over and over so it will get high up on that list? just post it below cus i dont want to give out my email. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.148.127 ( talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
For heaven's sake! If a significant number of voters in the US are influenced by the ordering of the candidates names on Wikipedia, then America is already beyond hope! DJ Clayworth ( talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
can we change lewis hamilton's pic so he does not look like carbon copy of obama. LOL! im sure he got other pics. 209.82.15.17 ( talk) 16:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a problem with this megasection being archived at 0100h UTC tomorrow, rather than staying up for another 3 days? It's not too relevent after today, as all this verbage was about the US election. ff m 21:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that Tomorrow's (Nov 4th) TFA has yet to be chosen? Aren't these things done well in advance? Justice America ( talk) 06:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
How do I get a link to the Halloween mainpage, to add to this article: Wikipedia:FCDW/October 27, 2008? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Signature to disable archiving: ff m 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's time to move forwards with adding featured sounds to the main page. There are 98 featured sound files, representing 65 distinct compositions (symphonies and such can contain multiple files because of the various movements) Our statistics are reasonably good, with about a dozen per month in the last three months, and October looking good for a strong increase on that.
And, of course, the greater visibility can reasonably be presumed to attract more people to Featured sounds, increasing these numbers.
This will need some set-up time, of course, so I'd suggest that we start by putting in featured sounds in place of the weekend featured pictures in, say, November or December (I have discussed such a move with Howcheng) and plan on starting a daily run of featured sounds in the new year. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll support a rename of "Featured Picture" to "Featured Media" and the inclusion of sounds, but only if one sound is chosen per composition (such as the first movement of la primavera) for now. ff m 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
One problem with swapping a Featured Picture out with a Featured Sound is that the FPs currently have about a six-month backlog before appearing on the Main Page. Adding Sounds only increases that backlog. Additionally, there's a lot of technical template work to incorporate sounds, which may or may not be feasibly done. howcheng { chat} 17:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea, if it could be implemented, and suggest it begin by pairing this featured sound with either of these featured pictures. (Note that Wikipedia has already done this once on 9/11/2008 when it ran George W. Bush's 9/11/2001 speech (a featured sound) in tandem with a featured picture of the World Trade Center wreckage). Howcheng, you are welcome to push back my featured pictures in the queue in order to mix in featured sounds. That would reduce about 1/3 of the backlog? Durova Charge! 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, there's a few ways to do this:
I would suggest that, whatever we do, that the new inclusion of featured sounds is worth a Wikimedia foundation press release, explicitly encouraging people to submit their sounds. Wikipedia can do sounds very well, which print encyclopedias can't, but we do need to make it known that Wikipedia welcomes and encourages such submissions, or we won't get 'em. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.241.102 ( talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The four-month FP promotion rate is around 10.4/week, slightly less than as proposed above. I don't know how things are going over at FS, but what concerns me is that sometimes we have a lull where the rate drops below 7/week for a few consecutive weeks. Maybe a 10/4 partition?
And how thwould e main page look like when we have a panorama, especially at lower resolutions (800 x 600 in particular)? If I did POTD, I would run only one item those days. This would scuttle more than a few designs in the 2008 main page redesign proposal. MER-C 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't suppose there's any hope for the idea that WP shouldn't try to cram something into every last square inch of its mainpage? The Mozart example above reminds me
of this.