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 170 | ← | Archive 174 | Archive 175 | Archive 176 | Archive 177 | Archive 178 | → | Archive 180 |
This seems pretty historic and noteworthy as current events go - front page mention? Challenger l ( talk) 16:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
In ice hockey, the Chicago Blackhawks defeat the Boston Bruins to win the Stanley Cup. – There are currently five links in the blurb. Fifteen words, of which nine are linked. Words not linked include three occurrences of the word "the", one "in", and the verb "to win". We all know there are no prizes for second place. I would suggest changing it to: "In ice hockey, the Chicago Blackhawks win in the 2013 Stanley Cup Finals". – much punchier, and draws the readers attention to the article on the victor and the match.
Similarly, Flooding in Alberta, Canada, results in at least three deaths and the evacuation of thousands. Instead of directly referring to the 2013 Alberta floods, and linking directly, an easter egg was created so that Alberta could also be linked. Facepalm -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
...seriously? -- 85.210.103.168 ( talk) 13:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
'Main page entries that cause much heat and light' are a regular phenomenon - but why does the article referred to above come up when doing a browser websearch on en.wikipedia.com? (ie going via the 'search' facility while checking emails). Surely a more recent main page should appear? Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
'Persistence of text' and following 'changes to Wikipedia articles perculating through to articles elsewhere on the wev' can be an interesting subject of research. Jackiespeel ( talk) 08:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a discrepancy between those who 'write' and those who read the main page. Perhaps we should vote to how much cricket we want to read about?
As I wrote on 30 May 2013, the Main Page of that day had an overrepresentation of cricket:
Rather than
apophenia, I now believe that it has to do with a large supply of cricket-related topics that are proposed for Main-Page use. I came to this conclusion, based on reading other comments over the years of people surprised with the high occurence of cricket as a topic of the Main Page articles:
Why does a Cricket topic appear in every other did you know article? That is the only "sport" that ever appears in the did you know.
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_42#Cricket_anyone.3F
It seems moderately redundant to give the same 1933 cricket event two prime slots on the main page
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_94#No_more_cricket.2C_Please.21.21
It really seems to me that the front page features a disproportionally large number of articles relating to the game of cricket, people who play cricket, and things done by fans of cricket.
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_97#Too_Much_Cricket
It seems like every day there's some trivial bit of cricket-stuff in the DYK list and today there are two.
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_98#Cricket_on_the_DYK
I mean it's all jolly fun and all, but there is a whole lot more to the sporting world than cricket and cricket players, I don't have specifics but I seem to see cricket related articles every other day on the main page.
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_153#Bias_towards_cricket_in_Did_you_know_and_Featured_articles
cricket is way overrated in Wikipedia. Almost every week there's a piece of news in the front page about a cricketer
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_158#Cricket
It seems moderately redundant to give the same 1933 cricket event two prime slots on the main page.
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_173#Too_Much_Cricket
Dvh369 ( talk) 15:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have suggested before that there could be 'themed MPs' (so ones which give emphasis to American topics, animals, sports, 'non-work-safe' etc).
Alternatively - try and improve 'articles on any topics that are not US/animal/sport/other bone of contention flavoured' so they have a better chance of MP status. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
...seriously? -- 85.210.101.91 ( talk) 15:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There will be visual editor soon. Jiawhein ( talk) 06:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, ITN is "not a news ticker." Still, it seems odd that Edward Snowden's travels (or lack thereof) don't make In the News. Sca ( talk) 14:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I can't see the "Complete list" link in the sidebar using Opera 12 under Windows 8. I can see it using Google Chrome, though. Please fix this issue. -- 41.196.255.154 ( talk) 15:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Mainly to start a new thread).
Two birds, some bats and a DNA-sequenced horse and nobody comments.
If there were one or two themed Main Page days a month (not necessarily obvious ones - so July might have things other than US and France) would there be fewer comments about April 1? Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Why was this closed? I like the idea of making themed main pages a more regular occurrence. I don't think it would even have to relate to the specific date; we could just pick a theme and run with it. Of course, articles picked would have to meet the normal criteria for each section. Actually, now that I think about it, an effort towards making something a "Main Page theme" could actually be a good way to motivate people to improve a subject area.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
'As a suggestion' in the same vein - using eg Library of Congress Classification/ Dewey Decimal Classification to select topics for Main Page happenings - 'Wiki flashmobtheme'?
Moved to WP:ERRORS. L Faraone 02:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh come on, no instant knee-jerk reactions to a United States defeat during the Revolutionary War being the featured article today? (tongue firmly in cheek) - Tenebris 01:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The page notice tells me that there is a different place for suggestions. I have checked, and there is none. Where should I go? buff bills 7701 — Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
For better or worse, Wikinews has a prominent icon-based link at the bottom of our main page, along with other sister projects. But I have never understood why In the news has yet another link to the English WN's main page, smack in the mid-top-right of the main page—prime real-estate if you ask me.
Editors who work on ITN articles produce excellent material, thoroughly worthy of main-page exposure. Many people are engaged in quality control. Why do they put up with the public degrading of their professional standards by allowing a permanent link—as though rusted on—to a page that gives every sign of being a chaotic hobby page for a few outlying editors who lack any proper editorial oversight? One of the enduring problems of Wikinews is the low number of editors who want to work on it (six regulars, is it?); in a self-reinforcing way, the amateurish output reinforces the disincentive for other editors to join. This has been the case for years and looks unlikely to change. The WN main page is usually a mixture of (i) threadbare internationally significant stories cobbled together with much less care and skill than our ITN writers, and (ii) local trivia. It is the second that is particularly embarrassing in terms of the link in ITN.
Until a few minutes ago we were treated to this poorly written offering, highlighted ORIGINAL REPORT in red caps: Canberrans flood Cotter Dam on open day, with pics that make the headline seem disingenuous. The piece opens with "Thousands of Canberrans took a look at the new Cotter Dam on the Cotter River on open day on Sunday. The public was given limited access to the still-active construction site. Buses took viewers from the car park below to top of the dam wall. They ran every 15 minutes from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm." Gee-whizz. Not a mention of the dramatic change in prime-minister in Canberra three days ago. Just a construction site someone happened to visit and happy-snap somewhere in Canberra. Who cares?
The text—hardly the length for adequate coverage, which is often a problem in WN "stories"—shows significant problems in logic and repetition. These glitches alone make the page remarkably unworthy of exposure via en.WP's main page. For example, "is to ... is to ... is expected to ... is then to ... are to ... is expected to ...". We have "It is ... It is ...", and "The concrete was ... The concrete was ..." opening successive sentences. Other repetitions are hardly the stuff of writing we want to show off on our main page: "The dam replaces an old dam", "replanted to replace".
The only source provided goes to a web page of the local water authority that has been building the structure for four years—hardly reliable by itself. Wikinews seems to think it will be complete by September, although the source is a good deal less specific ("2013").
Some of the current stories seem OK (and of global interest and significance), but are fast becoming out of date. And there's a slow turnover rate, for a site that bills itself as news (whereas ITN is themed more specifically). It's typical to find howlers or underwhelming material on the WN main page. Last time I pointed out a glaring typo in a headline, no one bothered to fix it.
Our ITN people cover unfolding events so much better, with a good sense of judgement as to international significance. Why, then, do we retain this very prominent second link on our main page? Isn't one link in our sister-project section below sufficient? And it's not as though Wikinews has the courtesy to return the favour, once, let alone twice. Time to adjust, I think.
Finally, I should warn that WN people hate criticism of their site and usually respond with highly personalised insults and no substantive defence of the impoverished product. I have a cast-iron shield against that when professionalising WP is at stake: it doesn't hurt. Tony (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per the above thread, it is proposed that the link to Wikinews in the "In the News" section be removed. 20:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, WN links within our articles should be treated no more favourably than any other external link, though having said that, most of said links to Wikinews stories are only fit to be treated as linkspam – they offer a lot less coverage and a lot fewer sources than the WP article in which the link is embedded. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Community input is welcome here. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I know nothing about the process by which Today's Featured Article is selected, but I have to ask--is today's selection purely coincidental, or is designed to help clarify things for people unfamilar with the terminology in this story in today's news? If so, it kind of seems to be in bad taste, but, meh . . . HuskyHuskie ( talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
So, saw this year's donation drive ad, and just had to wonder, what is the basis of Wikipedia being the #5 website? Alexa lists it as #7: http://www.alexa.com/topsites
Even wikipedia it's self cites it at #6, based on outdated Alexa info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.3.38 ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the Wikinews link in the news section? I noticed that it's missing because I usually follow it to go to Wikinews after checking the Wikipedia main page. Ragettho ( talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I find it perverse that in this section everything is about bad things, deaths, and tragedy all over the world except for England, where banalities such as Wimbledon are always there. It is clearly written with a British political bias.
I think the "in the News" should contain information about the
Srebrenica genocide.--
Ministar Nesigurnosti (
talk) 12:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
"More than fifty supporters of deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi are killed in clashes with the military in Cairo" and no Morsi supporters are killing anybody? TuckerResearch ( talk) 19:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Including a 200-word article on the main-page? The topic is interesting, but the article doesn't show it enough respect. How low are our standards for main-page inclusion? Albacore ( talk) 02:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we remove the note at the top about infobox merges? I don't think its appropriate for the TFA to have such links at the top of the article, I'm sure the article will survive without it for 24 hours? ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★ 09:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
...A Gibraltar-based article is now TFA. Dear god, save us all. -- 85.211.117.11 ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
For others to understand the context of this thread, see Gibraltarpedia#Controversy. Also see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/History of Gibraltar for the TFA request and the related discussion. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
en.wikipedia.org##DIV[id="mp-tfa"]
and en.wikipedia.org##DIV[id="mp-dyk"]
. Problem solved. Works on Square Enix spam too, even if they still have plausible deniability that it's just the work of obsessed fanbois.
Kilopi (
talk) 08:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
They probably already exist on Wikia or other platforms.
Perhaps there could be 'an obscure field appearing on the main page' sweepstakes (with participants encouraged to develop the articles in the field). Jackiespeel ( talk) 08:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You know, it occurs to me... Gibraltar could be a truly awesome TFA for April Fool's day. That, or Fernando Lugo.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
As another suggestion 'Wikipedia Main Page Bingo' - people get a list of 12 topics and the first to get some reference to all of them (or the most by a certain date) wins. (Improving articles to manipulate the end resuld does not count as cheating.) Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
On the theoretical WMPB page there should be something similar to the random article link which selects 12 topics - a mixture of 'general', middling obscure, and a couple of stubs/'this article needs expanding.' Alternatively type in a term and get a list of12/24/36/48 (or 'easy, medium, difficult and fiendish') articles including a number needing care and attention. At least some articles are likely to be developed as a result. Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The wikipeida mobile main page lacks Did You Know, On This Day, and the featured picture section. Is there a reason for this? Maloof200 ( talk) 13:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
...the Rotolactor (pictured) was the first invention for milking a large quantity of cows....
— That would be a large number of cows, not "quantity." Sca ( talk) 14:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Number of articles in wikipedias has changed and the list we have is out of date. -- Zlobny ( talk) 06:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why isn't the Trayvon Martin verdict on the front page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomer Patrol ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that discussion is way beyond stupid. Nothing but media hype? What the hell is that based on? The Wikipedia page on the shooting is over 20,000 words long, and the article on the trial is well over 15,000. How can that be if those internet randoms are correct in their dismissal of this as something of little encyclopedica value? And Retrolord, you don't know what you're talking about. I live in the UK and I've been getting daily updates on this controversy on the national BBC news. Thankfully I was able to find the articles without them being on the main page, but no thanks to you apparently. It is unbelievable to me that Wikipedia can be so ignorant in how it chooses what is and is not important enough to display on the front page.
Can the discussion move to Bieberwiki/Fan website? Rudeness + not signing in = automatically losing the argument. (What is the 'law' being referred to here?) Some of us are equally indifferent to Bieber, the offside rule, leg before wicket and the non-appearance of the infant. |
I see that according to whoever writes the stuff on the Main Page, Lac-Mégantic is only located in Quebec, and Canada is not mentioned.
Why are you using a tragedy to promote the Quebec separatist agenda? This is the kind of stuff that I unfortunately expect from the French Wikipedia (which has always had a terrible separatist POV-pushing problem), but I thought the English Wikipedia was somewhat better regarding this kind of stuff. 198.168.27.221 ( talk) 19:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The main page is edited like it was a local newspaper for the USA and not the main page of an international encyclopedia. The latest is the "on this day" item on an obscure member of parliament who never was in government or held any significant position, who drove his car off a bridge, in an incident very few people outside the USA have heard of. Would we have such an item for a Bulgarian, or Polish, or Chinese Member of Parliament who had a car accident in 1980? Now a bunch of US users will come and tell me that the guy was significant in the US, but the truth is he was not on the top 100 list of the country's most important politicians in his lifetime, and of very little importance from an international point of view. Josh Gorand ( talk) 23:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason you all check DYK-OTD is to see if there are any Gibraltar-related articles featured! AHAHAHA. -- 85.211.117.11 ( talk) 18:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Moved to user's talk page. L Faraone 20:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It's more important the friend's day in Argentina! than the National Holiday in Colombia, when in 1810 Colombia begin the independence from spain!
Those Wolverines certainly must have one cunning PR person to have got themselves into virtually every set of DYKs for, what, a week? More? Awien ( talk) 14:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Ties in with the 'main page US centricism' discussion immediately above :) Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
On the Main Page, it says "Friends'". The page to which it links says, "Friend's". Which is correct: FRIEND'S or FRIENDS' ?
Day of the friend (friend's) - not, day of the friendS (friends')? CopperSquare 07:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sea of Tranquillity : should be Sea of Tranquility Doprendek ( talk) 22:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Could the separate article Belgian National Day be put on the page, rather than the simple "National Day" link, which just provides a list of national days, as at the moment? Many thanks! Brigade Piron ( talk) 08:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
As there 'will be a lot of it about' - don't complain, it will pass in a few days. Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
(reset) Trying to be ahead of the discussion - and I was including the Belgian monarchy in my comment (and will refer some of the replies to Emperor Norton). Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Just for everyone's amusement, there's now a discussion ranting about UK royalty at WT:ITN#UK country bias and procedure, incidentally by the same person who insists that the US Senate is a parliament in itself. – H T D 13:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
A man rides 2,000 miles through some of the toughest terrain France has to offer, battling 219 of the finest cyclists in the world. After three weeks of pain and suffering, he achieves the unthinkable - a second consecutive yellow jersey victory for a British rider, and a first for an African rider, on the 100th running of one of the greatest sporting events on the planet.
A foetus squeezes itself through a fallopian tube. It gets three times as much space on the front page of Wikipedia. (I know it looks like twice as much above - only twice! - but the picture placing makes it three times on the front page at time of typing.)
For the record, I'm not in any way outraged or pissed off. I think it's hilarious. -- 81.152.113.134 ( talk) 22:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The Duchess of York's offspring is of no relevance to the majority of users and it is suspicious that this would be posted a midst a media frenzy instigated by popular media. Also, there seems to be a lopsided amount of featured articles pertaining to primarily U.K. focused topics. As well written as they are, there are an inordinate amount of articles posted about "footballers", obscure English churches, English Clergy, British Politicians, etc... 74.33.25.132 ( talk)
The subject is the prince, not the Duchess. Now we have his name, the blurb should be the much simpler
" Prince George of Cambridge, third in line to the throne of the Commonwealth realms, is born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge."
μηδείς ( talk) 20:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK and OTD seem to be doubling up on Mussolini's fall. Sca ( talk) 14:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
There are four items on the main page today relating to royals. What's up with that? 72.28.82.250 ( talk) 17:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
A small annoyance I've been meaning for a while to bring to somebody's attention but haven't known whose, so I'll put it out here.
In English, adjectives don't show any agreement with the noun they modify, either in gender, or more particularly in number. We say "the hundred-yard dash" not "the hundred-yards dash", "a ten-foot pole" not "a ten-feet pole", "a ninety-seven-pound weakling" not "a ninety-seven-pounds weakling", and so on.
However, when people use the conversion tool to convert a measurement, the result is often the kind of thing we see in the caption of the upcoming Picture of the Day (the Black-headed Heron). Instead of the bird being described as having "a 150 centimetre (59 in) wingspan", which would be the normal formulation in English, what the conversion tool yields is "a 150 centimetres (59 in) wingspan" with its inappropriate plural "centimetres". Then it isn't possible to simply delete that "s", and the only way to get rid of it would presumably be to remove the automatic conversion and enter it manually.
So the question from a very non-technophile linguist is, is there any way of tweaking that tool? And if there is, would somebody do so? That would be good. Awien ( talk) 12:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what the convention is for updating the main page, but per the article the numbers have changed. "As of 23:00 CST, 23 July 2013, the earthquakes have caused at least 95 deaths, and over 1000 people have been injured.[4]". Thanks. ceran thor 20:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Why on all wikis title page is a space of articles? It is much more logical to call it Wikipedia:Main Page 31.42.225.206 ( talk) 05:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please correct the wording "Thor's hero shrew, the first known sister species to the armored shrew, is discovered."? There can only ever be one sister species to a particular species, so "the first known" doesn't make sense. "the first known sister species" would be much better as "the sister species". Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 16:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone tell me a little bit about the history of the main page. I would like to know the first dates that each section has run on the main page (and the last dates for any discontinued sections such as WP:TAFI).-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 12:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
(reset) Will 'the Proverbial Someone' write the article/section of the article on WP? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I was looking for a Wikipedia article about main pages, but it keeps redirecting me to the main page of Wikipedia! 2620:72:0:1108:1D89:1CC4:3B74:9039 ( talk) 15:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to criticise anyone, but I find it strange that an image of a US post office has been chosen to be diplayed in the DYK box, whilst at Ponte Vella, a much more impressive picture could have be found? That choice would have illustrated the DYK fact about the "steepness" of the bridge quite nicely.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 21:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I love the show as much as the next guy, but I'm not really sure that anything to do with it can be significant enough to get into ITN. It's not really up there on my list of significant events on the world stage. 75.156.68.21 ( talk) 01:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
So one moment I look, the story is up on the front page. The next, it's gone. The next, it's back again, and so forth. What a huge embarrassment this is for Wikipedia! Some of the most unprofessional display I have ever seen. Either the "in the news" needs to be scrapped completely for its lack of coordination, or some admins need to have their bits removed. 128.227.67.108 ( talk) 12:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
So, is The Idolmaster going to be the next Gibraltar/Lugo? I honestly would have never guessed that there was enough of an audience to have three separate DYKs in less than a week... Tupin ( talk) 04:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Love the little feature on Alice Huyler Ramsey featured in OTD. What a cool story! (Is there a book about it?) This is the sort of thing WP can do well. Great choice. Sca ( talk) 13:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
What an absolutely great article! Such an apparently trivial, irrelevant topic as an election for an obscure university chair a hundred and fifty years ago - and it turns out to be an amazing window into a bygone time and place, bringing it to life as history all too often fails to do. One of the best ever. Awien ( talk) 16:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Main Page blurb for Ranavalona I says:
Yet the text of that article mentions:
Between that and the mass executions and enslavements, it seems like a remarkably upbeat way to introduce someone who, if these facts are true, was surely a tyrant beyond Stalin. Wnt ( talk) 17:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Three stories involving Spain in OTD? Sounds like a spite against the British over Gibraltar if you ask me! -- 85.210.101.50 ( talk) 22:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have some thoughts about the mobile version of the main page, as seen at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - where is the best place to discuss them? Does it have a dedicated talk page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, all. The mw. page seems to be concerned wholly with technical issues. I'll raise a new sub-section, below, about my content-related concerns. Such discussions certainly belong on this wiki, not meta. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The en.Wikipedia mobile main page includes the day's featured article, and "In the news". It does not include "Did you know". "On this day", nor featured lists and images, nor any of the useful navigation aids such as "contents" or "help". I think these sections should be included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the above discussion, please change <div id="mp-dyk"> to <div id="mf-dyk">. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)So, does anyone have any views, concerns or other comments? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the mobile version is better without the additional content. I don't usually like sites where the mobile version is missing stuff, but in this case, the missing content isn't critical to the usability of the site, and would clutter and distract from what I'd guess most people are probably doing on the main page - search, in the news, and the featured article. (I wonder... has anyone ever done any analysis of the click patterns on the main page? What do people really use on it?) — RockMFR 03:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Can some one who knows, sort this out, ASAP?
it is on the Main Page today:
The article give conflicting accounts of the first temple
Neither ties up with the Main Page. Can someone check the facts and correct them, either on the main or in the article.
Also, given that there are numerous Ancient Roman depictions of Venus, both painted and sculptural) that might have some relevance to the article, the choice of a painting by the late Renaissance artist Titian, dating from about 1700 years later is, frankly, ridiculous! Any illustration needs to have relevance in context. This picture has no relevance whatsoever, not to the Roman Temple, and barely to the Roman deity, except that Titian needed to give the nude that he had painted a Mythological name of some sort, in order for it to be publicly acceptable and saleable.
Amandajm ( talk) 04:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The temple was dedicated on August 19 in the 295 BC during the Third Samnite War by Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges. It is possible that both that article and the Main Page are correct. Sort of. If the date in the article (August 19) is the date in the Julian calendar, then that corresponds to August 15 in the Gregorian calendar. See Old Style and New Style dates#Differences between Julian and Gregorian dates and extrapolate back: there is no year 0 [nor a discrepancy between the two calendars there anyway], so the difference between the two calendars between 100 BC and 1 BC is still -2. Between 200 BC and 100 BC, it would be -3. Between 300 BC and 200 BC, it would be -4. Therefore, August 19, 295 BC (O.S.) is August 15, 295 BC (N.S.). That being said, I don't know how the calendar discrepancy is handled in the On This Day section and associated articles; I would think they'd just use the Julian date for the anniversary date. (Also, I have no idea if August 19 is using the Julian calendar anyway.) Pinging Howcheng... (P.S. Next time, report your error in WP:ERRORS, where you're more likely to receive a quick response.) -- tariqabjotu 05:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The headline "Egypt declares a state of emergency as security forces kill hundreds of demonstrators supporting former president Mohamed Morsi." makes it sound as if the hundreds of people that were killed were just innocent protesters peacefully protesting(like the The Tiananmen Square Massacre), when in fact, that is not the case ( http://www.pravmir.com/egypts-muslim-brotherhood-in-destructive-12-hour-rampage/), ( http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/15/muslim-brotherhood-vows-more-protests-after-day-of-bloodshed/), ( http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/this_blood_is_on_the_hands_of_muslim_olptNuF89CVqLiPBzOu6OL).
I feel that TFP blurb should have description in two parts. One being about the subject of the picture; which we now are doing. But also some info about the picture should be added. For example for today's pic File:Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg we should add the medium of painting, its size, where its now located, etc. Some key features of the picture, like lighting effect, a particular angel or some technical terminologies of photography which can be demonstrated through it should also be mentioned. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"Humanising it" is a silly idea. Should we also have little biographies of those who have written featured articles? I'm all for more details about paintings (if they're significant in themselves, most of the blurb should be about the painting) but the photographs are not there because they're beautiful works of art, they're there because of what they show- a particular skyline, or a particular species of frog, a particular notable individual. That's what the blurb should focus on, that's what FP is all about. J Milburn ( talk) 13:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
There are currently two prominently located images of cute, furry mammals on the main page. This must stop before someone gets a cuteness overload! Rreagan007 ( talk) 06:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
And if you count the Bison featured picture, that would be three. Of course it's just a skeleton, so not furry any more - but it was furry once! -- GRuban ( talk) 17:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe this has been discussed before, but I must point out again the silliness of the random juxtapositions of text items and unrelated pictures. Today we have a photograph of broken buildings in a modern street apparently illustrating the defeat of the Byzantine forces at the Gate of Trajan in 986. Why is this problem never fixed? 86.146.108.14 ( talk) 01:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Please help WP:TAFI choose its future main page format from among 6 proposed formats that are up for a vote.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 02:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we the people have pages on Wikipedia? Why do you only have to be important to be on a Wikipedia page??— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.226 ( talk • contribs) 01:09, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
The number of featured articles hit 4,000 a few days ago. Shouldn't there have been some kind of celebratory banner on the main page? Rreagan007 ( talk) 05:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Never seen a featured picture on the front page of a Pony/Horse. I believe it is time for one. No neighs pls. 188.29.164.252 ( talk) 12:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All US/popular culture except one....♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Each of the main four boxes on the Main Page have a little footer with several links (eg. Archive – By email – More featured articles...). Each one has a small gap above it except for the DYK footer. This means that the footer is slightly cramped into the content. I know it's picky, but is there anyone who would like to take a look at it? violet/riga [talk] 18:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please add urdu wikipedia link on main page of english wiki
http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/صفحہ_اول
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Georgian wiki has more than 50,000 articles for now and it should be included in the languages bar below.
Why isn't it there? georgianJORJADZE 04:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note my comments, above abut giving some screen-space to smaller Wikipedias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to comment that it is great to see a Featured List in the Featured Article section. It is good to see we are moving on from previous times. Simply south.... .. fighting ovens for just 7 years 10:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This is likely the most controversial article on Wikipedia right now. User:Russavia is in the process of being de-bureaucrated for trolling Jimbo with this article. There is no way this would get through the DYK process if it had been brought to the attention of large numbers of Wikipedians. In short this is a pretty "good" example of what's wrong with Wikipedia/Commons governance. Please remove asap. Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Please remove Albert Bridage from on this day. Already in FA slot. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 02:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the article title is Chelsea Manning. However, I think the whole Chelsea/Bradley dispute is going too far. Unfortunately, it is discussed in Talk:Chelsea Manning, WP:VPP, WP:ANI, WP:BLPN... where else? I don't know if this is forum shopping, but I no longer care, now that talk is everywhere. Nevermind the current title... what are we going to do about the main page? You have "Chelsea Manning (legally, Bradley Manning)", and the hiliarity has been already done. Shall we re-nominate "Chelsea Manning" again? If not, then we should call him Bradley, regardless of current title. Thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I intend to phase out the use of {{ *mp}}; it has outlived its purpose. It was introduced to fix a minor consmetic flaw in Firefox prior to version 3.0. Those versions have fallen below 0.01% use. It is a badly coded template that relies on Tidy to work correctly, but as shown above, it also creates problems and has the potential to fail if not used correctly. I would like to ask the several MP projects (DYK, ITN, OTD) to remove it from any master templates to ensure its transclusion count does not go up (most of the transclusions are from archives). At one point, the template will just output "*" to behave like a normal list item. — Edokter ( talk) — 09:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
{{*mp|August 23}}
, so we are going to have to add alternate code to accommodate that, probably use a hidden comment instead. And are one or more bots still updating the
Did you know section, and all the queues and prep areas? If so, are they programmed to add {{
*mp}} automatically, and will just basically restore it again unless their bot code changes?
Zzyzx11 (
talk) 03:48, 23 August 2013 (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 170 | ← | Archive 174 | Archive 175 | Archive 176 | Archive 177 | Archive 178 | → | Archive 180 |
This seems pretty historic and noteworthy as current events go - front page mention? Challenger l ( talk) 16:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
In ice hockey, the Chicago Blackhawks defeat the Boston Bruins to win the Stanley Cup. – There are currently five links in the blurb. Fifteen words, of which nine are linked. Words not linked include three occurrences of the word "the", one "in", and the verb "to win". We all know there are no prizes for second place. I would suggest changing it to: "In ice hockey, the Chicago Blackhawks win in the 2013 Stanley Cup Finals". – much punchier, and draws the readers attention to the article on the victor and the match.
Similarly, Flooding in Alberta, Canada, results in at least three deaths and the evacuation of thousands. Instead of directly referring to the 2013 Alberta floods, and linking directly, an easter egg was created so that Alberta could also be linked. Facepalm -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
...seriously? -- 85.210.103.168 ( talk) 13:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
'Main page entries that cause much heat and light' are a regular phenomenon - but why does the article referred to above come up when doing a browser websearch on en.wikipedia.com? (ie going via the 'search' facility while checking emails). Surely a more recent main page should appear? Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
'Persistence of text' and following 'changes to Wikipedia articles perculating through to articles elsewhere on the wev' can be an interesting subject of research. Jackiespeel ( talk) 08:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a discrepancy between those who 'write' and those who read the main page. Perhaps we should vote to how much cricket we want to read about?
As I wrote on 30 May 2013, the Main Page of that day had an overrepresentation of cricket:
Rather than
apophenia, I now believe that it has to do with a large supply of cricket-related topics that are proposed for Main-Page use. I came to this conclusion, based on reading other comments over the years of people surprised with the high occurence of cricket as a topic of the Main Page articles:
Why does a Cricket topic appear in every other did you know article? That is the only "sport" that ever appears in the did you know.
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_42#Cricket_anyone.3F
It seems moderately redundant to give the same 1933 cricket event two prime slots on the main page
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_94#No_more_cricket.2C_Please.21.21
It really seems to me that the front page features a disproportionally large number of articles relating to the game of cricket, people who play cricket, and things done by fans of cricket.
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_97#Too_Much_Cricket
It seems like every day there's some trivial bit of cricket-stuff in the DYK list and today there are two.
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_98#Cricket_on_the_DYK
I mean it's all jolly fun and all, but there is a whole lot more to the sporting world than cricket and cricket players, I don't have specifics but I seem to see cricket related articles every other day on the main page.
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_153#Bias_towards_cricket_in_Did_you_know_and_Featured_articles
cricket is way overrated in Wikipedia. Almost every week there's a piece of news in the front page about a cricketer
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_158#Cricket
It seems moderately redundant to give the same 1933 cricket event two prime slots on the main page.
Talk:Main_Page/Archive_173#Too_Much_Cricket
Dvh369 ( talk) 15:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have suggested before that there could be 'themed MPs' (so ones which give emphasis to American topics, animals, sports, 'non-work-safe' etc).
Alternatively - try and improve 'articles on any topics that are not US/animal/sport/other bone of contention flavoured' so they have a better chance of MP status. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
...seriously? -- 85.210.101.91 ( talk) 15:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There will be visual editor soon. Jiawhein ( talk) 06:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, ITN is "not a news ticker." Still, it seems odd that Edward Snowden's travels (or lack thereof) don't make In the News. Sca ( talk) 14:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I can't see the "Complete list" link in the sidebar using Opera 12 under Windows 8. I can see it using Google Chrome, though. Please fix this issue. -- 41.196.255.154 ( talk) 15:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Mainly to start a new thread).
Two birds, some bats and a DNA-sequenced horse and nobody comments.
If there were one or two themed Main Page days a month (not necessarily obvious ones - so July might have things other than US and France) would there be fewer comments about April 1? Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Why was this closed? I like the idea of making themed main pages a more regular occurrence. I don't think it would even have to relate to the specific date; we could just pick a theme and run with it. Of course, articles picked would have to meet the normal criteria for each section. Actually, now that I think about it, an effort towards making something a "Main Page theme" could actually be a good way to motivate people to improve a subject area.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
'As a suggestion' in the same vein - using eg Library of Congress Classification/ Dewey Decimal Classification to select topics for Main Page happenings - 'Wiki flashmobtheme'?
Moved to WP:ERRORS. L Faraone 02:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh come on, no instant knee-jerk reactions to a United States defeat during the Revolutionary War being the featured article today? (tongue firmly in cheek) - Tenebris 01:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The page notice tells me that there is a different place for suggestions. I have checked, and there is none. Where should I go? buff bills 7701 — Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
For better or worse, Wikinews has a prominent icon-based link at the bottom of our main page, along with other sister projects. But I have never understood why In the news has yet another link to the English WN's main page, smack in the mid-top-right of the main page—prime real-estate if you ask me.
Editors who work on ITN articles produce excellent material, thoroughly worthy of main-page exposure. Many people are engaged in quality control. Why do they put up with the public degrading of their professional standards by allowing a permanent link—as though rusted on—to a page that gives every sign of being a chaotic hobby page for a few outlying editors who lack any proper editorial oversight? One of the enduring problems of Wikinews is the low number of editors who want to work on it (six regulars, is it?); in a self-reinforcing way, the amateurish output reinforces the disincentive for other editors to join. This has been the case for years and looks unlikely to change. The WN main page is usually a mixture of (i) threadbare internationally significant stories cobbled together with much less care and skill than our ITN writers, and (ii) local trivia. It is the second that is particularly embarrassing in terms of the link in ITN.
Until a few minutes ago we were treated to this poorly written offering, highlighted ORIGINAL REPORT in red caps: Canberrans flood Cotter Dam on open day, with pics that make the headline seem disingenuous. The piece opens with "Thousands of Canberrans took a look at the new Cotter Dam on the Cotter River on open day on Sunday. The public was given limited access to the still-active construction site. Buses took viewers from the car park below to top of the dam wall. They ran every 15 minutes from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm." Gee-whizz. Not a mention of the dramatic change in prime-minister in Canberra three days ago. Just a construction site someone happened to visit and happy-snap somewhere in Canberra. Who cares?
The text—hardly the length for adequate coverage, which is often a problem in WN "stories"—shows significant problems in logic and repetition. These glitches alone make the page remarkably unworthy of exposure via en.WP's main page. For example, "is to ... is to ... is expected to ... is then to ... are to ... is expected to ...". We have "It is ... It is ...", and "The concrete was ... The concrete was ..." opening successive sentences. Other repetitions are hardly the stuff of writing we want to show off on our main page: "The dam replaces an old dam", "replanted to replace".
The only source provided goes to a web page of the local water authority that has been building the structure for four years—hardly reliable by itself. Wikinews seems to think it will be complete by September, although the source is a good deal less specific ("2013").
Some of the current stories seem OK (and of global interest and significance), but are fast becoming out of date. And there's a slow turnover rate, for a site that bills itself as news (whereas ITN is themed more specifically). It's typical to find howlers or underwhelming material on the WN main page. Last time I pointed out a glaring typo in a headline, no one bothered to fix it.
Our ITN people cover unfolding events so much better, with a good sense of judgement as to international significance. Why, then, do we retain this very prominent second link on our main page? Isn't one link in our sister-project section below sufficient? And it's not as though Wikinews has the courtesy to return the favour, once, let alone twice. Time to adjust, I think.
Finally, I should warn that WN people hate criticism of their site and usually respond with highly personalised insults and no substantive defence of the impoverished product. I have a cast-iron shield against that when professionalising WP is at stake: it doesn't hurt. Tony (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per the above thread, it is proposed that the link to Wikinews in the "In the News" section be removed. 20:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, WN links within our articles should be treated no more favourably than any other external link, though having said that, most of said links to Wikinews stories are only fit to be treated as linkspam – they offer a lot less coverage and a lot fewer sources than the WP article in which the link is embedded. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Community input is welcome here. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I know nothing about the process by which Today's Featured Article is selected, but I have to ask--is today's selection purely coincidental, or is designed to help clarify things for people unfamilar with the terminology in this story in today's news? If so, it kind of seems to be in bad taste, but, meh . . . HuskyHuskie ( talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
So, saw this year's donation drive ad, and just had to wonder, what is the basis of Wikipedia being the #5 website? Alexa lists it as #7: http://www.alexa.com/topsites
Even wikipedia it's self cites it at #6, based on outdated Alexa info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.3.38 ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the Wikinews link in the news section? I noticed that it's missing because I usually follow it to go to Wikinews after checking the Wikipedia main page. Ragettho ( talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I find it perverse that in this section everything is about bad things, deaths, and tragedy all over the world except for England, where banalities such as Wimbledon are always there. It is clearly written with a British political bias.
I think the "in the News" should contain information about the
Srebrenica genocide.--
Ministar Nesigurnosti (
talk) 12:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
"More than fifty supporters of deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi are killed in clashes with the military in Cairo" and no Morsi supporters are killing anybody? TuckerResearch ( talk) 19:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Including a 200-word article on the main-page? The topic is interesting, but the article doesn't show it enough respect. How low are our standards for main-page inclusion? Albacore ( talk) 02:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we remove the note at the top about infobox merges? I don't think its appropriate for the TFA to have such links at the top of the article, I'm sure the article will survive without it for 24 hours? ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★ 09:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
...A Gibraltar-based article is now TFA. Dear god, save us all. -- 85.211.117.11 ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
For others to understand the context of this thread, see Gibraltarpedia#Controversy. Also see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/History of Gibraltar for the TFA request and the related discussion. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
en.wikipedia.org##DIV[id="mp-tfa"]
and en.wikipedia.org##DIV[id="mp-dyk"]
. Problem solved. Works on Square Enix spam too, even if they still have plausible deniability that it's just the work of obsessed fanbois.
Kilopi (
talk) 08:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
They probably already exist on Wikia or other platforms.
Perhaps there could be 'an obscure field appearing on the main page' sweepstakes (with participants encouraged to develop the articles in the field). Jackiespeel ( talk) 08:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You know, it occurs to me... Gibraltar could be a truly awesome TFA for April Fool's day. That, or Fernando Lugo.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
As another suggestion 'Wikipedia Main Page Bingo' - people get a list of 12 topics and the first to get some reference to all of them (or the most by a certain date) wins. (Improving articles to manipulate the end resuld does not count as cheating.) Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
On the theoretical WMPB page there should be something similar to the random article link which selects 12 topics - a mixture of 'general', middling obscure, and a couple of stubs/'this article needs expanding.' Alternatively type in a term and get a list of12/24/36/48 (or 'easy, medium, difficult and fiendish') articles including a number needing care and attention. At least some articles are likely to be developed as a result. Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The wikipeida mobile main page lacks Did You Know, On This Day, and the featured picture section. Is there a reason for this? Maloof200 ( talk) 13:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
...the Rotolactor (pictured) was the first invention for milking a large quantity of cows....
— That would be a large number of cows, not "quantity." Sca ( talk) 14:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Number of articles in wikipedias has changed and the list we have is out of date. -- Zlobny ( talk) 06:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why isn't the Trayvon Martin verdict on the front page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomer Patrol ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that discussion is way beyond stupid. Nothing but media hype? What the hell is that based on? The Wikipedia page on the shooting is over 20,000 words long, and the article on the trial is well over 15,000. How can that be if those internet randoms are correct in their dismissal of this as something of little encyclopedica value? And Retrolord, you don't know what you're talking about. I live in the UK and I've been getting daily updates on this controversy on the national BBC news. Thankfully I was able to find the articles without them being on the main page, but no thanks to you apparently. It is unbelievable to me that Wikipedia can be so ignorant in how it chooses what is and is not important enough to display on the front page.
Can the discussion move to Bieberwiki/Fan website? Rudeness + not signing in = automatically losing the argument. (What is the 'law' being referred to here?) Some of us are equally indifferent to Bieber, the offside rule, leg before wicket and the non-appearance of the infant. |
I see that according to whoever writes the stuff on the Main Page, Lac-Mégantic is only located in Quebec, and Canada is not mentioned.
Why are you using a tragedy to promote the Quebec separatist agenda? This is the kind of stuff that I unfortunately expect from the French Wikipedia (which has always had a terrible separatist POV-pushing problem), but I thought the English Wikipedia was somewhat better regarding this kind of stuff. 198.168.27.221 ( talk) 19:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The main page is edited like it was a local newspaper for the USA and not the main page of an international encyclopedia. The latest is the "on this day" item on an obscure member of parliament who never was in government or held any significant position, who drove his car off a bridge, in an incident very few people outside the USA have heard of. Would we have such an item for a Bulgarian, or Polish, or Chinese Member of Parliament who had a car accident in 1980? Now a bunch of US users will come and tell me that the guy was significant in the US, but the truth is he was not on the top 100 list of the country's most important politicians in his lifetime, and of very little importance from an international point of view. Josh Gorand ( talk) 23:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason you all check DYK-OTD is to see if there are any Gibraltar-related articles featured! AHAHAHA. -- 85.211.117.11 ( talk) 18:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Moved to user's talk page. L Faraone 20:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It's more important the friend's day in Argentina! than the National Holiday in Colombia, when in 1810 Colombia begin the independence from spain!
Those Wolverines certainly must have one cunning PR person to have got themselves into virtually every set of DYKs for, what, a week? More? Awien ( talk) 14:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Ties in with the 'main page US centricism' discussion immediately above :) Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
On the Main Page, it says "Friends'". The page to which it links says, "Friend's". Which is correct: FRIEND'S or FRIENDS' ?
Day of the friend (friend's) - not, day of the friendS (friends')? CopperSquare 07:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sea of Tranquillity : should be Sea of Tranquility Doprendek ( talk) 22:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Could the separate article Belgian National Day be put on the page, rather than the simple "National Day" link, which just provides a list of national days, as at the moment? Many thanks! Brigade Piron ( talk) 08:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
As there 'will be a lot of it about' - don't complain, it will pass in a few days. Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
(reset) Trying to be ahead of the discussion - and I was including the Belgian monarchy in my comment (and will refer some of the replies to Emperor Norton). Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Just for everyone's amusement, there's now a discussion ranting about UK royalty at WT:ITN#UK country bias and procedure, incidentally by the same person who insists that the US Senate is a parliament in itself. – H T D 13:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
A man rides 2,000 miles through some of the toughest terrain France has to offer, battling 219 of the finest cyclists in the world. After three weeks of pain and suffering, he achieves the unthinkable - a second consecutive yellow jersey victory for a British rider, and a first for an African rider, on the 100th running of one of the greatest sporting events on the planet.
A foetus squeezes itself through a fallopian tube. It gets three times as much space on the front page of Wikipedia. (I know it looks like twice as much above - only twice! - but the picture placing makes it three times on the front page at time of typing.)
For the record, I'm not in any way outraged or pissed off. I think it's hilarious. -- 81.152.113.134 ( talk) 22:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The Duchess of York's offspring is of no relevance to the majority of users and it is suspicious that this would be posted a midst a media frenzy instigated by popular media. Also, there seems to be a lopsided amount of featured articles pertaining to primarily U.K. focused topics. As well written as they are, there are an inordinate amount of articles posted about "footballers", obscure English churches, English Clergy, British Politicians, etc... 74.33.25.132 ( talk)
The subject is the prince, not the Duchess. Now we have his name, the blurb should be the much simpler
" Prince George of Cambridge, third in line to the throne of the Commonwealth realms, is born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge."
μηδείς ( talk) 20:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK and OTD seem to be doubling up on Mussolini's fall. Sca ( talk) 14:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
There are four items on the main page today relating to royals. What's up with that? 72.28.82.250 ( talk) 17:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
A small annoyance I've been meaning for a while to bring to somebody's attention but haven't known whose, so I'll put it out here.
In English, adjectives don't show any agreement with the noun they modify, either in gender, or more particularly in number. We say "the hundred-yard dash" not "the hundred-yards dash", "a ten-foot pole" not "a ten-feet pole", "a ninety-seven-pound weakling" not "a ninety-seven-pounds weakling", and so on.
However, when people use the conversion tool to convert a measurement, the result is often the kind of thing we see in the caption of the upcoming Picture of the Day (the Black-headed Heron). Instead of the bird being described as having "a 150 centimetre (59 in) wingspan", which would be the normal formulation in English, what the conversion tool yields is "a 150 centimetres (59 in) wingspan" with its inappropriate plural "centimetres". Then it isn't possible to simply delete that "s", and the only way to get rid of it would presumably be to remove the automatic conversion and enter it manually.
So the question from a very non-technophile linguist is, is there any way of tweaking that tool? And if there is, would somebody do so? That would be good. Awien ( talk) 12:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what the convention is for updating the main page, but per the article the numbers have changed. "As of 23:00 CST, 23 July 2013, the earthquakes have caused at least 95 deaths, and over 1000 people have been injured.[4]". Thanks. ceran thor 20:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Why on all wikis title page is a space of articles? It is much more logical to call it Wikipedia:Main Page 31.42.225.206 ( talk) 05:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please correct the wording "Thor's hero shrew, the first known sister species to the armored shrew, is discovered."? There can only ever be one sister species to a particular species, so "the first known" doesn't make sense. "the first known sister species" would be much better as "the sister species". Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 16:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone tell me a little bit about the history of the main page. I would like to know the first dates that each section has run on the main page (and the last dates for any discontinued sections such as WP:TAFI).-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 12:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
(reset) Will 'the Proverbial Someone' write the article/section of the article on WP? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I was looking for a Wikipedia article about main pages, but it keeps redirecting me to the main page of Wikipedia! 2620:72:0:1108:1D89:1CC4:3B74:9039 ( talk) 15:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to criticise anyone, but I find it strange that an image of a US post office has been chosen to be diplayed in the DYK box, whilst at Ponte Vella, a much more impressive picture could have be found? That choice would have illustrated the DYK fact about the "steepness" of the bridge quite nicely.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 21:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I love the show as much as the next guy, but I'm not really sure that anything to do with it can be significant enough to get into ITN. It's not really up there on my list of significant events on the world stage. 75.156.68.21 ( talk) 01:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
So one moment I look, the story is up on the front page. The next, it's gone. The next, it's back again, and so forth. What a huge embarrassment this is for Wikipedia! Some of the most unprofessional display I have ever seen. Either the "in the news" needs to be scrapped completely for its lack of coordination, or some admins need to have their bits removed. 128.227.67.108 ( talk) 12:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
So, is The Idolmaster going to be the next Gibraltar/Lugo? I honestly would have never guessed that there was enough of an audience to have three separate DYKs in less than a week... Tupin ( talk) 04:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Love the little feature on Alice Huyler Ramsey featured in OTD. What a cool story! (Is there a book about it?) This is the sort of thing WP can do well. Great choice. Sca ( talk) 13:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
What an absolutely great article! Such an apparently trivial, irrelevant topic as an election for an obscure university chair a hundred and fifty years ago - and it turns out to be an amazing window into a bygone time and place, bringing it to life as history all too often fails to do. One of the best ever. Awien ( talk) 16:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Main Page blurb for Ranavalona I says:
Yet the text of that article mentions:
Between that and the mass executions and enslavements, it seems like a remarkably upbeat way to introduce someone who, if these facts are true, was surely a tyrant beyond Stalin. Wnt ( talk) 17:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Three stories involving Spain in OTD? Sounds like a spite against the British over Gibraltar if you ask me! -- 85.210.101.50 ( talk) 22:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have some thoughts about the mobile version of the main page, as seen at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - where is the best place to discuss them? Does it have a dedicated talk page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, all. The mw. page seems to be concerned wholly with technical issues. I'll raise a new sub-section, below, about my content-related concerns. Such discussions certainly belong on this wiki, not meta. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The en.Wikipedia mobile main page includes the day's featured article, and "In the news". It does not include "Did you know". "On this day", nor featured lists and images, nor any of the useful navigation aids such as "contents" or "help". I think these sections should be included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the above discussion, please change <div id="mp-dyk"> to <div id="mf-dyk">. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)So, does anyone have any views, concerns or other comments? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the mobile version is better without the additional content. I don't usually like sites where the mobile version is missing stuff, but in this case, the missing content isn't critical to the usability of the site, and would clutter and distract from what I'd guess most people are probably doing on the main page - search, in the news, and the featured article. (I wonder... has anyone ever done any analysis of the click patterns on the main page? What do people really use on it?) — RockMFR 03:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Can some one who knows, sort this out, ASAP?
it is on the Main Page today:
The article give conflicting accounts of the first temple
Neither ties up with the Main Page. Can someone check the facts and correct them, either on the main or in the article.
Also, given that there are numerous Ancient Roman depictions of Venus, both painted and sculptural) that might have some relevance to the article, the choice of a painting by the late Renaissance artist Titian, dating from about 1700 years later is, frankly, ridiculous! Any illustration needs to have relevance in context. This picture has no relevance whatsoever, not to the Roman Temple, and barely to the Roman deity, except that Titian needed to give the nude that he had painted a Mythological name of some sort, in order for it to be publicly acceptable and saleable.
Amandajm ( talk) 04:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The temple was dedicated on August 19 in the 295 BC during the Third Samnite War by Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges. It is possible that both that article and the Main Page are correct. Sort of. If the date in the article (August 19) is the date in the Julian calendar, then that corresponds to August 15 in the Gregorian calendar. See Old Style and New Style dates#Differences between Julian and Gregorian dates and extrapolate back: there is no year 0 [nor a discrepancy between the two calendars there anyway], so the difference between the two calendars between 100 BC and 1 BC is still -2. Between 200 BC and 100 BC, it would be -3. Between 300 BC and 200 BC, it would be -4. Therefore, August 19, 295 BC (O.S.) is August 15, 295 BC (N.S.). That being said, I don't know how the calendar discrepancy is handled in the On This Day section and associated articles; I would think they'd just use the Julian date for the anniversary date. (Also, I have no idea if August 19 is using the Julian calendar anyway.) Pinging Howcheng... (P.S. Next time, report your error in WP:ERRORS, where you're more likely to receive a quick response.) -- tariqabjotu 05:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The headline "Egypt declares a state of emergency as security forces kill hundreds of demonstrators supporting former president Mohamed Morsi." makes it sound as if the hundreds of people that were killed were just innocent protesters peacefully protesting(like the The Tiananmen Square Massacre), when in fact, that is not the case ( http://www.pravmir.com/egypts-muslim-brotherhood-in-destructive-12-hour-rampage/), ( http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/15/muslim-brotherhood-vows-more-protests-after-day-of-bloodshed/), ( http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/this_blood_is_on_the_hands_of_muslim_olptNuF89CVqLiPBzOu6OL).
I feel that TFP blurb should have description in two parts. One being about the subject of the picture; which we now are doing. But also some info about the picture should be added. For example for today's pic File:Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg we should add the medium of painting, its size, where its now located, etc. Some key features of the picture, like lighting effect, a particular angel or some technical terminologies of photography which can be demonstrated through it should also be mentioned. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"Humanising it" is a silly idea. Should we also have little biographies of those who have written featured articles? I'm all for more details about paintings (if they're significant in themselves, most of the blurb should be about the painting) but the photographs are not there because they're beautiful works of art, they're there because of what they show- a particular skyline, or a particular species of frog, a particular notable individual. That's what the blurb should focus on, that's what FP is all about. J Milburn ( talk) 13:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
There are currently two prominently located images of cute, furry mammals on the main page. This must stop before someone gets a cuteness overload! Rreagan007 ( talk) 06:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
And if you count the Bison featured picture, that would be three. Of course it's just a skeleton, so not furry any more - but it was furry once! -- GRuban ( talk) 17:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe this has been discussed before, but I must point out again the silliness of the random juxtapositions of text items and unrelated pictures. Today we have a photograph of broken buildings in a modern street apparently illustrating the defeat of the Byzantine forces at the Gate of Trajan in 986. Why is this problem never fixed? 86.146.108.14 ( talk) 01:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Please help WP:TAFI choose its future main page format from among 6 proposed formats that are up for a vote.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 02:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we the people have pages on Wikipedia? Why do you only have to be important to be on a Wikipedia page??— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.226 ( talk • contribs) 01:09, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
The number of featured articles hit 4,000 a few days ago. Shouldn't there have been some kind of celebratory banner on the main page? Rreagan007 ( talk) 05:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Never seen a featured picture on the front page of a Pony/Horse. I believe it is time for one. No neighs pls. 188.29.164.252 ( talk) 12:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All US/popular culture except one....♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Each of the main four boxes on the Main Page have a little footer with several links (eg. Archive – By email – More featured articles...). Each one has a small gap above it except for the DYK footer. This means that the footer is slightly cramped into the content. I know it's picky, but is there anyone who would like to take a look at it? violet/riga [talk] 18:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please add urdu wikipedia link on main page of english wiki
http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/صفحہ_اول
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Georgian wiki has more than 50,000 articles for now and it should be included in the languages bar below.
Why isn't it there? georgianJORJADZE 04:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note my comments, above abut giving some screen-space to smaller Wikipedias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to comment that it is great to see a Featured List in the Featured Article section. It is good to see we are moving on from previous times. Simply south.... .. fighting ovens for just 7 years 10:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This is likely the most controversial article on Wikipedia right now. User:Russavia is in the process of being de-bureaucrated for trolling Jimbo with this article. There is no way this would get through the DYK process if it had been brought to the attention of large numbers of Wikipedians. In short this is a pretty "good" example of what's wrong with Wikipedia/Commons governance. Please remove asap. Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Please remove Albert Bridage from on this day. Already in FA slot. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 02:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the article title is Chelsea Manning. However, I think the whole Chelsea/Bradley dispute is going too far. Unfortunately, it is discussed in Talk:Chelsea Manning, WP:VPP, WP:ANI, WP:BLPN... where else? I don't know if this is forum shopping, but I no longer care, now that talk is everywhere. Nevermind the current title... what are we going to do about the main page? You have "Chelsea Manning (legally, Bradley Manning)", and the hiliarity has been already done. Shall we re-nominate "Chelsea Manning" again? If not, then we should call him Bradley, regardless of current title. Thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I intend to phase out the use of {{ *mp}}; it has outlived its purpose. It was introduced to fix a minor consmetic flaw in Firefox prior to version 3.0. Those versions have fallen below 0.01% use. It is a badly coded template that relies on Tidy to work correctly, but as shown above, it also creates problems and has the potential to fail if not used correctly. I would like to ask the several MP projects (DYK, ITN, OTD) to remove it from any master templates to ensure its transclusion count does not go up (most of the transclusions are from archives). At one point, the template will just output "*" to behave like a normal list item. — Edokter ( talk) — 09:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
{{*mp|August 23}}
, so we are going to have to add alternate code to accommodate that, probably use a hidden comment instead. And are one or more bots still updating the
Did you know section, and all the queues and prep areas? If so, are they programmed to add {{
*mp}} automatically, and will just basically restore it again unless their bot code changes?
Zzyzx11 (
talk) 03:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)