Talk:Main Page/Archive 124

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WAP version

I think that there should be a link to the mobile / WAP version in a prominent position on this page. The reason is that many people ask for a mobile version on OTRS, and even journalists specialized in IT stuff do not know it exists. Any opposition ? David.Monniaux (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a WP:WAP version? *gasp*. ffm 17:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
People actually use WAP? *gasp* ;) Modest Genius talk 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I do. When you're on a PSP, NDS, or an actual phone, it can be useful. ffm 18:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously your sarcasm detector needs new batteries. I was referring WAP's commercial flop. Modest Genius talk 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember, sarcasm is really helpful. ffm 22:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
To add to Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't an alternative main page skin, but more of a alternate wiki-wide skin. ffm 22:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
David, where are you thinking of placing it? I haven't seen the OTRS messages you have been been getting, but I don't see how this could be pressing enough to merit being placed 'above the fold'.- BanyanTree 01:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be possible, using CSS, to only display a message to handheld devices. Using something like:

@media all {
    #mainpage-wap-notice { display:none }
}
@media handheld {
    #mainpage-wap-notice { position:absolute; z-index:100; right:55px; top:10px; display:block; }
}

we could display something wrapped in a <div id="mainpage-wap-notice"> only to users using a handheld device, assuming they are CSS2 compatible. The above code would display the notice in the same location as the protection icons, regardless of its position in the wikitext. Mr.Z-man 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but does WAP implement CSS2? In any case, is this to be wiki-wide? If yes, see WP:VPP. If not, ignore the last sentence. ffm 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
According to the article, there isn't a good way to tell if you're on a handheld or not. ffm 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the idea is that we put something on the normal main page with a message displayed only to mobile users that we have a WAP version, there's no need to put it on every page. I would assume that since there is a "handheld" media type that at least some mobile browsers support it. The only other way to detect a mobile phone is using Javascript to detect the useragent, but given the huge number of different mobile browsers, it would probably be too much of a performance hit, especially for the mobile users (and fewer mobile browsers probably support Javascript then CSS2). Mr.Z-man 00:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I would always point users with phones towards downloading and using Opera Mini, as WAP is quite lame. But there are many sites which are capable of detecting you're viewing them with a WAP browser, and redirects the user to the WAP site. The BBC site does it, for one (and also detects PDAs and provides a tailored page), as does Google. Almost all WAP browsers support a WAP subset of CSS2 called WCSS; if you want a CSS sitenotice to point people using WAP browsers to the WAP site, [1] is a good start. Although not all WAP browsers correctly report the user agent, catching some would be better than catching none. Neıl 11:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just answered on OTRS a person using a Palm Trēo. Apparently our normal site does not work for him, while our WAP site works.

This may sound like a bold request, but I think the WAP link should be in the top section of the page, under "Welcome to Wikipedia". That is, where people can see it. David.Monniaux (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But why? That'd be filling up an already-cluttered page with a rarely used feature. Even Google doesn't do that. ffm 18:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Expression Error: Unexpected operator

Could this be on my end maybe? Pleasee see screenshot: http://members.cox.net/tjswoboda/Wikipedia.jpg TJSwoboda (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK has an expression error

DYK has an expression error in the lbs field --Lemmey talk 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That actually appears to be an error in {{convert}}. §hep¡Talk to me! 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the template wasn't modified. It seems to have appeared only for some users while it was on the Main Page. Weird... - BanyanTree 03:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not report to WP:ERRORS? --74.13.129.34 (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started a section at Template talk:Convert about this, since it has happened for a second time in a short while. - BanyanTree 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Image of George I

The image used by the main featured Article Image:George I of Great Britain.JPG has been nominated for deletion since 16 May 2008 on commons due to [[2]]. Should we have this image on the main page on that basis? GameKeeper (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Link for George I directs to a Disambiguous (sp?) page. Team4Technologies (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like copyright paranoia to me Modest Genius talk 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really, because the UK allows for copyright based on "sweat of the brow", meaning that the effort in creating even a faithful reproduction of a public domain work can result in a new copyright. howcheng {chat} 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The more I read about my own legal system, the more I hate it. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, I don't know why people keep pointing to that "Avoid copyright paranoia" page; it's not even an essay, but a discussion, where to me, the arguments in favor of more paranoia carry more weight. howcheng {chat} 17:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Because it's too much effort to write a new essay, duh ;). However, there are a number of salient points: a) the pic may well have been scanned from a book b) if it is a photo there's no way of knowing when it was taken c) the law is suitably vague as to what does and does not create new copyright d) it's highly unlikely anyone outside wikipedia is ever going to notice, let alone care e) even if all the previous issues take their worst case, the pic can still be used under fair use (which should still be allowed for the main page, but lets not get into that discussion again) Modest Genius talk 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New picture

Put a picture of one of the tornadoes in the news section. There's a good one in the tornado outbreak article. Wrad (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, could you show the specific image you are talking about? Unless it's of a tornado that is part of this particular outbreak, I do not think it would be a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's part of this outbreak! Look at the images in this article June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence. Wrad (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions can be posted at WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it. That article has already been suggested and is currently on the main page. We need pictures of the outbreak damage to replace the one that's been there for awhile. Wrad (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Wrad, please go to WP:ITN/C and suggest to the ITN people there to use the picture you like! (examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].) --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to see this image. If only it had been released under CC :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Wrad (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

language list

What about a section for languages above 750,000 articles(German wikipedia recently overstepped this border)?--Edroeh (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Or at least for languages above 500,000 (German, French and Polish wikipedia overstepped this border)? --Edroeh (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of a section with only one Wikipedia, but I think an argument could be made for a section with 500k+ articles. Anyone else have any thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
500k seems like a good mark to mention. §hep¡Talk to me! 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't seem all that necessary. The 300k+ one is already the smallest category, and it doesn't even go all the way across the screen once (at least on my resolution). Why bother creating a new category that would leave both of those almost empty? --Rory096 23:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've my memory of previous discussions is correct, I don't think there is much support for a category with only 3 items. There is definitely little support for a category with only one item. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
We definitely shouldn't be adding more lines to the section - four is plenty enough and arguably too many. We also shouldn't have any sections that aren't about one screen-width long - too long or too short both look horrible. Japanese Wikipedia has almost 500K articles, and Italian and Dutch are both headed there - if we want to bump up the top line, I'd suggest waiting for those to be over 500K, and then rethinking the design. Gavia immer (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"One screen width" is not a particularly meaningful phrase because people use different monitor/browser window sizes. howcheng {chat} 16:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That's true enough, of course. I said "about" for exactly this reason. It's still possible to get it close for the majority of viewers. In any case, "too small" is generally easy to judge, regardless of screen width (though even then, people on small mobile devices are an exception). Gavia immer (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia hacked?

Flag of Canada from the main page leads to a hacked page? Ozdaren (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You probably accessed a version of the page with vandalism. Pages linked from the main page, especially today's featured article, attract a lot of vandalism. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it was. I just tried to find the vandalized version in its edit history with no success. It did look like it was hacked, since the prank message covered the entire screen, not just the article space. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Probably template vandalism, that seems to be the weapon of choice at the moment. I'm not going to link for certain reasons, but my talk page was once completely covered in a message so that it was uneditable (the only way to get around it was to manually type the edit address in the address bar). J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I found here. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dense and overwhelming text for a welcoming page

I think the text on the Main Page is too dense and overwhelming. It's not this kind of text density is bad, but for a front-page welcoming page, I think it is.

Is it possible to space the elements and maybe remove or reduce text or elements which aren't absolutely essential to the Main Page? 217.132.3.125 (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Like this? --74.13.125.77 (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
By saying overwhelming text I didn't mean the text is complicated or the content too complex. I was referring to the form.
Maybe it's the four boxes (Featured article, In the news, Did you know, On this day) taking over the page above the fold in an unaesthetic form of 2x2 with almost identical dimensions for each box, and the wide text which is both unaesthetic and inconvenient. Maybe giving the Featured Article prominence would change that. It might be a good idea bringing the Picture of the Day above the fold to lighten up the dry feel of the small graphics in the sub-sections (I agree about the too many insects issue, though). Also, the Other Areas and Sister Projects sections are far more important than the Did You Know and In This Day sections. It's important users will be able to quickly figure out whether they landed in the right place to start their search or should change to a different site (such as Wiktionary). New users may find it comforting to immediately be able to access links such as the Reference Desk and the Help Desk (although the Help Desk itself is a disaster area for anyone new seeking help, but that's another matter).
I was thinking a two-column format with the left column wider than the right column (more than the current's format width). Left column would house the Feature Article, In The News (above the fold) and Did You Know, In This Day (below the fold). Right column would start with the Picture of the Day followed by useful links not found in the sidebar (maybe: quickstart guide, howtos, policies overview, project overview, etc.) and links to sister projects. The statistics and multilingual congratulatory text can stay at the bottom or even better eliminated all together or replaced by something more terse at the top of the page. This kind of format will also be more convenient for portable devices which are gaining market share.
What do you guys think? 217.132.3.125 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
From previous discussions, I don't think there is much support for making the POTD a column, we want to keep it wide as it works better in that way allowing us to have a large image and show the text without leaving a lot of whitespace. As to whether sister projects are more important then DYK/ITD, I'm not so sure about that. We already say at the top this is an encylopaedia. If you came to 'wikipedia' and for some reason are not looking for an encylopaedia but were expecting to find a dictionary or a news site, well then it's easy to skim through the page looking for what you want to know. (Or alternative you could just do a websearch for a dictionary or news site). However if you came to wikipedia looking for an encylopaedia, then you may very well be interested in reading about the encylopaedic articles we have, as illustrated by DYK and ITN. Also, I don't think it's a good idea for us to try to cater to all users with one page. There are various versions of the main page, and other alternatives for people with portable devices. There have been proposals to try to make it easier for people with portable devices to access these versions but I don't think it will be wise for us to optimise for them at the expense of the many people who are not using portable devices. Finally, I don't think the categorisation of multilingual wikipedias is intended to be congratulatory. It simply reflective of the fact that we need some way to categorise the languages since there are too many of them otherwise and it's difficult for readers to look through them, and going by number of articles is the least controversial option, trying to categorise by 'importance' of the language is likely to be a disaster. Categorisation by number of articles also helps reaeders quickly identify whether the other language version is likely to be of interest to them. Clearly one with onlt 100 articles is not going to be of great interest to most readers even if they would prefer a different language version. And the vast majority of people in this world, I suspect these days even the vast majority of people using the internet do not have English as their first language so they may very well be interested in a non-English wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
POTD definitely needs to be wide in order to accommodate the occasional panoramic photos we feature. howcheng {chat} 03:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

insect photos

Seems like every time I log in there's a lovely high-resolution photograph of insects. No offense to the photographer (often fir002 I believe), but perhaps he could expand his repertoire a bit? Wikipedia included -- I hope -- a bit more than entomology-related subjects. Maybe images other than photographs would be a good idea. Maps, graphics, ect. Apologies if this has already been addressed. Sammermpc (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you submit your pics and help Wikipedia broaden the pic selection? Or maybe you can log in more often. We have a wider selection than you think. See the archive. --74.13.125.77 (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

--three insect photos since May 1. Doesn't seem like an exorbitant amount to me. 202.131.182.41 (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it just bugs him?--Bedford Pray 10:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
*crickets* 86.44.27.243 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we do have a lot of non-insect photos and images (even videos)- all our featured images can be found here. We even have a section for diagrams, drawings and maps. Even if we're talking specifically about Fir0002, on top of his featured pictures of insects, arachnids and the like, he has got some FPs of transport, space, weather, fruit, other animals, flowers, birds, mountains, architecture and more- see his gallery. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Insects and flowers tend to appear a lot because it is posible that if you have the right kits and skills you can produce fairly consistantly good results. Other things have a greater element of needing to be in the right place at the right time in the right conditions.Geni 14:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sammermpc, this has to be pure coincidence because when I schedule the POTD, I make sure not to have picture of the same type all bunched together, so bug photos (for example) are usually spaced out with at least a week in between appearances. For example, in May 2008 we had bug pictures on the 3rd, 7th, and 11th (the latter two were allowed to be close together because the accompanying article was not the respective bug article), with no other bug pictures in the entire month. howcheng {chat} 03:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

death notices @ In the news

The death of the American journalist in In the news. Really, this is not the place for information on someone who is of no interest or importance outside the US. In the news has become very US-parochial recently. The Boy Scouts killed by a tornado - internationally newsworthy? I don't think so. There are tornadoes all the time in the US - do we need to report every single one? And to be brutal - four deaths is hardly newsworthy internationally. How come we don't report every death of four or more people from other parts of the world? I suspect this is to do with systemic bias of the editors choosing ITN entries - my guess is that they are probably American. Seriously, this makes Wikipedia look very silly. 81.156.175.234 (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The boys scouts made radio news here in the UK. And you're right, it is systemic bias - so do something about it. Submit news stories, or join the ITN crew an write new ones to be placed in ITN. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Still I think he has a point. If Trevor McDonald or Jeremy Paxman kicked the bucket through natural causes, I doubt that it would end up on the ITN here. Jooler (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This should be discussed in WP:ITN/C where it has already been discussed and I don't think either of these cases are comprable, and nothing to do with the fact they're British Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't they comparable? Can you think of something that is comparable? I'm happy to move this discussion to WP:ITN/C if required. Jooler (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
If Trevor McDonald kicked the bucket, someone would be free to submit it as "in the news" and we could see if anyone complained. I am not so sure. In any event, Tim Russert was one of the most well-regarded and important broadcast journalists in the US, and certainly newsworthy. I think it is silly to suggest it be removed because he is an American journalist. The question is, what other items were submitted for INT, from other parts of the world? What more newsworthy story does the Russert item displace - I do not mean hypothetically (cDonald) I mean, what else happened in the past 24 hours that ought to be in the news, but isn't, because the Russert item is occuping space? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It's questionable whether anyone would think it internationally important enough to list the death of the UK journalist through natural causes. Certainly I can't remember ever seeing such a death on the main page. I wouldn't have considered nominating Carol Barnes when she died. Yeah, but there was at least 40% opposition to Russert's death being on the ITN page. 60% support isn't the norm for a consensus. It was removed in good faith and then restored. Tim Russert's death is of little significance to anyone outside of the US. BTW I well remember a huge debate about putting George Best's death on the main page (see [8]); someone I suspect who was more well-known and more influential outside of his native country than Mr Russert. Jooler (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
In case it wasn't already obvious, I will not participate further in this off topic discussion, and there are similarly other people who will not. If people want to discuss this matter on ITN/C, where as I have mentioned it is alreayd being discussed, they are welcome to and are likely to receive a far better response Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert is internationally well known enough to make the ITN, but Arthur C Clarke and Heath Ledger weren't?? Sorry can't agree! 202.131.182.41 (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said that? If you'd followed the discussion on WP:ITN/C you'd know no one did Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting Tim Russerts death on the Main page goes to show just how bais wikipedia really is. It is very sad and pathetic. If he was not American it would never have made it. So unless you are an American your death is not important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.45.34 (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be stubborn; place the discussion at WP:ITN/C. Any other posts made after this edit will be removed w/o prior notice. --Howard the Duck 14:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientology @ DYK

The below was also posted on discussion under DYK section. Another article in that section suggested that this is the place to post content discussion and suggestings for that section.

I noticed there have been a lot of posts in the DYK section on Scientology. Recently 'Battlefield Earth' was a featured article. Is Wikipedia’s homepage being used to educate the public about scientology? I thought DYK articles were supposed to be thoughtful and engaging. The fact that L Ron Hubbard wrote a score for a movie is neither. The scientology facts are not interesting at all, and seem to be reoccurring. The other facts presented are usually very intriguing. When there are so many facinating things about the world I don't know, why would wikipedia waste valuable educational space for garbage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.48.146 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "garbage", but the reason that there have been DYKs about any topic, Scientology or otherwise, is that someone bothered to write those articles up. If you want topics that appeal to you posted on DYK, please start typing. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the Battlefield Earth article? It certainly wasn't flattering to scientology, so why worry? Wrad (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There is about 1 DYK item specifically about Scientology the religion (as opposed to someone famous for being involved with Scientology), and it mentions that someone criticized Scientology for something or the other. Other mentions of Scientology are featured because L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology but is also famous/interesting for other reasons. Look, I can assume you're one of those people who are nuts about getting rid of Scientology, which is fine and dandy, but take your battles somewhere where they are meaningful and intelligent-sounding. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Scientology is the correct place to discuss this, not here. Nil Einne (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ali Al-Naimi

I'm not sure where to post this, sorry if this is not the correct location, but it is rather sad to see that Wikipedia has such a poor article on Ali Al-Naimi, the Saudi Oil minister, who is probably the most influential person in the world right now, what with the food price crisis. Some experienced Wikipedians should really work on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.123.4 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good that you know that this talk page is not the correct place for this... For now, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion and seek help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government or Wikipedia:WikiProject Saudi Arabia. Don't forget that you can also start editing that Ali Al-Naimi page yourself and improve it in any way you like, or discuss with other editors of that page at Talk:Ali Al-Naimi about further improvements. Happy editing. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
See also WP:Be bold. In any case, this is not the proper forum. ffm 22:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article on June 14, 2008

Today's featured article has red writing (Expression error: Unexpected < operator in) after "The fruit can grow up to 30 centimetres" D0762 (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See here D0762 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Reported to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. D0762 (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Section started at Template talk:Convert. This is the second time this has happened in recent days, but apparently only for some users and apparently only on the Main Page. If you saw it, please go to the linked section and describe your system and browser. Thanks, BanyanTree 10:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put {{convert}} back onto the TFA. If anyone sees Expression error: Unexpected < operator appear again on the Main Page, please report it here. --- RockMFR 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We may want to take into consideration the items listed under 'On This Day' when determining the Featured Topic for that day. It is a little surprising to see the Canadian Flag as the Featured Article on June 14th, which is America's Flag Day. Although this sticks out, it serves as a reminder to avoid what could be worse - featuring one country or religion on the day held in importance for another country or religion when the two do not get along. Wilm1998 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeap! But Canada (not a U.S. state!) and the U.S. have been getting along alright since circa 1812. So it's okay this time. Probably a coincidence, anyway. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm...it's past that day now...wonder what the Featured Article of TODAY is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycwhiz (talkcontribs) 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Esperanto Wikipedia now with 100,000+

Hi, I'm an admin of Esperanto Wikipedia, and we just reached 100,000 articles. Is there any way you could put us in the appropriate list at the bottom of the main page ? Thank you beforehand ! Thomas Guibal (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Миша13 10:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on Esperanto Wikipedia getting over 100,000! Good job, everyone! --74.13.126.183 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am surprized that nearly fourty hours have elapsed now since this achievement, and there is no congratulation yet. -- 91.2.168.27 (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you're expecting... ffm 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I expect a congratulations in the next edition of Wikizine. Otherwise, I don't think there'll be any outer praise, but I expect rather a celebration at the Esperanto Wikipedia itself. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Esperanto still growing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.92.21 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, it is. ffm 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protecting articles on the main page

I had a brief look through the main page FAQ, and saw nothing on this. Should articles be semi-protected that appear on the main page? It seems that vandalism rates spike on alot of the articles when they achieve fame on it, and can give mis-represented views on people looking on pages off there. While there is no damage to the main page itself, i believe it could help the project on the whole. I am very sorry if this has already been suggested, which i am pretty sure it will have been, however i thought i should ask. Thank you, Metagraph comment 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOPRO. We want to encourage people to edit pages. Only in super special extreme circumstances is semi applied to front page articles. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Just realized that applied to the featured. I don't know if it was just the topic, but when my article Flash Focus appeared on DYK, it only got one edit. Sometimes articles are already semi'd (I note now that the 2008 NBA Finals is semi'd), but probably for reasons other than front page exposure. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Generally, the items at ITN and FAotD are the ones targeted since... they're at the top part? --Howard the Duck 07:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood, Didn't see that policy (what a weird acronym.) I realise that wiki's policy is that anyone can edit, i just thought it might be a good idea. I see that policy is disputed though.. maybe we'll see some changes soon. Maybe not. Oh well, thanks everyone! Metagraph comment 07:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When WP:FLAGGED is approved, that may be enabled for WP:TFA et others. ffm 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Woods image

Why is the picture of Tiger Woods still the primary news image given? The story was three days ago and has moved down, it's confusing to continue seeing this pic as the primary one of the current news day. Gwynand | TalkContribs 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Because nobody's proposed another one. ffm 17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I did yesterday. [9] But as an Anonymous Contributor, I cannot upload a new picture nor post it on ITN. Thank you, David Levy and Pharos, for cropping and posting my suggested pic on ITN earlier today. [10] --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Todays featured article, possible image

The abandoned city of Pripyat, near Chernobyl

The current FA, The World Without Us is lacking an image on the main page (the book cover is ineligible for obvious copyright reasons). May I suggest this image. It perfectly illustrates both the content (the author talks at length about Chernobyl) and subject matter (city without humans), and would fit easily into the lead. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't use thumb in the image, so I don't know if this is self-evident enough. Input appreciated. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Since clicking on the image still gives full information, and in many browsers mousing over the image will give its file name in a status bar and/or popup, and the article contains the image with context, I think it's self-evident enough. I say use it. --86.144.154.44 (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Good picture and relevant. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please add! Abandoned city, perfect! Lunakeet 13:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Either it needs to be cropped or not used at all. Panorama images do not work well on all types of display resolutions on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not use the book cover which is displayed prominently in the article, I think it represents it better.Akels56 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Due to possible copyright problems, bookcovers and other pics used in articles as 'fairuse images' (e.g. posters, stamps, screenshots,... etc.) are generally not allowed on the main page. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
WRONG. There are no 'copyright problems' with putting fair use images on the main page. They aren't allowed there because of an Argumentum ad Jimbonem and a unilateral undiscussed change to the relevant policy page. Fair use allows an image to be used to illustrate the subject when it is being discussed, and is thus perfectly valid on the main page. Modest Genius talk 21:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added the word "possible" to qualify the "copyright problems". Every time a copyrighted pic appearing on the Main Page as a fairuse pic, chaos (wheel wars, numerous arguments on Talk: Main Page and ANI...) ensues. Let's avoid pics that are not free, rather than waste time and energy on arguing how much fair use allows on the Main Page. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In the news

What follows was arbitrarily removed by a newcomer who complained about anti-americanism. This is not meant that way, but as a complaint about the often lopsided news coverage and that point stands. What was removed was this.

I know, I know, this topic has probably been discussed to death, and somebody will tell me to do something about it, if I'm not satisfied, but out of today's seven items of news, one concerned Tiger Woods winning a tournament and one was about baseball!!! This may be the English Wikipedia, but it does have a global readership. Cheers Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Another US-oriented newsflash is about a flooding, displacing thousands. An item about a flood in China, displacing 1,7 million people managed to squeeze in between the two US sports items. Jeez. Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out WP:ITNSPORTS. And make a case to remove basketball there. I gotta say the NBA Finals was followed elsewhere, especially this year with the bandwagoneers and with the people who want nostalgia. --Howard the Duck 16:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
And geez, the items in ITN are in chronological order, NOT by importance. --Howard the Duck 16:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Valid points, more or less. I still find the news coverage skewed, however. Maybe you find fault with the wording and sentiment, and obviously the spelling (but who's to say how an exclamation like [g|j]eez is spelt?), but the main point about reinserting this thing was that you simply don't remove an entry, you debate it. That you have done. Kudos. Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no debate on removing an entry when it's at the bottom. The oldest goes away and goes to a happy place. --Howard the Duck 16:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
That was not what I meant. I am aware of the chronological order - I've been around since 2004. I do have issues with removing entries on talk pages, which was what Five Fifteen did. That is censorship which has no place on a talk page. I'm well aware of the fact, that the news items themselves go to "former news heaven". And, BTW, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, geez and jeez are equally valid. All the best Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Let it be known that I have no issues with geez or jeez or however it is spelled. I'm just pissed off when an American sports story is objected at "not international" enough. Sure say that to the NFL but baseball and basketball are widely followed elsewhere. As for hockey, leave it to the Canadians. ITN is "international," not "global" or "worldwide" interest. Start complaining if MLS or arena football is posted. --Howard the Duck 17:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
When I wrote the original objection, two out of seven items were sports-related, mostly about US-specific interests. (I made a mistake in writing baseball, thanks for the correction.) Now, like it or not, this is the international Wikipedia for reasons I probably don't have to spell out. My jeez was a reflection of frustration, not ignorance of order. And since the news of the day can only contain so many items, I think that is skewed and distorted. What about Darfur, Congo, EU-politics etc. which are (IMNSHO) far more important than Tiger Woods? You disagree, but this is not a sports page nor is it a local news page. All the best Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: Why do you distinguish between international on one hand and worldwide and global on the other? Cheers Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The NBA Finals and the U.S. Open (actually, if this is U.S.-centric, then Wimbledon should be Britoncentric too, just that the Brits suck at tennis nowadays so it appears to be more "international.") are scheduled at the about the same time so we can't prevent that they'll come one after another (it used to be "worse," the Stanley Cup Finals ended a few weeks before the NBA Finals). As for what you've said, and running a quick scan on WP:ITN/C, there are no updates from those issues -- sure they're all ongoing but nothing is ITN-notable for them to come up again. Now if something newsworthy happens in Darfur (not that what is happening there is not newsworthy, but there are no fresh updates as of the moment) then it should be added as long as the article/s is/are updated.
As for "international" and "global," if we'd use "global/worldwide" as criteria, ITN will be stale for like weeks. International makes ITN rotate items much more quickly. If we'd use "global" we won't see, say, elections in some third world country or Euro 2008 (just the World Cup), although in the "international" criteria they'd be included rather easily. --Howard the Duck 18:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. And that, I believe, should conclude this discussion. I hope there are no hard feelings. All the best Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Wimbledon is an international competition, regardless of where it is held. Therefore, it would not be Anglo-centric to focus on it. Carry on. 86.139.50.57 (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
So are the two U.S. Opens. --Howard the Duck 03:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK - not neutral

The Barrack Obama DYK is not neutral. Come on people, were in the middle of a US election, we really don't want to use the main page to advertise who campaigns for what. Tourskin (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading it. What is specifically unneutral about it? Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a slippery slope. Are we going to give John McCain equal time? Otherwise, it could be construed as a veiled endorsement of Obama. --Nricardo (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Good to know someone is reading the DYKs... --Howard the Duck 18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that it's simply totally uninteresting and surprising that such info would be in the DYK. As for a veiled endorsement, I'm not seeing it. Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've passed more boring DYK hooks, but I do see the "endorsement". --Howard the Duck 18:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we already have. The following is excerpted from a DYK earlier this month: "...that John McCain was a member of the VA-46 Clansmen (insignia pictured) when he was wounded during the 1967 USS Forrestal fire off the coast of Vietnam?" So, if we stick to the view you espouse that for neutrality we need to include both sides, the DYK team were in fact *obligated* to use this hook! :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Now we just need one for Nader and we're all set!Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, the Equal Time laws only cover Television, not print publications and the internet. ffm 19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I missed that McCain thing. Well, generally speaking, two wrongs don't make a right, except that its now neutral. Who was to gurantee that after a McCain DYK, there would have been an Obama one? Its easy now to say its all neutral now that both candidates have been mentioned, but even mentioning them both in my opinion makes wikipedia look like its part of it when it shouldn't. Besides, time wise its unfair to have one before or after another, so I think we should have not had it in the first place, either of them. Tourskin (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, U.S. elections go on for a ridiculously long period of time. If we go by the start of the primaries (which is skipping the prior six months of fundraising campaigning) then we're unable to post anything about U.S. politics for eleven months every four years, almost a full quarter of the time - which seems a bit extreme to me. GeeJo (t)(c) • 11:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It's probably okay to post DYK about U.S. politics not related to any ongoing election campaigns. Hooks about U.S. politicians who are already inactive should be fine, too. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I count 4 DYK's with the common thread of them being part of the National Register of Historic Places. Just an observation.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia and not the US Wikipedia and so I don't think that mentioning just one of the US presidential candidates (given that both are US Senators and hence have some notability) is non neutral. It won't have any affect on the way that I vote, or for that matter any other citizen of the UK (or Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, the Philippines, St Lucia, Nigeria, Barbados, etc).

I don't think that a mention in Wikipedia's DYK will influence many voters, however it would, IMO, be a bit dumb to comment on one candidate and not the other just before the election date, not because of bias but because of perceived bias. This far away from the election date however I cannot see any problem.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is not really that influential. But the appearance of bias should be avoided. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve Stamkos

Is it okay to add an "in the news" headline about the NHL draft? I was very excited to hear the Macedonian-Canadian Steve Stamkos was picked #1 overall, and since there are alot of "in the news" headlines about sports, I thought that could be one also. Mactruth (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally, we only add sports news for events that are listed at WP:ITNSPORTS. While this is big news in Canada (though not unexpected) this most likely does not meet our general standards for inclusion. You are however welcome to add it to Portal:Current Events. Thanks. Random89 06:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Current events/Sports may be a better place to add this news headline about the 2008 NHL Entry Draft. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

FA picture

Wouldn't it be better to have a cut-out of the fake screenshot to accompany the blurb? So that part of the text disappears off the right-hand side but the "Dear valued customer..." and "We have received notice..." is at least readable. I've seen news organisations use screenshots like this plenty of times.

Alternatively I'm surprised no-one thought to draw a quick-and-dirty illustration - you know, a guy in a stereotypical robber's striped jumper and mask sitting by a river, dipping a fishing rod in a pond full of floating dollar signs, something like that. --86.147.173.179 (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Such a quick-and-dirty illustration may appear too comical, and doesn't reflect reality. Perhaps replace the pond with a computer monitor? :) --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Age of Empires

Putting an entry about computer-game on the main page demeans the standing of this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-19 19:48
Read systemic bias then stop complaining. Computer and video games (note no hyphen) do not demean anything, least of all this encyclopedia. —Vanderdeckenξφ 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It could be said that complaining about the recognition of a well written comprehensively encyclopaedic article belies your lack of effort in improving articles of a non video game-esque nature. 86.139.50.57 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to support the view that video games shouldn't be on the main page but we don't have to bite the newcomer's head off either. Tourskin (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
But newbies are delicious... Raul654 (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What newbie? 80.189.103.145 has been around since September 2007! --199.71.174.100 (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't tell for sure. IP addresses can be shared, or might change. The person who wrote the message above might not be the same as the person who edited in September. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Right. Don't assume anons to be anybody. (S)he may be a rogue admin, which is not likely to be delicious. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Should've went with the no pictures argument. It would've trolled better.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully concerns like this don't go into picking the articles to hit the front page. Mac Davis (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland

The years in the blurb should be formatted "(1922–1969)" without spaces, and without linksper WP:MOSDATE. indopug (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
For that matter, I cannot remember the last time that an individual's years of birth and death were included on the main page. Should these be included? It doesn't matter eitherway, I'm just curious as to why we have chosen to do it this time. Bobo. 01:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe they were added in response to this. Nufy8 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you very much for directing me to that link, Nufy8. So is this the "done thing" from now on, birthyear (and deathyear if appropriate) included in a main page featured article biography? It would be good to have consistency eitherway, though I have no opinion as to which would be better. Bobo. 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Raul (the FA Director) will probably be including DOB and DOD in all future biography blurbs. Nufy8 (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
We had a recent discussion, and it seems Raul has agreed that the dates are a valuable addition Modest Genius talk 17:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC at TFA/R

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Facilitating TFA suggestions, request to unprotect the TFA blurbs and let the community choose them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also an alternative proposal to keep the blurbs protected, but to open TFA requests to the community in a more structured way... as overseen by a TFA director. Wrad (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ice on Mars presentation in front page

That's not strictly Main Page material but it is related to its presentation. First, it strikes me that it's slightly hard to find which is the main article of the sentence. Is it Mars or is it Phoenix. Since I've been using wikipedia for some time, it's obviously not Mars, that'd be an article on it. Perhaps it needs to be somehow more prominently shown. Secondly, shouldn't the main article about it be about a mission finding ice on Mars? It's an article about a craft. --Leladax (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For ITN, the link in boldface should be the "main" article. That's the "updated" wikipage, per ITN rules. If the bolded link doesn't lead to an article with details of the story highlighted on ITN, please consider posting a complaint at WP:ITN/C or Template talk:In the news. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hi, I meant to do this earlier, but was caught up with dealing with a load of other things. Anyway, I semi-protected this talk page due a sockpuppetry attack that spilled over from another article. This note is to inform people of that protection, and that since the protection is set to indefinite, any admin may choose to set the protection back to move=sysop after a few hours if they wish, though I do plan to lift my own protection of the page later anyway. Thanks. Acalamari 22:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the same Argentinian sockpuppets are back, so it's been semi-protected again for awhile. Nufy8 (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's Featured Picture

Not technically an arror, so I'm posting here. As of this revision, the featured picture is a video. I'm not saying people are dumb and would think its a picture, but it somewhat implies that it always has to be a picture to be feautured. We could change the name to Today's Featured Media to include picture and picture. Just a comment. =) --DA PIE EATER (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to say the same, so it's pretty obvious that it should be either "media" or "video", can you change it since I cannot edit this page.--71.190.86.64 (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Your comments should really be made on Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures. "Today's featured picture" on the main page shows one of the many featured pictures that have been selected and promoted ... but is seems that they are nominating and promoting videos over there too like this one, this one, and that one. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Think of it as a "moving picture" (hence the word "movie"). howcheng {chat} 05:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
(Reply to Zzyzx11) Thanks for the suggestion. I'll go ask them now. =) DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would support a change to 'featured media'. We might even get a Featured Sound on the main page. GameKeeper (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Amarnath

I wonder what's so internationally important about the Amarnath news. Maquahuitltalk! 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"what's so internationally important" about most other news? most news have to start locally. a minority is international, e.g. UN summits. --131.227.208.101 (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I cannot currently help you. It was suggested on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#ITN Candidates for June 25, but it currently does not explain your concern. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And what does the hook mean by a "land transfer"? Did someone dump a pile of dirt there? There is no context for understanding this news item, nor any link to a larger story. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that rather odd, too. I don't know how to fix it. Does anyone have any better ideas? Please post alternate wording at WP:ERRORS. I hope this gets fixed soon. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
See Amarnath#June_2008_protests. Muslims and Hindus had riots over the transfer of forest land to Amarnath so more people could be accomodated at the site. 66.213.14.239 (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting news

Just a small idea. Should sports be split from WP:ITN? Template talk:In the news#Split? Simply south (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Main page hacked?

The main page now displays just an image of some guy. Is this happenning just to me or is the page hacked? Admiral Norton (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything unusual at the moment. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my browser was doing strange things. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure it was Fernando Lugo (bottom right)? :) Rudget (logs) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the news section becoming regularly updated

Lugo! Better than Wikipe-tan

It is amazing how fast the news section is updated now, compared to the infamous "Fernando Lugo picture", that I had become tired of seeing. So I hope that the ITN section keeps up like now and stays that way. Now Wikipedia ITN is not stale, and headlines are changing every day. I'm glad to see ITN updated so regularly.--J.C. (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also want to recognize Pharos and BanyanTree for especially being part of the change and to everyone else who helps decide the wording and what goes up. SpencerT♦C 12:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Time for barnstars, eh? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
PFHLai already presented Pharos and I with some, but thanks for the thought. - BanyanTree 06:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I miss Lugo! Let's bring him back! 86.44.16.82 (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
We should put him back on ITN on april fools day ;) Modest Genius talk 20:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ITN photo / story disjunct

Hi. This may be a FAQ but I'm uncomfortable about the way that the photo of Mugabe looks like it's illustrating the story about FARC. There's such a large gap between the photo and the "pictured" text, anyone casually looking at the page will be misled. Which is A Bad Thing for an encyclopedia. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A user uploaded a free image from Agencia Brasil of Betancourt. I've put it in ITN. Maxim(talk) 12:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions of ITN pics are best posted at WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is my ticket valid?

InTheNews says flights resume? Can I get a refund please? --Leladax (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

From us, no. Ask your carrier. ffm 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Will you donate? —Animum (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nkhotakota

Nkhotakota is hardly a new article. Did Did you know? bend the rules? MMetro (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles which have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also eligible. Nkhotakota is one of these (diff). Oldelpaso (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
WHere can you follow the stats for those candidates? MMetro (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Candidates are nominated at Template talk:Did you know. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What stats? You mean text length? Just count. --74.13.130.134 (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Redesign?

Due to a few comments on IRC, I have started redesigning the main page, here. I would like some more opinion on weather it really needs a redesign. Also, if you agree that it needs a redesign, suggestions are very welcome, and encouraged. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The current design was introduced in March 2006, here. That's coming along 2½ years ago. I strongly agree it could do with a revamp. I think that featured portals should be given a place on the main page, and more prominent areas of the encyclopedia should be given space. There are several links which seem out of date too, and the whole thing is rather bland and unexciting. I think a competition of some sort would be a good idea to introduce a new design, which can be voted on. Al Tally talk 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a new version would be nice. TBH, not sure I like your design, Ryan. Al tally has a good idea; give the entire community a chance to get involved, and holding a vote for the best one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
On a more specific, design-oriented note, I think the "In the news" and "Did you know" sections need to trade places. —Animum (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryan - I like the colored headers as they set everything apart in a new way, but I don't like the font choice at all. Just one man's opinion. JPG-GR (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A revamp is long overdue, and i like ryans design   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The discussion and voting on the current main page design is archived on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page. Over 800 Wikipedians voted on several proposals. A similar number of proposals, debate, and discussion would be needed for a new main page design. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
broken in the classic skin but in any case I see little reason for change.Geni 02:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't see any problems with the page as it is, indeed it's better than a lot of other 'major' sites Modest Genius talk 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the comments by Al tally, It doesn't matter when the page was introduced - age is not proportional to any kind of measurement of lack of quality. If anything the age is probably a boon. The older it is, the more familiar people are with it, and the longer it has stood the "test of time". On the other hand, I don't see proposals for a new page as a bad idea in itself; just as long as the new page offers truly clear benefits. As previously stated -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broken, prove that it is broken first, then fix it. Novelty should not be a consideration in favour of change. User A1 (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I said several reasons why it should be changed, if you care to read my comment properly. Cheers, Al Tally talk 11:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I know, I just only commented on one aspect of your post. User A1 (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to the internet, 2½ years is a long time especially for a dynamic content website like Wikipedia. I don't think being the "old standby" is really a good thing on the internet. Nobody's talking about fixing it. This would be more like an enhancement or maintenance. You don't wait for your engine to seize up before changing the oil in your car; "not broken" isn't much of an argument against change. A competition sounds like a good idea. Mr.Z-man 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Except the changeing oil would be the the equiv of keeping up with changeing browser standards which we do.Geni 02:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the main page of English Wikipedia should re-design and for me, the main page design of English Wikipedia is the worst main page in any major Wikipedia language versions. My suggestion is to add portal lists like in Spanish Wikipedia.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What's with the fear or courners?Geni 02:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the portals system really works here (maybe the experience elsewhere is different). If I were making changes I would replace the current portal list at the top of the page with a search feature. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • See here. Comments to get this going would be appreciated. Al Tally talk 20:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll submit a copy of our current main page... I like it just fine. · AndonicO Engage. 20:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I like your main page. I like the colors, and the Wikibar2 image. I think the font should stay the same though, the standard font of all Wikipedia articles and other namespaces. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but previous experience on designing boxes on Wikipedia taught me that round corners do not work on IE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8Beta. --haha169 (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured User of the Day(Week?)

I've been looking at this main page for years and I think it would be a cool idea to feature an editor every day or week. Create a small section in the top that features an active editor and a short motto or introduction to that user. Just an idea I thought I would trow out to you guys. What do you think? I mean, it can be pretty basic and help show Wikipedia's interaction. Thanks, ciao! --Eric (mailbox) 08:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't happen, because A) the main page is for readers, not editors B) The selection process would take forever C) The wiki-community is simply an artifact of the attempt to build an encyclopedia. ffm 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Also D) for drama.-Wafulz (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Would Wikipedia:Community Portal be a better place for this? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It would, but I still wouldn't support it for reasons B, C and especially D. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I wonder what would the criteria required to become a Featured User. You must have at least 10000 edits, 10 different types of barnstars, have written at least 3 Featured Articles and have been editing on Wikipedia for over 3 years. :P GizzaDiscuss © 12:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Let the people at Wikipedia:Community Portal deal with the B, C &D. :) --199.71.174.100 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think featured users is not that bad idea, because of empowering competition among editors. However, the featuring system would have to be hell complicated to work. Good idea would probably be to reward the "featured status" for a limited time and allow "degradation", so that the user would have to be active (otherwise thered be tons of featured dead users). Maybe, calling it "active users" would be more appropriate. Someone wants to write a real (policy) proposal? --Kozuch (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting idea, but personally I'm against it. I've been editing wikipedia for roughly three years, and I consider my limited edits to still be very helpful (less than 1000 most likely). Having a featured editor section would distract from the idea that every editor, whether they have one edit or 40,000, is important to making this encyclopedia as great as it can be. Also, it would cause drama and bitterness for the "qualified" editors who didn't get picked. (personally I think the barnstar system is more of a popularity contest than anything else). DaRkAgE7 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
In lot of ways admins are featured users, even though they shouldn't be. Much of the criteria that would apply for a featured user would be similar to what is already applied in RFAs. As it is, the status of "admin" has made the Wiki community quite divisive so I wonder what will happen when a new status of "Feature User" is created... GizzaDiscuss © 06:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Given the drama we get appointing people to a position which is 'no big deal', can you picture the discussions for promoting people to a status which actually says "this user is better than that one"? Olaf Davis | Talk 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Good editors are rewarded with barnstars, or better, a note of thanks/congratulation/effort etc on their talk page. RfA is bad enough without users being scrutinized for their potential appearance on the Main Page. The MP should be strictly kept as a professional-looking encyclopedic taste of what Wikipedia has to offer. The vast majority of readers don't know/care who is writing their material, as long as its their for them to read. I cannot support this sort of proposal, as it will lead to petty problems and disputes that can be easily avoided. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't have to be that complicated. I proposed a basic version here. I used a user box becuase it is in regards to a user but am thinking of using it in AD format. Anywho, I wouldn't make it out to be a position where you have to fight for it. An administrator will pick a user out every month.(I propose month becuase it will make this a task for the admin responsible a lot easier) Basic requirements are atleast 500 contributions to mainspace and currently active and not away or on a Wikibreak. If you guys have ideas to outline a basic guidline feel free to. --Eric (mailbox) 10:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Eric, I have to agree with the other editors on this one. A "User of the Month" would cause entirely too much drama. You say that an administrator will pick out a user every month. Which administrator? Wouldn't there be a fight to be the admin who chooses the user of the month? Though we have a lot of well-intentioned people on Wikipedia, that kind of power struggle is basic human nature. Moreover, your proposal doesn't really help us with the task at hand. We are building an encyclopedia, and while there's nothing wrong with an occasion Barnstar to reward a hard-working editor, we shouldn't stray to far from the work we need to do. That was the problem with Esperanza, a project that emphasized the social aspects of Wikipedia over the actual encyclopedia. That project was shut down because it created more drama than information, and I suspect that your proposal would do the same. Lovelac7 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This discussion does not seem to relate to the main page anymore. Pls continue at WP:Village pump. Thanks. --74.13.131.22 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No need to move this to another category. It will continue at the proposed re-design section where it is selected in. I think we can "archive" this discussion now. Thanks for listening. --Eric (mailbox) 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lal Masjid suicide bombing

The In the News coverage about the suicide bombing in Pakistan now has a separate article - Lal Masjid suicide bombing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Pls report problems at WP:ERRORS or #Main Page error reports above. --76.64.76.45 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Plus, that article is not yet long enough for a bold feature. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming featured picture to featured media

As of today, video sequence is present. The currernt section name is misleading.--Kozuch (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If we did so, we'd get more pedants showing up telling us that since we're only showing one piece at a time, it should be "Featured Medium". You can't please everyone. :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 12:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a problem with a name "Featured Medium"? I dont have it.--Kozuch (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You'd then get people complaining that the title was too stilted or formal. GeeJo (t)(c) • 15:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
... or that we do not feature enough psychics. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
How about 'Featured item from the 'Image:' namespace'? (seriously, I see no problem with 'Featured Medium', after all - this is a formal project)...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 16:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Fearing people complain is no solution. Lets try the rename to "Featured medium" and hence more videos and audios can appear too (which I find good too).--Kozuch (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You'll just get lots of complaints about pictures no longer being featured.-Wafulz (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
By media, I mean all Commons - so pictures, video, audio.--Kozuch (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to be humorous in pointing out that the Main Page discussion page is a lightning rod for complaints - you will always find someone who will complain about how things are. So we ask ourselves: Why we need to change TFPs title? Do we do it just because we fear that someone will complain that the title is misleading? (BTW, as a native English speaker, I hardly ever hear "Medium" used to refer to audio/visual contexts, it's always media the plural. "Medium" (singular) is used to mean between two extremes, or a psychic. Besides, the real meaning of medium in the A/V context is the conveyance, not the content: "A format for communicating or presenting information.". We are not featuring the medium (the conveyance), we are featuring the content.) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not offering an opinion on whether we should rename FP but I don't think the name is a barrier to us featuring video or audio. While I admit I don't take part in any selection discussions I strongly suspect that you will find any arguments 'we can't feature this because it's not a picture' will be shot down/ignored. The main barrier is likely that we don't actually have enough video and audio that's good enough to feature. Also, since TFP goes AFAIK largely by date promoted (unlike TFA which strives harder for balance) there is no priority to showing video or audio as TFP even if it's something we don't have a lot of Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I oppose 'featured media' because of the plural/singular issue, and I oppose 'featured medium' because the vast majority of people will not know what 'medium' means in that context. I don't think there is really an issue here- we're trying to fix something that isn't broken. Also, I do not support featured sounds on the main page- they are separate from featured pictures, we have very few and I suspect the majority of people have no time for .ogg. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Not liking "media", you probably want to rename "Commons - Free media repository" too - how furious. Guys, this is a formal project, discussions whether one is liking particular word or not do not go here. Facts go here, that is what matters. And a fact is, that a picture!=video or audio.--Kozuch (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
More to the point, I oppose "featured medium" because we aren't actually featuring a medium... That sounds like we have "today's featured medium: video" or "today's featured medium: text". Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a main page issue right now. If you want it changed, the logical first step would be to change Wikipedia:Featured pictures. --- RockMFR 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a compromise: We can continue to call "Featured pictures" by its present name, but on the rare occasions that the TFP something other than a picture, we can modify it to say "Featured audio" or "Featured video" on the main page. Lovelac7 15:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, good idea...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 15:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
So how is that going to be implemented? Will someone manually change the "Today's featured picture" on the main page at 00:00 (UTC) and then change it back 24 hours later? (And yes, it is directly on the main page and not on the template itself) And who exactly is going to do that? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a computer-based encyclopedia, so I suggest we take advantage of the technology. Surely, we could make a bot or script that checks the type of media (.jpg, .ogg, etc.) and changes the headline appropriately. And if that's not an option, it really wouldn't be that big of a pain to change it manually. We don't have that many non-picture TFPs anyway. Lovelac7 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and make a bot or write the script that checks the type of media... --74.13.130.134 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, since the main page is indefinitely protected, any bot like that will have to also get approved as an admin ... and you know how long that will take ... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(←)I can understand the objection, but please remember that the word "picture" also refers to film. After all, the Academy Award is Best Picture (not Best Film). The LA Times movie blog is "The Big Picture". And lest we forget, the word "movie" is short for "moving picture". howcheng {chat} 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are talking highly about US-only stuff. And that is wrong.--Kozuch (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
'Best Picture' is short for 'Best Motion Picture' and it is very US-centric. Picture only very loosely refers to film. In modern society, media is much more descriptive of what we now provide. Lympathy Talk 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
And "going to the pictures" was how the British used to describe a night out at the cinema [11]. Bazza (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Skinning the main page

I have added necessary CSS classes to MediaWiki:Common.css, and created a version of the main page using the classes rather than hardcoded styles at Wikipedia:Main Page/skinned. The version needs to be thoroughly checked on all browsers to check that it renders identical to the current version, so any assistance in doing so from people with wierd and wonderful browsers would be greatly appreciated. If all is good we can change the main page over after 16:35 August 7 2008. Happymelon 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In my Firefox 3 on Windows XP, the skinned page has no color. Both the headers and the backgrounds on each template are blank white. This includes all five content templates and the "Welcome to Wikipedia" header. --Herald Alberich (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, the titles of each content template are center-aligned, while they are left-aligned in the normal main page. --Herald Alberich (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you purge your cache and say if they're still like that? I only added the CSS half an hour ago. Happymelon 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I did so, and the problems are still there. --Herald Alberich (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Ah, and that would be because the code is gone. Silly me for not reading the whole discussion. --Herald Alberich (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The new version has extra space underneath each of the five section boxes (e.g., there is extra space between "Did you know..." and "From Wikipedia's newest articles"). This space is visible in FF2 and IE7. --- RockMFR 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got a sharper eye than I have, RockMFR!! You're absolutely right, and I'm not sure where it's coming from... Any ideas? Happymelon 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This code has been reverted until there's a consensus to add it to the global skin file. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing links on main page

Ok, having thoroughly wacked myself for doing sandbox edits to the 8th most prominent webpage on the net (:D) I've successfully implemented the change I wanted to make. I've changed each link on the top banner from a direct link, into a link to a (protected) redirect page to the original target. I indend to do the same for as many of the other 'static' internal links as possible, and I'd recommend that it be done for today's and future TFA, ITN, FP, etc. Why? For traffic analysis :D. From http://stats.grok.se we can see, broken down by day, how many pageviews any individual page has, but not where they're coming from. For the main page redesign proposal it would be nice to know which of the links on the main page are actually used, and which aren't. Since each click on a link on the main page will now clock up a 'hit' on Wikipedia:Main Page/XXX, in a few weeks time we can revert and have a look at the statistics to see which links are used and which aren't. From a technical point of view, expanding redirects is only about 10% more server-intensive than parsing normal links, so there shouldn't be a problem. Obviously if the change gets reverted by Tim or Brion, we know it's doing more harm than I expected :D. Happymelon 10:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I imagine that information will prove quite useful. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Clueful idea. Rudget (logs) 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now done all the static content. I'm not sure whether, or how, to handle the dynamic content - maybe only redirect the bold headings? Comments? Happymelon 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh. This would be better done with stats collection on the referrers. Any server impact here is not relevant (dunno where whos rear you pulled the 10% number out of... If it were 10% it would need to be reverted :))... but what is relevant is that it will approx. double the time page loads for most viewers since the page load will now take 4x the round trip time between the user and the relevant WMF server, rather than 2x the RTT. No reason to undo this now, but please don't go spreading this approach all over the site. :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it would, but if asked the devs to do that now, how long do you think it would be before it was actually implemented :D?? Can't remember the origins of the 10% - it was a decimal (1.1x) when I picked it up, but as you say, "meh" :D. Happymelon 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A bit late but if anyone is interested, there is some data on redirects at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups/About_fixing_redirects. Someone more skilled at maths than me may be able to produce a percentage. Also, as the page says, one edit is as intensive on the servers as following a redirect 10,000 times. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 10:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)