Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions
Found5dollar (talk | contribs) →Bias on the main page: even more! |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
:You forgot that Polyozellus came the day before! and looking at the cue for the next few days.... Populous: The Beginning, Parkinson's disease, and Pattern Recognition are next up! I think Raul is screwing with us. hahahahahaha--[[User:Found5dollar|Found5dollar]] ([[User talk:Found5dollar|talk]]) 00:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
:You forgot that Polyozellus came the day before! and looking at the cue for the next few days.... Populous: The Beginning, Parkinson's disease, and Pattern Recognition are next up! I think Raul is screwing with us. hahahahahaha--[[User:Found5dollar|Found5dollar]] ([[User talk:Found5dollar|talk]]) 00:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Peculiar. [[WP:Featured articles|Prominent paper]] [[User:Raul654|principal]]'s P-propensity poses possible problems. Perhaps [[Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/April_12,_2011|patterns]] prove prejudices, perhaps paranoia penetrates prior poster. People, please ponder. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Perplexed person]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|ping]]) 00:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:56, 9 April 2011
Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Wikipedia's Main Page.
For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below. To add content to an article, edit that article's page. Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed. Click here to report errors on the Main Page. If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed: For questions about using and contributing to the English Wikipedia:
To suggest content for a Main Page section:
|
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 |
Main Page error reports
![]() | Most issues relating to national variations of the English language have already been discussed here at length:
|
To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.
- Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
- Offer a correction if possible.
- References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
- Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 12:21 on 18 August 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
- Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
- Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
- No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
- Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
- Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Headless priest
- ... that a headless priest is said to have cursed León Viejo with earthquakes?
User:Andrew Davidson believes this type of hooks is not a "definite fact", contradicting the requirements of WP:DYKHOOK (see that ongoing discussion), and should be pulled. Opinions on whether this hook should run are requested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Cocoa smuggling
- ... that those found guilty of cocoa smuggling in Ghana face a sentence of five to ten years in prison?
Some might argue that this hook is not an "unlikely to change" fact, referring to laws that are easily remade. Opinions on whether this hook should run are requested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Miss Indigenous Canada
- ... that Miss Indigenous Canada contestants are judged on ambassadorship, character, community service, and cultural involvement?
Some might argue that since this fact is not "unlikely to change", as the scoring of the contest might change in the future. Opinions on whether this hook should run are requested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ornithoptera: ping. BorgQueen (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Errors in "On this day"
- 1332 "... led by Domhnall II, Earl of Mar attacked English-backed invaders led by Edward Balliol in the Battle of Dupplin Moor." - this battle occurred on 11 August as did death of Domhnall II. JennyOz (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- 1934 "A referendum ... and President of Germany" - link should be piped to President of Germany (1919–1945)? JennyOz (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- last item Donald William Kerst (b. 1993) - pls swap to died that date JennyOz (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
General discussion
Japan and the Middle East and North Africa protests
In the news section, why are the links to the earthquake in Japan and the Middle East and North Africa protests being added and taken away so much? Can't we agree on something? Elium2 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- they were removed due to lack of significant updates to the article for 3+ days. if something big happens they will get a new blurb. -- Ashish-g55 17:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. They are not being added and removed with anything approaching "so much", and each time they're added or removed, it's with consensus at WP:ITN/C (except for one time when someone accidentally restored them). So, yes, people are agreeing. -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I accidentally restored them when (thinking I was clever) went back to a version a day old or so to remove a posting that had some issues. Turned out to be not too clever and lesson learned...RxS (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay … I think I get it. Elium2 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that -almost- anyone can edit.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- WP:SNOW close. For multiple reasons, including the lack of support here, the legal/technical aspects that the WMF would have to sign off on, and the harm that this would do to Wikipedia's image, it's safe to say that this isn't going to happen. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
In the mainpage we can read: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
However, there have been changes in the official policy which includes the Child protection policy which excludes some people from editing on wikipedia. This exclusion is immediate which means that it applies to newcomers so I propose that the text on the mainpage is changed to reflect this. Here is my proposal for change:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit."
This would reflect current policy better. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Kind of a bad idea - and it would be really hard to change the motto/slogan … Elium2 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- We could have a secondary slogan that reads : "Hey, kid, we didn't say that anyone could edit it right now. Come back in a few years. We'll still be here." APL (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not true -- children can still edit. The child protection policy is intended to keep kids safe, not bar them from editing. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's right, it is the group named pedophiles that are banned from editing. However, one might not necessarily like that group but the fact remains that this policy makes the "anyone can edit" statement to be clearly false and in need of correction. This has additional benefits in that it will silence many critics who have claimed that the statement is false. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not true -- children can still edit. The child protection policy is intended to keep kids safe, not bar them from editing. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with this proposal, and the steady stream of others seeking to make similar changes, is that it seeks to cast an advertising slogan into the roll of disclaimer. Slogans express broad principles or visions and are expected to contain a certain level of puffery and ambiguity. Requiring a slogan to fully delineate all possible exceptions and qualifiers results in an unusable mess. Besides as anyone with real world experience knows, "What the big print gives you the fine print takes away". See the links at the very bottom of this and every other Wikipedia page for additional details. --Allen3 talk 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why not even go for a more grandiose slogan in that case? "the fault-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and just add some disclaimers in the fine print? The reason is obvious: The slogan would be to out of sync with reality, just like the current one is. With the new official policies that so blatantly goes against everything that the early vision stood for, the slogan leaves a very bad aftertaste. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you check you will find that Wikipedia's purpose is creation of an encyclopedia and not as a forum for unregulated free speech. As for "new official policies", the core policies that form the basis for these reasonable restrictions have existed with little to no change since I registered my account in early 2005. --Allen3 talk 18:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you have the Founding Principles as a guide and as they evolve, so should the slogan on the mainpage. What do you think is the problem of a more realistic slogan? Will people perhaps assume that there are restrictions on who can edit on wikipedia? Would that be a bad thing (given that it also is true)?Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you check you will find that Wikipedia's purpose is creation of an encyclopedia and not as a forum for unregulated free speech. As for "new official policies", the core policies that form the basis for these reasonable restrictions have existed with little to no change since I registered my account in early 2005. --Allen3 talk 18:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why not even go for a more grandiose slogan in that case? "the fault-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and just add some disclaimers in the fine print? The reason is obvious: The slogan would be to out of sync with reality, just like the current one is. With the new official policies that so blatantly goes against everything that the early vision stood for, the slogan leaves a very bad aftertaste. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- We could have a secondary slogan that reads : "Hey, kid, we didn't say that anyone could edit it right now. Come back in a few years. We'll still be here." APL (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- This, oddly enough, is not a new gripe. It's also utter bullshit. 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- If anybody wants to be that technical, one could say there's a difference between "can edit" and "may edit". However, we all have better things to do than worry about this. Kansan (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, very few things (on wikipedia) are more important that the fundamental matter of what the wikipedia vision should be and how it should be shown to the visitors of wikipedia. But oh well... Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no case where anybody without a blocking history cannot edit in the first place (unless they're caught in a range block, in which case, that can be appealed easy enough). I looked at the child protection policy and all it says is that people who either admit to being pedophiles or who act on it on wiki are to be blocked on site. If somebody has feelings such as that, but would never act on them, and would never say anything about it on wiki, nobody would ever know about it. Kansan (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you can technically make an edit, but you will also be banned if someone finds out. That doesn't exactly qualify as being able to edit. You can express free speech in a dictatorship, but you will also be shot if you do. That is not free speech, just as this case is not "anyone can edit".
- And there is no need to act on it, only registering and account is enough if the person also expresses his orientation in some way. It goes against everything that wikipedia was supposed to stand for. This kind of policy is just to avoid possible negative media attention and it cheapens the ideals of wikipedia. And we should reflect this in the slogan instead of pretending that everything is fine. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I value child protection very highly, and I guess the only other thing I have to say in response is that I strongly disagree and will leave it at that. Kansan (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- You consider pedophilia to be an "orientation"? Is it possible that English is not your native language? Because the last time I checked, English-speaking nations (while sometimes disagreeing on the boundary between orientation and perversion) were in unanimous agreement that the mindset known in English as " pedophilia" is a perversion, a sickness, and a precursor to the sort of behavior that has rightly caused its practitioners to be labelled as the very worst sort of subhuman scum ever to walk the Earth. I don't think Wikipedia is violating any sort of principles by denying felons (or would-be felons) the right to make victims of its other users. Perhaps you feel differently... 174.252.136.207 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is this guy seriously defending pedophiles? --Khajidha (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- You consider pedophilia to be an "orientation"? Is it possible that English is not your native language? Because the last time I checked, English-speaking nations (while sometimes disagreeing on the boundary between orientation and perversion) were in unanimous agreement that the mindset known in English as " pedophilia" is a perversion, a sickness, and a precursor to the sort of behavior that has rightly caused its practitioners to be labelled as the very worst sort of subhuman scum ever to walk the Earth. I don't think Wikipedia is violating any sort of principles by denying felons (or would-be felons) the right to make victims of its other users. Perhaps you feel differently... 174.252.136.207 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I value child protection very highly, and I guess the only other thing I have to say in response is that I strongly disagree and will leave it at that. Kansan (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no case where anybody without a blocking history cannot edit in the first place (unless they're caught in a range block, in which case, that can be appealed easy enough). I looked at the child protection policy and all it says is that people who either admit to being pedophiles or who act on it on wiki are to be blocked on site. If somebody has feelings such as that, but would never act on them, and would never say anything about it on wiki, nobody would ever know about it. Kansan (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, very few things (on wikipedia) are more important that the fundamental matter of what the wikipedia vision should be and how it should be shown to the visitors of wikipedia. But oh well... Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia as long as they follow the prescibed policies. A pedophile can edit wikipedia all they want if they don't make a statement that they are a pedophile or attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships. We have many people who are permanently blocked or banned from editing wikipedia. If they had followed the policies and community norms they would still be able to edit. They all made the choice to act in a way that got them blocked. The same applies to anyone blocked under the child protection policy. It is not Wikipedia that is stopping them from editing it is their own actions. GB fan (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. Anybody can edit, they just can't edit anything they want. And it has never meant that. Corvus cornixtalk 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Calm down guys, cool heads will prevail so let's not get gripped by masshysteria here. The policy of child protection have actually nothing to do with child protection, it has never been used that way and it most likely never will. That is not the issue. Neither is pedophiles the issue. It could have been any group of any kind and the problems would have been the same. It could have been constructionworkers from central London who where banned and then my criticism would be exactly the same. It would be a policy which violates the idea och a free encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit. It is not, and the slogan should reflect this change in policy. Simple as that. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, you want a cool head? Simple? Here's a simple, cool-headed answer. The slogan is imperfect: granted. Go click it (the "anyone can edit" link). Check the third paragraph: "it is allowed to be imperfect," referring to the project as a whole, which obviously includes its slogan. 'Nuff said. 174.252.136.207 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Calm down guys, cool heads will prevail so let's not get gripped by masshysteria here. The policy of child protection have actually nothing to do with child protection, it has never been used that way and it most likely never will. That is not the issue. Neither is pedophiles the issue. It could have been any group of any kind and the problems would have been the same. It could have been constructionworkers from central London who where banned and then my criticism would be exactly the same. It would be a policy which violates the idea och a free encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit. It is not, and the slogan should reflect this change in policy. Simple as that. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It also says right before that "Wikipedia is a work in progress." so why treat the slogan like it was written in stones and handed down by the gods? Why not make improvements when possible? What do we stand to lose? No one seems to be able to answer that question. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Has an improvement been suggested? Your proposal leaves much to be desired, for reasons given by Allen3 above. If someone presents a new slogan that is clearly superior, I know of know reason why it couldn't be changed. I haven't seen it written in stone anywhere; so far, I've only seen it in easily-changed-if-change-is-warranted electronic text. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It also says right before that "Wikipedia is a work in progress." so why treat the slogan like it was written in stones and handed down by the gods? Why not make improvements when possible? What do we stand to lose? No one seems to be able to answer that question. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing inaccurate about the current slogan. Anyone can edit wikipedia. It is when they decide to not follow the rules or community norms that they are asked/told to leave. GB fan (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
A reminder: just because someone is saying something silly, does not obligate you to argue with them all day. After a while, ignoring them is also an option. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- WP:SNOW close. See the above SNOW close for the reason why. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The earlier discussion seem to suggest that a slogan should be grandiose and give a neat impression on the visitors of the site. On the other hand, there are issues with the slogan being too far removed from reality, even as far as slogan goes. So, why not make a compromise? By simply dropping the false notion of "that anyone can edit" we get the much more simple and truer slogan of: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Sometimes less is more. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is not the place to propose a new site-wide slogan. You might consider a WP:RFC, posting at the Village Pump, or at Meta. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll give it a shot. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- The truth is, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Just because you may not be able to edit a specific page on Wikipedia at a specific time does not make the slogan any less accurate. we have 3.6 million articles and I think three times as many non-article pages. 99.99% of which are wide open for anyone's editing pleasure. Also, the issue of marketing/branding is something I think is better discussed at the foundation level, since a slogan change would change how most people view Wikimedia as a whole. Resolute 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Offical policy now bans a whole group from editing despite them having made no disruptive editing or comments. How is that "anyone can edit"? And what does you guys stand to gain from this marketing scheme? Money? Fame? I can understand why Coca Cola or Pepsi would do it, but who would you? Why should we sell a product using false advertisement? Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:STICK. Corvus cornixtalk 21:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- To any editor who might consider replying: it is of course your own business whether you reply to this thread. You might save yourself some time, though, by reading the previous thread, closed by Floquenbeam a mere 8 minutes before Kingofthosewhoknow reopened discussion here. Flogging? Trolling? Further discussion seems pointless either way.
- In other words: drop it, already. 74.176.114.157 (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- For the record 74.176, I was the one that SNOW closed the above thread, and I'm the one that is closing / closed this one for the same reason. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 01:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Jim Calhoun is awfully happy about that shipwreck
This really isn't acceptable. I know this has come up about a million times before, but putting someone's smiling face near such news is getting close to a BLP issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree... Seems more like a cruel taunt, especially when seen from the perspective of the shipwreck news. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- No more. If anyone wants to go find another one to add... Prodego talk 03:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing it Prodego. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC) End Test
- No more. If anyone wants to go find another one to add... Prodego talk 03:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK whales link
Not sure if this is "overlinking", but in today's "did you know", "lunge feeding" could be linked to the article section we have on this behavior, so users can find out what the term means in one click. Mokele (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Bias on the main page
Just look at the list of recent Featured articles:
- The Pit and the Pendulum
- Phan Dinh Phung
- Philitas of Cos
And today's article:
- Pithole
There's a terrible case of P-bias on the main page, and somebody should do something about it! --Carnildo (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- You forgot that Polyozellus came the day before! and looking at the cue for the next few days.... Populous: The Beginning, Parkinson's disease, and Pattern Recognition are next up! I think Raul is screwing with us. hahahahahaha--Found5dollar (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Peculiar. Prominent paper principal's P-propensity poses possible problems. Perhaps patterns prove prejudices, perhaps paranoia penetrates prior poster. People, please ponder. Perplexed person (ping) 00:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)