Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions
Daniel Case (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by Daniel Case (talk) to last version by Tone |
Daniel Case (talk | contribs) →Today's Featured Article: OK, this should work |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
*I'm closing this down, as the article in question is no longer on the main page as the TFA. Discussion about Wikipedia policy with regards to writing the word "fuck" on the main page can happen at [[WP:VPP]]. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC) |
*I'm closing this down, as the article in question is no longer on the main page as the TFA. Discussion about Wikipedia policy with regards to writing the word "fuck" on the main page can happen at [[WP:VPP]]. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
===Why censored ?=== |
===Why censored ?=== |
||
Why is the link to [[Fuck (film)]] censored on the page now? In a mildly entertaining way - that's a FA star surely preserving its modesty – but, er, [[WP:NOTCENSORED]].--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 21:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) |
Why is the link to [[Fuck (film)]] censored on the page now? In a mildly entertaining way - that's a FA star surely preserving its modesty – but, er, [[WP:NOTCENSORED]].--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 21:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
{{adminhelp|Please correct the title of the recently-featured article as listed on the main page from the current "F★CK" to the actual title of the film which is "Fuck" - as explained in my post above.}} [[Special:Contributions/88.104.10.105|88.104.10.105]] ([[User talk:88.104.10.105|talk]]) 21:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC) |
{{adminhelp|Please correct the title of the recently-featured article as listed on the main page from the current "F★CK" to the actual title of the film which is "Fuck" - as explained in my post above.}} [[Special:Contributions/88.104.10.105|88.104.10.105]] ([[User talk:88.104.10.105|talk]]) 21:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
===Is it ''really'' noncontroversial?=== |
|||
An article about a Russian battleship named after a major port in [[Crimea]] runs while the headlines are full of news about masked Russian troops in Crimea. Are we sure about calling it that? Could we be perceived as taking Russia's side in this putative Second Crimean War? [[The Charge of the Light Brigade (poem)|Or would that be too wild a charge to make]]?) [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 22:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Redesign... again == |
== Redesign... again == |
Revision as of 22:09, 3 March 2014
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 report
National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously:
|
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 23:53 on 15 October 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"
- In the Nobel economic item global inequality could benefit from a wikilink as one of the key terms. Brandmeistertalk 16:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Errors in "Did you know ..."
A minor usage issue: in the Chessmac item, 'that as' should be 'that because' to indicate causality, not simultaneity. Modest Genius talk 11:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not done. Per Cambridge and Merriam Webster, "as" may also be used to indicate causality. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- ... that Episode 7921 of Neighbours features Australia's first televised same-sex wedding since the country voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage?
- I'm not sure the mention of Neighbours is enough to signify that Episode 7921's "first televised same-sex wedding " was the first fictional portrayal of a same-sex wedding?
- Australia voted in November 2017. Episode 7921 aired 3 September 2018.
- But... there was at least one, and possibly more, real-life televised same-sex weddings shown on Australian TV before Episode 7921 i.e., actual non-fictional ceremonies. For example, video of Christine Forster's 2 February 2018 wedding had footage aired in an episode of Australian Story on 6 February 2018.
- Maybe add "dramatised" at "first televised same-sex wedding" ie
- 'first dramatised televised same-sex wedding'? JennyOz (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
China didn't make memento dollars in 1914; the image caption should say "1912 memento dollar" Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Errors in "On this day"
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
- re: Van Gogh -- In this context, "born" rather than "borne" should be used. "Borne" means "carried" or "supported" (the word is actually a past participle of the verb "to bear"). Using "born" in its place would mean "originated from" or "created as a result of", which is more apt. Even a different construction (developed, arose, stemming, flowed from, grew out of, built upon, etc.) would be more grammatically correct than as-is.
- Al Begamut, it also uses "borne" in the target article. Should you not fix that first? Schwede66 06:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think this might be one of those cases where technically the OP is correct - born was historically the correct past-participle for bear in contexts relating to the birth of something, but in modern-day usage you see plenty of instances of "borne out of", e.g. in books and on the BBC. It's a little hard to do a direct comparison, because when you search for "born out of", most of the usages relate to phrases like born out of wedlock or born out of the home, which is a different kettle of fish. Language is defined by its usage, not by any official dictum, so I'm inclined to flag this as Not done and not an error... — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would respectfully disagree, but of course I'm a stickler for grammar, so your argument that an incorrect usage is common may well be valid. "Borne out" can be used in the sense of proof, like "the evidence bears out her supposition", but that usage isn't apt here either. I just believe the correct grammar should rule in a case like this, but that's only my position. Al Begamut (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also disagree.
- Lexico (ex-Oxford):
- Borne: a past participle of to bear.
- Born:
-
- 1. Brought forth by birth.
- 2. Possessing from birth the quality, circumstances, or character stated:
- a born musician; a born fool.
- 3. Native to the locale stated; immigrated to the present place from the locale stated:
- a German-born scientist; a Chicago-born New Yorker.
- -- Sca (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think this might be one of those cases where technically the OP is correct - born was historically the correct past-participle for bear in contexts relating to the birth of something, but in modern-day usage you see plenty of instances of "borne out of", e.g. in books and on the BBC. It's a little hard to do a direct comparison, because when you search for "born out of", most of the usages relate to phrases like born out of wedlock or born out of the home, which is a different kettle of fish. Language is defined by its usage, not by any official dictum, so I'm inclined to flag this as Not done and not an error... — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Al Begamut, it also uses "borne" in the target article. Should you not fix that first? Schwede66 06:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
General discussion
Happy Birthday!
Not sure if it was intentional or not, but congratulations to Bencherlite for scheduling Tropical Depression Ten today, the tenth anniversary (as far as I can tell) of WP:TFA (earliest entries). Optimist on the run (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Entirely planned. Thanks for noticing! BencherliteTalk 08:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Bencherlite: "Tropical Depression Ten" is an appropriate title for the first ten years of TFA given the shear number of tropical cyclones that have made featured status and made TFA. -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Holy crap it has been 10 years! /me feeling old (still lurking) --mav (reviews needed) 19:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Vanilla main page
Presumably the various 'main page topics which are causes of howls of alarm, gnashing of teeth and statements that WP ain't as good as it used to be' will all come together.
Do not shoot the messenger - good messengers are hard to find - and do not mess with hamsters. Don't ask. Just don't. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- March 1 will come soon enough. Just a couple more hours. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- March 1 is here; where is the new article? --XndrK (talk | contribs) 21:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article
As of now, the featured article is a noncontroversial article about a 19th-century Russian battleship. Further discussion of general Wikipedia policy can happen at WP:VPP. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
What on Earth is everyone thinking putting that inappropriate title for the FEATURED ARTICLE today?!! You guys know that little kids and schools use Wikipedia trusting that it is a safe and reliable resource. Can someone tell me what in the world they were thinking? Leoesb1032 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I also oppose this. Reasons should be self-evident. It's verbal assault on children, teachers, and any parents trying to raise their children in a profanity-free environment. Very disappointing. GrimmC (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I for one have absolutely no problem with this article being featured on the main page. GRAPPLE X 01:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I totally oppose this choice of featured article. I am a huge fan of Wikipedia, but this kind of willful stupidity depresses me greatly. 86.151.119.17 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody said a word about this a month ago, when it might have made a difference. Not here, anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
George Carlin would be proud about today's featured article. I'm sure somewhere he's looking up at us. The Wookieepedian (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if those opposed to our mention of this article realise that the film in question is actually about them and their attitudes? HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, I don't support wide ranging censorship, but my family and I raised over eighty six thousand dollars in contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation in 2013 by appealing mainly to parents and educators. We promoted Wikimedia projects, primarily Wikipedia, as beneficial educational resources. We never once complained about what was in the recesses of Wikipedia pages, accepting these things as examples of free speech. But if the Wikimedia Foundation can not keep their front page decent - a page viewed innocently by people who have no desire to view filth, then we can no longer provide financial support. Seeing this article on the main page, we have decided to withdraw all future financial support for all Wikimedia projects. I encourage all decent people world wide to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.138.95 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Per NOTCENSORED I don't see anything wrong with it. If there was a problem then articles like Fucking Hell, Shit Brook, Shitterton and The finger (with picture) would never have made it onto the main page. This set a precedence that there is nothing wrong with having sweary based articles on the main page The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has put a user edited generalist encyclopædia as the home page on the computers of elementary school children, that is a bigger problem than the F-word on the main page. The poor judgement was by whoever just assumed that everything on the main page would be suitable for kids, not on those who worked on and promoted this article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC).
"Mum's out, Dad's out, let's talk rude: Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers!" Grow up, main page team. This is equivalent to a bookstore owner pasting "Fuck" in large cutout letters across the front window. Yes you can do it, but it's just inconsiderate.82.3.243.45 (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the word Fuck appearing on the Main Page. That's the beginning and end of it. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Not really. A fair number of female editors over 50 actually supported it as TFA per freedom of speech and not censored during the proposal. It's an article about a documentary film. I once objected to a gay pornographic film being a DYK on a Saturday afternoon and was told it was perfectly appropriate content for the main page. In my book that was far worse and obscene than this documentary as TFA. My argument against it was similar to what is being presented here. At the end of the day it's an opinion based on what the majority of society are likely to think as inappropriate. It's a legitimate article though, using a vulgar word or not. You have a point though that many reputable mainstream websites would refrain from doing so for obvious reasons.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it is important to give a reasoned explanation as to why it's not a bad thing to have an article like this on the main page. Reiterating what has already been stated in numerous ways, the very fact that opposers to the FA are against the 4 letter word "fuck" regardless of the context in which it's being used, is in itself an example of why such a documentary about free speech and the way language is interpreted within a culture is so relevant (not to mention notable) to a modern day audience. I would like to ask a question: why does the word "fuck" offend you so much? If it is because someone says it when they're angry, then I would point out that it's the intent behind the word and not the word itself that hurts you. They could be saying an innocent word like "fat", but when put into context can be offensive to a person. Secondly, are those four letters when put in that particular order, or that sound made up of two consonants and one vowel, inherently vile? Would someone who doesn't speak English be naturally offended by them? if an alien came to earth and heard the word fuck would they run away in disgust? The obvious answer is no, and the reason is because language only has as much power as we ascribe to it. Fuck is offensive because someone else told us it was offensive. And even then, within this particular context the word is not being used in an offensive way at all, merely being used to describe the name of a film about the very discussion we're having right now. I for one would sure like to see Mr. Anderson make an addendum to his work where he analyses and dissects this very discussion about the main page FA for his documentary.--Coin945 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
A box at the top of this discussion cautions: "This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content." Nonetheless, feelings run strong. Putting the article into Wikipedia is a matter of freedom of speech and press and avoidance of censorship, as various arguments supra have noted. Featuring the article on the main page, however, is poor discretion and insensitive judgment, as many others have argued. That something can be done does not mean it should be done. Having the word "fire" in your vocabulary does not mean you should go into a crowded cinema and shout it. Wikipedia's leaders have the right to publish the article and, correspondingly, must now take responsibility for fronting it. Rammer (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
How different nations, cultures, and generations view "profanity"I just now attempted to explain to my mother why there was such a fuss over this item appearing on the Main Page. "Well," I said, "in America, some religious groups, and others, are really very against what they call 'profanity' being published in any form. Or at least, widely published without a very good reason." I nodded to myself, sure that my mother would understand that we, as Wikipedians, need to be understanding of all nations' preferences, even Americans. That sometimes profanity is natural in extreme circumstances, but we shouldn't make an exhibition of it. She glared at me in angry bafflement. "AMERICANS?!?", she said. "It's the Americans I BLAME for it!" Make of that what you will. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Both myself as a Canadian and my wife as a Jamaican, think this was a crass, attention-whoring stunt, that has exemplifies stereotypical American behavior. Most nationalities have enough empathy and good sense not to rub dirt in the faces of others because of "muh rights". Only in America are the libertines so pseudo-religiously dogmatic, that they'd deliberately harass and offend the rest of the english-speaking world for a cheap and puerile talking point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.193.181 (talk • contribs)
I read the talk page every so often (to find these kind of pointless arguments, I'll be honest), but I've never commented before, but I feel the need to now. It makes me sick when people somehow asume that this article was ONLY nominated by Americans, and that Americans are hateful, apathetic, and only do things to piss off other American speaking cultures. This hateful bigotry is disgusting. Why do you assume that Americans nominated and pushed this to become TFA? Because you see American TV programs and think "that MUST be the way all Americans act! Jersey Shore and the Housewives series are what America is!"? I have enough sense to know a rude and hateful bigot like yourself does not represent all Canadians, but you seem unable to realize that America is not the cespool that TV programs show it to be. Though I do find it funny that you call the article being TFA "self-whoring" in a rather "self-whoring" comment. But that's just me.Pseudohippie (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) It's interesting that on the relatively rare occasions that something like this comes up, a certain segment of people automatically assume that it was done specifically to offend them. (AKA, "to be edgy".)
Why censored ?Why is the link to Fuck (film) censored on the page now? In a mildly entertaining way - that's a FA star surely preserving its modesty – but, er, WP:NOTCENSORED.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Why the fuck does it currently say, "Recently featured: Fakih Usman – F★CK – Starfish" instead of the actual title of the article? Fucking ridiculous - it seems like someone is making up their own special rule, and is making Wikipedia look stupidly hypocritical in its views on so-called "censorship". 88.104.10.105 (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
88.104.10.105 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC) |
Is it really noncontroversial?
An article about a Russian battleship named after a major port in Crimea runs while the headlines are full of news about masked Russian troops in Crimea. Are we sure about calling it that? Could we be perceived as taking Russia's side in this putative Second Crimean War? Or would that be too wild a charge to make?) Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Redesign... again
- Continued from Talk:Main Page/Archive 177#Main page redesign
There is now Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal, initially set up by Guy Macon and basically has the 'submit and vote' format. I don't like this setup one bit; there is no discusion to speak of and it lacks any process needed to build a new main page from the ground up. The 2013 process also halted to a grind in the middle.
I would like to reboot the idea of forming a comitee that will handle the main page redesign, based on conclusion from the initial 2013 RFC. Ideas on how to proceed are welcome. — Edokter (talk) — 01:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- These processes keep halting in the middle for four reasons:
- 1) There is nowhere near a critical mass of people that see the current main page as a problem that needs fixing, which means that very few people will be motivated to be involved in the redesign process itself.
- 2) There have been a number of people that looked at the late-stage proposals from previous rounds as being worse than the current page, which I feel is indicative of a disconnect between the people that are working on the redesigns and the general community.
- 3) The community has historically done poorly at making major changes through discussions where there are too many options on the table at once (see the medical disclaimer or pending changes RfCs, for example). It does a much better job when a discussion presents either a single binary choice (majority of proposal RfCs), or a set of binary choices isolated from each other (ArbCom election RfCs).
- 4) There is what I consider to be an entirely irrational belief that redesign efforts have to be pegged to years. What should be a long term, continuous process instead seems to restart from scratch every at the beginning of each year.
- Those are my observations, at least. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 02:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nice analysis. I said it before... Any structured process is guaranteed to fail. It basically takes a rogue faction to force anything. I do not look forward to still seeing this dinosaur in 2020. — Edokter (talk) — 13:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I have completed my framework; the entire page is fluid and adapts to any screen width. Not a table in sight! Have a look. — Edokter (talk) — 16:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Could you join the discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal? It seems we are all in agreement that we need to try a different process. Basically, the idea is for the organizers to come up with a single new design that has the best chance of the community support. We have already spent enough time on the philosophical question that is "what is the main page?" This time we will just aim for modest cosmetic change. I think this is perfectly achievable. We can always "rethink" the main page in the future. -- Taku (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am going to stay away from there as far as I can. Already there is a dispute on whether the page should state the process is "to be determined". I am more interested in colaborating with people that simply want stuff done. Read Svens comments above; the 2014 page has failed before it even started. — Edokter (talk) — 18:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)