Jump to content

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →Extra pronoun: rm weird noise in my sig
Line 81: Line 81:


:Some article of interest to this conversation: [[Historical weights and measures]] and [[Metrication]]. The first needs a lot of work. [[User:Seabhcan|Seabhcán]] 10:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
:Some article of interest to this conversation: [[Historical weights and measures]] and [[Metrication]]. The first needs a lot of work. [[User:Seabhcan|Seabhcán]] 10:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


==Number of Casualties in Kashmir Earthquake now near 80,000 ==
==Number of Casualties in Kashmir Earthquake now near 80,000 ==

Revision as of 23:43, 24 October 2005

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured picture

  • Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
  • To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.

Main page discussion

  • This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
  • Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.

<!-- Please scroll down and post the latest talk at the bottom. Thanks. -->


Rename "Main Page" to "Main page"

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. The main page should not be any exception to the standard page naming practices on Wikipedia. We use "Sentence case", not "Title case"...only the first letterof the title, and any proper nouns should be capitalized. I think that this confuses newcomers into thinking that we use title case, when we use sentence case. It would be less confusing, and more aesthetically pleasing to use a lowercase p. Additionally, this is such a small change that I don't see any reason not to do it. I don't see any reason it was capitalized like this, other then from just putting a space in the middle after we stopped using CamelCase. I'll be requesting the same thing on the community portal. --<font color="red">Phroziac</font><sup>(<font color="red">talk</font>)</sup> 00:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention -- this wouldn't break any links, because we would leave a redirect at the old location, of course. And the related templates should be renamed, though it's not urgent or a big deal. --<font color="red">Phroziac</font><sup>(<font color="red">talk</font>)</sup> 00:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fully disagree. This is not an article on Main pages, this is literally the Main Page. <font color="darkblue">R</font><font color="green">e</font><font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font> (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)<math>Insert formula here</math>[reply]
Agreed with Redwolf24, it's a name, like "The Main Page," but no objection if other people want to move it, or any strong opinion either way... Bushytails 01:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But why would we have an article on main pages? And certainly that would need a disambiguation, as most people don't use capitals in search queries? --<font color="red">Phroziac</font><sup>(<font color="red">talk</font>)</sup> 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Back in "the day" (this was like, fall 2004 or something) we had a big vote about this, and it was almost universally rejected (the move that is). Nothing has happened that should change that decision (which was alot closer to true consensus than anything else on wikipedia). Now I'll go and dig in the archives and try to find the discussion. gkhan 01:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can't seem to find it!?!?! Oh, well, I probably imagined it. Go Phroziac, down with "Main Page"!!!! gkhan 01:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the apparent disparity, and personally, I think it would be better as "Main page," but really, it doesn't matter. ElAmericano 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it's going to moved at all it should be to its logical place, the Portal: or Wikipedia: namespaces. I'd be for it, but I believe it's already been discussed and didn't exactly get huge support. --fvw<SMALL><FONT COLOR="green">*</FONT></SMALL> 04:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As many times before, I strongly oppose any sort of move, especially to another namespace. Keep it simple. — Dan | Talk 04:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<s>::Ok, but I didn't suggest we move it to another namespace. --<font color="red">Phroziac</font><sup>(<font color="red">talk</font>)</sup> 05:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)</s> Just noticed fvw's comment. oops. --<font color="red">Phroziac</font><sup>(<font color="red">talk</font>)</sup> 05:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion (regarding moving the main page to Portal:, not "Main page" as is suggested here) is at Wikipedia:Portal namespace (setting-up debate)#Comments on Main Page in portal namespace. I mention it because the case issue is discussed somewhat. Demi <sup>T</sup>/<sub>C</sub> 05:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see a reason for this. - victorvp (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

misspelling

The last entry in the Did You Know section should read skeptical rather than sceptical. It is also misspelled in the article that it links to.

-- I suggest you look in a more reputable dictionary than the one you wrote yourself in crayon. OED doesn't even mention skeptical as an alternative spelling. Chambers states that the k is found in the "N Amer" spelling of sceptical, but sceptical is still the main entry.

-- Actually, sceptical is the British English spelling of the word. And as we did 'invent' the language... he he. Anyway, why (the hell [Is that {hell} too strong?]) has it been changed?!?!

--211.217.148.236 07:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC) John Owens[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be written in American English (except for British articles and certain exceptions), which is why it was probably changed. -<span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold;">x42bn6</span> <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">Talk</span> 03:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the policy of the English Wikipedia. Articles are written using whatever was the English vareity of the original editor, except for articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lets just eradicate American spelling all together and use the spelling used in every other country.. :P It's just one rogue country trying to be "trendy".. :P - 202.7.176.133 16:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a standard form of spelling whether it's American or British English. -192.168.1.104 13:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent to whatever the original article-writer inserted in the article, yes, that's what we have. Any suggestion that we should consistently stick to one or other completely throughout the encyclopedia is not needed and, at the risk of my alienation, racist. However, so long as we see no potatoes around, we'll be fine.Bobo192 20:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didnt mean just in Wikipedia.. I ment eradicating American Spelling all together :P Yah for language genocide! - 202.7.176.133 05:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite fond of New Zealand English myself, any objections?--Clawed 06:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its the same as British spelling, with one or two minor differences :P, they might as well refer to it as International English or United Nations English, American English is the only one with any major changes. But I guess its only fair we cater to the minority...:P I guess American English is acceptable on the three or four articles on America, such as George Bush, Apple Pie, Scientology, and Elvis Presley. :P - 202.7.176.133 09:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing no insult to English-speaking peoples with original alternative spellings of certain words, the argument has been made American English spellings more closely follow pronounciation and are preferred in some journalistic circles if only for that reason. --Mike 13:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Closer to -utterly wrong- pronounciation in some cases - citing aluminum, for instance. --Kiand 14:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly irrelevant with the vast number of accents out their, even in the same country. I doubt a single "journalistic circle" decides to use an unusal spelling of English because they believe it follows their pronounciation. Unless of course we are talking about accent genocide, which is something I utterly oppose ;). I mean come on!... Their is nothing sexier than a Swedish or Irish english accent. - :P - 202.7.176.133 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've obvioiusly never been chatted up by a drunk bogger girl in the queue at a chippers, I see :p --Kiand 23:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, really: who cares? I mean, language changes, constantly and fluidly and unpredictably. To try and standardize it would be absurd. It should be in ASL.
Language and spelling are different things. Slang will always shift but spelling for the most part has been standardised (but as this word demonstrates [ize/ise], minor changes do exist) much like measurements with SI units, only small unimportant countries have trully different spelling and remain the minority :P. But I guess it's only fair at Wiki we cater to them :P. - 202.7.176.133 06:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The spelling that you use is irrelevent to the issue you are talking about so long as it belongs to some sort of national standard and is readable. Unless you are quoteing something, then all spelling should be exactly the same as the quote.

So what if it was a spoken quote? We spell it as the person would of? Sri Theo 11:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

orngjce223It depends on whether it's British English or American English. Doesn't matter very much. Stats on how many people from each country reference this page might help...

how many feet in a kilometer?

anyone know the answer to this?

  • You can get quite a few feet in one kilometer if you pile them high enough... takes a good pitchfork, though, to unload them from all those dump-trucks. --Smaerd 02:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some article of interest to this conversation: Historical weights and measures and Metrication. The first needs a lot of work. Seabhcán 10:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Casualties in Kashmir Earthquake now near 80,000

Can someone update the main page with the new total as reported today by AP.

Kamayoq 15:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The number of casualties due earthquake hitting the northern area of pakistan and indian held kashmer reach upto 49700 according to gov officals but according to some unofical reports the number may reach upto 100000 because there are still some areas which are not in contact while the number of serious injusries is upto 70000.

Have a look at this ref on ABC quoting AP [http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1230245] It says "Death Toll in Asian Earthquake Soars to 79,000, Making It One of Deadliest Quakes in Modern Times"

Kamayoq 81.108.218.26 20:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the figure on the main page has been out of date for at least a day or two now.
I've updated it now. Thanks. -- Sundar <sup>\talk \contribs</sup> 14:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weird, news here still only reports 53k. Boneyard 12:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ~I think it would be best to put up the official count of casualties at the end of every week since I'm sure that the count will significantly rise until the final count has been tallied up for this awful tragedy.~*

Ali Siddiqui

History of Poland

Today's history of Poland mini-article contains a key error. It says, in the aftermath of World War II, the forces of Nazi Germany were driven from Poland by the Red Army.

The military forces of Nazi Germany were driven from Poland by the Red Army before the end of the war, not "in the aftermath" of the war.

In the aftermath of the war, the ethnic Germans who lived in areas now part of Poland – Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig/Gdansk and southern East Prussia – were driven out by a combination of the Red Army and Soviet-supported Polish Communist forces.

Sca 18:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK ...that a dream by Sergei Pankejeff,

Is a dream by correct English? We talk of art by someone or talk by someone; yet to hear of dream by someone. I think it shd read ...that a dream Sergei Pankejeff had... --Gurubrahma 09:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least "He dreamed about", I agree Sri Theo 11:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, a dream by eould be grammatically correct; who painted the picture-it was by what's his name, who shot the deer, it was shot by, etc.,etc.,etc. rachoman 4:36, October 23, CST

what sort of argument is this? are you saying that this works for every transitive verb? is "to dream" transitive? "I shoot a deer", "the deer shot by me". ok, but "the deer by me"?? Similarly, "I dream that X" is ok. "I dream a dream" is borderline, "the dream dreamt by me", the same, but how do you get from "a deer shot by me" (not, "a deer by me") to "a dream by me"? "a dream by me" isn't good English. It should be "a dream of X's". 130.60.142.65 08:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we forgetting something?

In the aniversaries section today we mention that at the Battle of Trafalgar Lord Nelson defeated the French. This is nice and all... but shouldn't it also point out that he was mortally wounded and died this day as well? This being kind of a minor plot point in the man's life.--Smaerd 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He would have wanted it this way  United Kingdom  United Kingdom  United Kingdom  United Kingdom --After-<font color="#709070">word</font> 17:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

21st October

British contributors revelling in the Trafalgar celebrations might be sobered to realise that this day is also the anniversary of the Aberfan disaster in 1966, when a coal tip slid onto a school killing 116 children in the small Welsh town of Aberfan. Peter Maggs 19:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Write the article. It might get featured next year in the Selected Anniversaries section on the Main Page next year, on the 40th anniversary. -- 199.71.174.100 22:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Aberfan <font color=darkgreen>Martin</font> 09:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comic

I suggest include a wikicomic strip in the Wikipedia Main Page (http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/Main_Page) every day.

From where do you suggest we get these comics? AFAIK, nobody writes a comic strip explicitly about Wikipedia. ~~ N (t/c) 01:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they mean a comic about current events in the news? If thats the case then no. That would not be encyclopedic nor is it news, it is commentry and has no place at Wiki. - 202.7.176.133 05:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps an idea for wikinews, not for wikipedia. Boneyard 12:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews used to have crossword puzzles, too. Like a comic strip, they require too much effort from a talented few. Not feasable. Perhaps comics and crossword puzzles should go to Wikipedia:Department of Fun. -- 64.229.178.215 17:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in the Spanish Main Page

Hello my name is Luis, I am writing to let you know about a mistake that you have in the Spanish main page. In which is written: "Wikipedia la enciclopedia libre", and it should be: "Wikipedia la enciclopedia gratuita". The root of the problem is that in English the word "free" is translated as "libre" or "gratis" (gratuito/a), but the correct meaning in Spanish for this case is "gratuita".

Luis Lema.

Luis: it's both: libre y gratis a la vez. Take a look at es:Contenido libre or (better) Gratis versus Libre. Yeah, we don't charge (enciclopedia gratuita) but, more importantly, all our content is free (enciclopedia libre). –Hajor 19:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is the en.wikipedia and we don't have jurrisdiction over the Spanish es.wikipedia, and problems of this type should either be directed to the wiki in question or to Meta wiki. I agree with Hajor that the word free has multiple meanings, SqueakBox 20:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm right in saying that in all the various languages with multiple words for "free" it's the word for "unrestricted" rather than "unpriced" which is chosen for the title. Doops | talk 22:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which in this case is libre, SqueakBox 05:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CASE CLOSED. Hopefully people (he?) will stop telling us about this "mistake" at the Spanish Wikipedia.--Fito 07:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

ok, I think everyone has seen the Saddam news now, could somebody please update ITN? There are like four suggestions queued up, plus a couple more in Current Events. 83.76.218.123 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate attention by administrators is requested at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates & ITN !!!!! --64.229.227.234 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin to revert

Can an admin revert the change made by user:Talrias here [2]. I can find no place where this has been discussed before, and admins should not be being bold with our front page or intro. --Clawed 05:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you there, major changes to the first thing new people see on this site should be discussed first, not blindly rushed ahead. --Mark J 11:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
linking cotw prominently seems like a good idea. the call to enrole (the excited imperatives, become! edit!) could perhaps be refined, stylistically. 130.60.142.65 12:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, reverting it because I did not discuss it seems pointless - reverting it because consensus is it's a bad idea is a far superior reason. If I had proposed it first, what would your opinion on having it there be? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main page is not the place to advertise COTWs. The main page is primarily for readers, not editors. Furthermore, the main page is already too long, and this is a waste of space. And it is distracting, and looks terrible in that location. In short, the edit should not have been made. →Raul654 16:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the main page not the place to advertise COTWs? One of the key distinguishing factors of Wikipedia is that it is freely editable, yet the main page doesn't really invite people to come and edit Wikipedia - it should. How about placing it underneath the Selected anniversaries section, there is about a 3-4cm gap beneath it and the end of the box. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong on the main page at all. The main page is not a place to advertise internal wiki matters - especially those related to editing (that's what the community portal is for!). The main page is for displaying our good content - content to interest readers. The fact that you put it in an especially space consuming, visible location only makes it a more egregious misuse of the main page. →Raul654 16:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't it belong on the main page, and why isn't the main page a place to put some information about editing? As I said above, one of the main features of Wikipedia is that it's freely editable. You get about 3 words saying that on the main page. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main page is mainly for readers. The fact that wikipedia is editable should be incidental to readers. Broken S 17:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, gentlemen lets not get nasty. I agree that editor-matters should not be on the main page because the main problem with wikipedia to non-wikipedians is that they don't believe an open encyclopedia can produce great articles. So when they come here, to the main page, we need to show them the very best we have. People become editors anyway, they see the "edit this page" link, and they start editing. We don't need to advertise it on the front page. I think it looks a bit tacky to be honest. gkhan 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to Talrias if my statement sounded accusitory - I didn't intend it that way. →Raul654 17:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Day

I think the Picture of the Day is so much better than Did you Know. The picture makes the Home Page look good, and a picture is worth a thousand words! And a good picture looks professional. Personally, I'd make the Picture of the Day a daily event (otherwise it's only Picture of the Weekend!), and I'd place Did you Know across the bottom, (above Wikipedia in other languages) in 2 or 3 lines. --Iantresman 10:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't know, Picture of the Day is actually a daily event at Wikipedia:Picture of the day, plus you can easily add it to your user page. Its just its appearance on the MainPage that is weekend thing.
You can find some earlier discussion on the pros and cons of changing/keeping various sections on the Main Page in the archives of this talk page (probably around the middle of July). And if you look at the top of this page, there is a link to the current project to generally redesign the MainPage — the choice of material to show would have some bearing there too. -- Solipsist 11:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like Did you know (and not only because I already had an article there :) 'cause it has more interesting facts than a simple picture. And Did you know is usually illustrated, too. :) BTW, today's picture is very nice. Alensha 14:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we don't get 7 FPs a week so we would have to repeat eventually (and people complain when we do that). Broken S 16:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that sometimes it's repeated. I'll nominate some nice pics right now :) Alensha 21:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Della Falls is the highest "officially measured" waterfall in Canada, not the highest, according to the linked article. It indicates that other waterfalls in B.C. are higher. Simply calling Takkakaw the second-tallest seems misleading, if that info is true. --Cam 18:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First use of aircraft in war.

The first use of aircraft in war did not take place in 1911 as stated on Wikipedia main page. The first use was a reconnaissance balloon employed by the French army at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794.

Does a balloon qualify as an aircraft ? -- 64.229.206.159 13:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
according to aircraft, it does. Supposedly the statement should read, the first use of aircraft engaging in combat, since the balloons were just for reconnaissance before that. It appears that "offensive balloons" were only used in WWII (fire balloon) 15:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
or "heavier-than-air", as it says now, that's right too. 15:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries

"October 23: National Day in Hungary (1956)" -- Actually it is a national holiday because the Republic was proclaimed on this day in 1989, and not because of the revolution (although of course it is not a coincidence that it's on the same day). Since internationally the revolution is the better known one of the two events, it's understandable that the main page features the revolution and not the proclamation of the republic, but then it would be better if it linked to the revolution's article, not simply to 1956. Alensha 14:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does link there. (<nowiki>* 1956 - The Hungarian Uprising began in Budapest.</nowiki>) What's wrong ? Do we have a page on the proclamation of the republic ? -- 199.71.174.100 05:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

"secret agents" should be "secret agent" in the Newest Articles section Clarkefreak ∞ 04:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extra pronoun

"politician Liam Lawlor he" -- eliminate "he". AnonMoos 18:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! - BanyanTree 18:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Hoover: U.S. resident

"Did you know ... that Rapidan Camp, the rustic mountain fishing retreat of U.S. resident Herbert Hoover located near Big Meadows in Virginia, was the forerunner of Camp David in Maryland?"

Should be U.S. *P*resident, although I guess they're both correct. :)

TotoBaggins

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=26393628"