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
Line 281: Line 281:
This type of 'encyclopedic knowledge' simply doesn't contain any value for non-US readers, who chuckle at that type of speech, obviously written by one of Mayor Baker's pastry makers.
This type of 'encyclopedic knowledge' simply doesn't contain any value for non-US readers, who chuckle at that type of speech, obviously written by one of Mayor Baker's pastry makers.


Wikipedia does not currently treat historical or political material in a responsible manner. I would suggest, if this were a serious effort, preventing anonymous users from being able to edit anything of historic or political importance. Given the obvious nature of human beings, this is simply logical. Besides, by keeping them open actually prohibits them from improving because so much time and effort is probably spent cleaning up the work of vandals, ideologists, and associated parties. There also needs to be a header above each article stating to readers that the article may contain 'institutional bias', not 'systematic bias' which is the boring type of bias. These things would vastly improve Wikipedia's quality and credibility.
Wikipedia does not currently treat historical or political material in a responsible manner. I would suggest, if this were a serious effort, preventing anonymous users from being able to edit anything of historic or political importance. Given the obvious nature of human beings, this is simply logical. Besides, by keeping them open actually prohibits them from improving because so much time and effort is probably spent cleaning up the work of vandals, ideologists, and associated parties. There also needs to be a header above each article stating to readers that historic and political articles may contain 'institutional bias', not 'systematic bias' which is the boring type of bias. These things would vastly improve Wikipedia's quality and credibility.


Also, I've noticed a few times editors claim scholastic pedigree. Unfortunately 'Time' magazine is not a scholarly publication. Also, most of the scholars cited seem to be employed by US Thinktanks, whose work is not submitted for peer review nor generally known to be reliable. Likewise, no attention is paid to actual documents. For example, the article on the US-Vietnam war does not cite the Pentegon Papers or the LBJ tapes, which are the richest un-biased resources on the matter known to humanity. Instead, the article on the Kent State shootings is almost entirely pasted from the Nixon administration's lawyers! Can you imagine if that were one of your children who died that day, especially the one who supported the war?
Also, I've noticed a few times editors claim scholastic pedigree. Unfortunately 'Time' magazine is not a scholarly publication. Also, most of the scholars cited seem to be employed by US Thinktanks, whose work is not submitted for peer review nor generally known to be reliable. Likewise, no attention is paid to actual documents. For example, the article on the US-Vietnam war does not cite the Pentegon Papers or the LBJ tapes, which are the richest un-biased resources on the matter known to humanity. Instead, the article on the Kent State shootings is almost entirely pasted from the Nixon administration's lawyers! Can you imagine if that were one of your children who died that day, especially the one who supported the war?

Revision as of 22:04, 23 September 2006

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.

Template:Main Page discussion footer

Suggestion

I think that adding a link to the sandbox (in a prominent place, not in the small print) will help new users to find a right place to experiment, and not carry out trial edits on actual pages. My hypothesis is that this will noticeably reduce unconstructive edits falling under the new user test category. Any support for my theory? 218.186.9.1 05:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I think it's a good thing that random tests can occur in main space. It rams home the fact that wikipedia can be edited by anyone. The only way for some people to believe this is to try it. Secondly, even after the header redesign for this page with the "red flashing lights" many people still don't notice it. But even after my disparigment I'm not against including a link to the sandbox somewhere more prominent, where do you suggest? --Monotonehell 11:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest with the Overview · Searching · Editing · Questions · Help part, the one under the 'Welcome to Wikipedia' box. With a brief explanation of what it's for in brackets, so new users know what it's for and don't get perplexed by what they see as yet another confusing feature of Wikipedia. 218.186.9.1 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, at 800x600 pixel resolution, there is no room for any more links in that area. Carcharoth 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK...how about including it in either the navigation or the toolbox boxes on the left side of the window instead of on the Main Page? That way, the sandbox is accessible anywhere without having to know what to type into the search field or having to go back to the Main Page, which might achieve my aim better since it's less troublesome to go to the sandbox. 218.186.8.12 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be used better than your using this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.142.123 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 September 2006.

BTW I'm still the same user! My IP has changed again for some strange reason I'm unaware of. 218.186.8.12 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about under 'Other parts of Wikipedia'? 218.186.9.2 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any support? Perhaps there is room there... --218.186.9.2 11:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me the most logical way of doing this would be to put the link to the Sandbox is a less clearly subordinate place on the edit page. After all, every user making test edits will have to use this page. As for your IP, you probably have a dynamic IP address. To avoid confusion you might want to create an account. --IntrigueBlue 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion sounds good, thanks! --218.186.9.3 13:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Why is it called Main Page? I feel the word Main suggests a hierarchy in which this page stands highest as the most important. I see the Main Page more as an utility; a gate to Wikipedia with an introduction, an example of a good article, one of our many beautiful pics of Australia, links to our ecyclopedic coverage of some important current events, to some portals, etc. Thus I wouldn't label it as more important that the pages with own content; perhaps I'd name it "Index Page", "Start Page", "Its Majesty Main Page". Just a comment.--cloviz 00:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly a matter of tradition, but I don't really see any need to change it. I'd disagree about naming it "Index Page" though; since it doesnt function as an index, this'd be a tad misleading. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Front Page" or "Welcome Page" would probably be more descriptive. But it's too late to change now. Newyorkbrad 02:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... FrontPage sounds a tad MS-ish. "Welcome Page" should refer to Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. "Main Page" is fine. It's the Main Street where internet traffic comes to Wikipedia. --199.71.174.100 13:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To follow that analogy through how about "driveway"? ;) --130.220.79.99 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Driveway ? That's probably your userpage, I suppose. :-) -- 199.71.174.100 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, newspapers have front pages, and the fact that Microsof uses that as a name of one of its programs is somewhat irrelevant. Zocky | picture popups 13:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think I'd have to agree with Front Page. That, or Index Page. --68.47.41.252 21:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitle improvement

There has been a lot of discussion over changing the subtitle from "anyone can edit" to discourage the common interpretation that "any idiot can add crap". "Good writers always welcome" and variations on that was one suggestion, but problems with it were that it specifically emphasized "writers", which downplays the many other contributions that people make and, as one person pointed out, is not precisely accurate: Stephen King would not be allowed to put his stories here, etc.

"The free encyclopedia that anyone can improve", however, is a relatively minor change. Certainly, it is clear that edits that decrease the quality of the encyclopedia are not welcome, and "improve" is sufficiently broad to include all different ways of contributing while conveying exactly what is meant by this slogan. Comments? —Centrx→talk • 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like. --liquidGhoul 12:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "new contributors always welcome" would be a good replacement for "anyone can edit". "Contributor" implies a positive addition - vandalism is editing, but it isn't contributing. 130.64.130.18 13:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Old contributors are always welcome too. Another suggestion was "Good contributions always welcome", but was considered too clunky. "Improve" certainly implies positive addition. —Centrx→talk • 14:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, an old contributor knows that they are welcome and doesn't need to be told. —Cuiviénen 19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about "muck around with"? Seriously though, I like your suggestion. — ceejayoz talk 18:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to go with this sort of "closing the sale" approach, go all the way: "The free encyclopedia that you can help make better."
"The free encyclopedia that you can help make better." -- ALoan (Talk) 19:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"you can improve", otherwise it is too long. —Centrx→talk • 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "the free encyclopedia that anyone can improve" imply that Wikipedia is so bad that anyone (even the "worst editor possible") can make it better? (Oh yeah, anyone can improve it, even monkeys!) —EdGl 00:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's something in the word "anyone". What about changing it to "everyone"?--cloviz 11:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my first thought. "Man, we must suck!" ;P
Frankly, I like it the way it is. Everyone who adds crap to Wikipedia falls under one of two categories: either they're just unfamilar with the rules and mean well, or they're commiting vandalism for kicks. Making the subtitle say anything like "no breaking it plzkthx" would do absolutely nothing to stop the second kind; they're not being stupid just because no one's told them not to yet. They know what they're doing. On the other hand, putting even the slightest drop of elitism in the subtitle ("what if my edit isn't enough of an improvement?") might well discourage the first kind from even trying. Which, of course, would be a shame, as lots of them become excellent contributors. Finally, it feels a little cheesy to me, in the vein of "You can help! :DDDD Yes, you!" --Masamage 04:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a little frivolous, and kind of misleading. Anyone CAN edit it (however they want pretty much), they just SHOULDN'T edit it harmfully. "Anyone can improve" makes it sound like there's some sort of evaluation of contributions or something. Leave it how it is; hardly anyone will interpret that as "just dump whatever you want anywhere," and if they do, they'll quickly be corrected with {{test1}}. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, especially when you're needlessly complicating a simple message. -Elmer Clark 02:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a public image issue, not an issue of whether a person will take it as instruction to do anything they want. Though, there are instances where people do retort, "But anyone can edit! That's what I'm doing!". —Centrx→talk • 03:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is one of the project's slogans. I believe that main page talk is not a wide enough venue for making such decisions. Zocky | picture popups 13:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T. Rex being vandalized

Today's featured article on the T. Rex is being heavily vandalized. Please lock the article for today. Evertype 09:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if the article was locked, it wouldn't benefit from being an FA. Most articles improve greatly after being featured on the front page, and protecting the article would totally eliminate that benefit. Even if it was protected, vandals would just edit the templates. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them do not get improved. I have had three articles go through, and the only improvements are small (gramatical and spelling). The good edits are mostly done by registered users. --liquidGhoul 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LG. The improvement thing is a myth; it may have applied in the days when FAs were of a much lower standard - but now editors just spend the day reverting bad changes to very good articles.--Peta 12:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, as well. I've seen several FAs end up at WP:FAR after being on the Main Page. Dmoon1 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silly question expecting an obvious answer. If the articles were FA quality a few days ago, and have deteriorated to FAR quality in that time, can't people just revert them to their FA state? Skittle 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you just compare the differences between pre main page and post main page, you can clean up the bad edits. However, this still shouldn't occur. It took me ages to clean up frog after its appearance. Complete reverting doesn't work, as there are some good edits which need to be retained. --liquidGhoul 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right. I wasn't meaning it isn't annoying, and the way it should be, just wondering why people would nominate such a relatively easy fix for FAR. Skittle 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it seems like a weak argument. --liquidGhoul 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if featured articles substantially improve after being on the Main Page, but I think the more important reason is that the featured article is not just an example of the best articles on Wikipedia, but also a showcase of how Wikipedia works. New readers try out an edit on the featured article, see how they can make changes, and hopefully become new productive contributors, or at least fans. See also User:Raul654/protection. —Centrx→talk • 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that many times, and it is always displayed as be all and end all when this argument comes up. However, I only agree with one point, and I don't think that it is particularly important. Point one is out of date, and just not true. Those examples are from a year ago. A lot of work has since gone into improving the quality of featured articles, and most aren't as low quality as they were back then. Also, if you look at the history, I bet the improvements were made by registered users. I agree with point two, but I also think that people understand, and if we semi-protect, and have a banner saying that the article is protected for being on the main page, and will be editable tomorrow, it won't make a difference. I'm more worried about driving people off, because they show their kids an article about Bulbasaur, and it is full of penises. I don't agree with the protection policy statement. I have been watching two articles recently, which were either semi-protected or protected. British Shorthair was semi-protected because of continual vandalism, yet there is so much more vandalism on a main page article, and they are not protected? I just don't think the risk of losing a user because of vandalism on an article is worth the benefit of not gaining an editor because they can't edit an article, which I think is a silly reason really, they should be able to understand that the integrity of the article is important. --liquidGhoul 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Global warming, an undoubtedly controversial topic subject to vandalism on a good day, was improved by being featured (in my opinion). Dragons flight 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon looking at that article, I agree. However, I just went through the history, and only a few of the anon edits were kept, and only one of these was the addition of information (rest were grammar, and there were also a few reverts). I can't see the harm in semi-protecting it. As long as we explain that the creation of an account, waiting a day or asking on the talk page will result in the ability to change the information, information should still be able to be added, and it would encourage people to create accounts. --liquidGhoul 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an account won't help anyone who is trying to edit a semi-protected article, as semi-protection also locks out accounts from the newest 1% of users (about 4 days). Therefore, semi-protection on featured articles is a bad idea unless there is an extreme amount of vandalism. Graham87 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is four days. They might not be able to edit the article on the featured day (talk page is there for a reason), but if they create an account, they will be able to do it in the future. How is that not encouraging it. Also, have you watched a TFA? It is an "extreme" amount of vandalism. They don't stop all day, and I have seen it not be reverted for a long time. In fact, after frog was on the main page, it said they were found in Antarctica for about a month! --liquidGhoul 09:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's bad, and should have been caught earlier, but those changes can be hard to track. I was thinking about the time an anon updated the population status of the kakapo while it was on the main page with the edit suggesting that he/she worked for the Kakapo Recovery Group; those very good edits seem to be increasingly rare though. It'd be nice when the feature to approve changes or a time delay is added, but it would reduce the gratification of "Wow! My correction of that spelling error worked!" However, there are over a million other articles on wikipedia that need improvement, and new users can always start on those. Graham87 10:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should make it possible to add today's featured article to the watchlist. Meaning today Mariah Carey would be on my list but tomorrow (luckily :-) ) she'd be gone. It would mean a lot more people could catch bad faith edits to it. Piet | Talk 11:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piet, a technical solution isn't really needed here. Maybe we just need somebody to start an FA Patrol, to coordinate the efforts already undertaken daily by other editors & admins. I rarely see true vandalism last for more than a couple of minutes, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I think of it, it wouldn't really work. If I recall correctly Bulbasaur was vandalised mainly through the templates. Piet | Talk 07:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Templates are now protected since that episode aren't they? --liquidGhoul 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff for today - the Mariah Carey article has definitely improved. Raul654 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that they are not learning. People are taking advantage of our willingness to allow them to edit articles on the main page, and there are very few people who are learning from the featured article. They can learn on other pages (I did), I am sure this will not drive them off. It is understandable that we protect something on the main page. However, the experienced editors are left having to clean up an article, and revert almost 200 strikes of vandalism a day! They could be creating a new article, or using their time improving Wikipedia elsewhere. There is a very simple solution, which I don't think will drive off anyone. The current system does drive off people. --liquidGhoul 23:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I've seen happen when an article is semiprotected is the vandals follow links and vandalise either the talk page or move on to somewhere with less eyes on it and leave vandalism that stays there for a while until someone spots it. I think it better to let them at the FA when lots of editors are watching and can do something about it. There's no way to stop vandals other than to repeatedly revert them until they get bored. I'd advise against leaving a warning on their talk page, they probably wont see it, and if they do it just eggs them on. --Monotonehell 08:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MonotoneHell, that is a pretty valid reason.--liquidGhoul 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to take a step back here, guys. You stumble upon this website touting itself as an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Wow, awesome! What a concept! So you follow the large, prominent link to today's "featured article," try to see if this is really the case and...no, it's not. I would guess that a large number of vandalous featured article of the day edits are not bad-faith, but are people testing out this concept on the most immediately available article. I think this alone makes the effort of cleaning up the vandalism worth it, and the improvements to the articles are not negligible either. -Elmer Clark 02:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-Go blurb POV

Is it me, or is the last sentence of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 14, 2006,

"The battle also apparently exhibited Japan's willingness to sacrifice large numbers of its people in desperate and suicidal tactics in an attempt to slow or stop the Allied advance on the Japanese homeland."

a little inflammatory? If it's meant to summarize the opinions cited at Operation Ten-Go#Aftermath, it should also incorporate the more positive viewpoint

"The story of Operation Ten-Go is revered to some degree in modern Japan as evidenced by appearances of the story in popular Japanese culture which usually portray the event as a brave, selfless, but futile, symbolic effort by the participating Japanese sailors to defend their homeland"

somehow. Melchoir 00:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

...two people are killed. Several others were injured... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnOw (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

ITN is always in present tense. Although I have to question about actually having that shooting in ITN in the first place. It seems to be more local news. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. JohnOw quoted the exact wording erroneously placed in the section earlier.
2. This is one the top headlines in the United States. Given the fact that the incident occurred in Canada, I wouldn't describe it as "local news." —David Levy 03:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's slow news day in the U.S. Journalists in the U.S. have to fill up air time during newscasts and print space in newspapers, but Wikipedians don't really have to fill up ITN with "local news". However, shooting sprees like that may be big enough news for ITN. -- 199.71.174.100 08:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider Columbine local news, Midnight? What about the Oklahoma City bombing? It can be argued that both only affect people within one small area. -- Zanimum 14:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page

Reading through the top of this page, while there are several what NOT to post here I noticed that it isn't actually that clear about what TO post here (other then not what's not). Obviously wikipedians should realise that this talk page is for discussion of issues surrounding the main page that are not discussed elsewhere. But I think we should make clear this clear. Otherwise, new users might falsely assume if there is nothing specifically mentioned on the top about a location to discuss there question they should post here. For example it may not be clear to a new user that this is not an appropriate place for the discussing TV News Reading (since there is no place, as above) and reference desks questions since these aren't specifically mentioned at the top and it doesn't say that this is only for discussion surrounding the main page. I personally believe users should read more carefully but it might help if we make it more clear. Nil Einne 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (and have stated here before) that the problem is the link that reads "discussion" on top of the Main Page. Since it's in the home page, people (specially those not used to article format) tend to believe that this discussion concerns Wikipedia as a whole. Maybe we should ignore the format for this special case and make that discussion link more precise or less conspicuous. Or perhaps this isn't such a big problem; let them learn from their mistakes! Hehe.--cloviz 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The header used to say "This page is for discussion of the Main Page only. See below for information on where to post on topics not concerning the Main Page. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Main Page. Irrelevant discussion may be removed." I've interviewed a few users that did post innapropriate items here to see what their process was in the interest to help new users. And similar to what Cloviz says above; They've all clicked on "discussion", then blindly clicked the "+ sign" and added their comment. Not many people read instructions. Or even notice them. The new header has reduced people posting in the "wrong place" a little but I doubt anything we do except my wild idea (see below) will curtail it.
  • Monotonehell's wild idea
1.Perm protect this page.
2.Move the header to here permantently
3.Edit the header so it becomes a directory for new users to find the proper places for their posts. Make it very friendly and helpful.
4.Move the actual Talk:Main Page discussion to a sub page of this page.
5.Rinse, repeat.
I've had this idea for ages, but it's too radical to actualy perform.--Monotonehell 06:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe change it to "article discussion", sitewide? That'd prevent people using it to talk about how cool the band is, etc. too. .* 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to "article discussion" would be good, but a link to say the village pump labelled "Wikipedia discussion" could be put on the sidebar to show people where to go. Lcarsdata (Talk) 10:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good one; the term "Village Pump" doesn't seem to refer to discussion (at least to me). I think the changes should be made in the page itself; if we only change the talk page we disregard that there's a simple ambiguity causing this. We can't convert the talk page into a reference page just because of a recurrent mistake.--cloviz 11:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter if a few people post in the "wrong" place? Why make things confusing for people trying to fix errors and discuss ways to improve Wikipedia?--Clawed 09:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are actually trying to make things easier. Imagine if you leave a question here, then you go to sleep and the other day you come back expecting answers but you only find that you posted in the wrong place; must be quite frustrating. We must keep some order as well; if we answer all questions posted here, we prevent them from getting the proper attention they'd get in the correct place.--cloviz 13:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It only matters if they don't get the attention their post deserves because they've posted it somewhere that people aren't looking. The processes on Wikipedia have developed in an organic manner and are inherently confusing. What we need to do is formalise these processes and then create help paths for new users so they can find the resource they need easily. --Monotonehell 12:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's obvious that the less experienced people think that this is a page for discussing main page errors and Wikipedia in general, why don't we just use it for that and move the discussion about the main page structure to somewhere else, where experienced editors will surely easily find it? Zocky | picture popups 21:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about this: We keep something like that header here only; with also another link for "Main Page General Discussion, if your post doesn't belong to any other section", which leads to this page, of course. Oh wait, that's exactly Monotonehell's wild idea; don't know why did I object it...--cloviz 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the term "godfather" in the first DYK point (Austin Leslie=godfather of fried chicken) be linked to the Wikipedia definition? Many people (such as myself) aren't very familiar with this word. --Whiteknox 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What article do you want it linked to precisely? Borisblue 23:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess, I'd say godparent. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My brain is going, "The godfather of fried chicken." It's making me laugh and laugh. --Masamage 04:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caffiene! Whoever chose this for today is a good person. Wikipedia is great. NIRVANA2764 12:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news - dates

I wonder if it would be a good idea if the ITN items mentioned the dates. Some items can be there for some time. -- Beardo 19:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Why did the Main Page just not exist for a few moments? I cleared my cache and it was still gone. Now it's back. What was up? Hyenaste (tell) 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

happened with the pillows article too 80.41.194.129 09:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander I

shouldnt the spelling be Tsar as this is held to be the correct spelling of the word (the wikipedia page on the title itself is spelt Tsar) and Czar is a less common spelling of the word BritBoy 13:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "correct spelling" could be царь ;) but try Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors for this. --Monotonehell 14:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already fixed it, citing the third paragraph of Tsar#Etymology and spelling. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

There is a typo at the featured picture section: reponse to cholera epidemics.

Fixed. In the future, please report errors at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thank you! —David Levy 06:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong namespace?

I know it's probably no good trying to fix this now, but the Main Page shouldn't really be in the article namespace, as it isn't an article, it's a Portal. Clearly if it is moved we should leave a redirect behind, and we may need to change the software so that it loads the portal by default; it just seems wrong at the moment that we have a portal in article space (especially as an encyclopedia article probably could be written at main page if the space were free (for some reason, the software seems to disregard the lowercase p in this special case)). I also know that this suggestion is impractical and will never happen, but I may as well make it to see what the community's response is. --ais523 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main_Page_FAQ#Why_is_Main_Page_in_the_main_namespace.3F Rafy 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Historical reasons" seems to go against Wikipedia:No binding decisions, and I am aware of why the Main Page is currently at Main Page. Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion is now a redirect, so there is precedent for radical changes of historically-entrenched pages. Even the historical redirects were getting deleted in large quantities at WP:RFD a while ago. --ais523 12:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The FAQ mentions other pages that are in main namespace for historical reasons, but I as a Wikipedian that have been around for some time can't think of which pages they could be. Jeltz talk 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the main page, the other big one is the page Transwiki, which requires a page at exactly that location (a redirect is sufficient) in order for the process to work. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page not showing in Firefox?

Is anyone else having this error? It is only happening in Firefox for me. The page loads fine in IE Tab. This is the first time this has ever happened to me, and it has only been happening for the last 15 minutes or so.--Dreaded Walrus 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It happened to me too (#deletion). It's also been reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Hyenaste (tell) 01:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It now seems to be working. Thanks for the assistance. I don't personally use the Main Page much, but I just noticed it myself.--Dreaded Walrus 01:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Happening again. JoshuaZ 03:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the News wording- Pope Benedict's "apology"

I think the way the headline regarding the Pope is poorly worded, though I may be wrong. In my understanding, the Pope did 'not' apologize for using the medieval dialogue; rather, he apologized that people were offended by it. Here's a Fox News Story which may clarify things. --Ambrose 14:22, 19 September 2006

Exactly my thoughts, here's a post from the Language Log about it:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003592.html#more

International talk like a pirate day?

Is this vandalism? Sandwich Eater 15:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what is that doing there.--cloviz 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! It be the greatest holiday betwixt springtime and mickelsmass, and ye darn landlubbers wishes to remove it? Argh, lock up yer darlin' daughters, fer we shall burn down ye town! Shiver me timbers! Oskar 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not vandalism, it's a genuine thing. Willnz0 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Results 1 - 10 of about 676,000 for "International talk like a pirate day". (0.20 seconds)
In the future please use the Internet.
--einexile 11:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't question its existence or popularity, but its importance as a celebration. Maybe because we usually see official or traditional holidays there.--cloviz 11:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what's wrong with untraditional holidays, may I ask? After all, isn't an encyclopedia supposed to enlighten people to what they don't know? .--Thirteen Figure Skater 2:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually changed my mind about the talk like a pirate day: its inclution has enlighten me, even though it's just a parody (after all, in order to enlighten people we don't have to include the same holidays every year). I still believe it's a pity that we break the "official or traditional" law for this case only though. Today it's students day here; it's a holiday and all students go out to celebrate, there are music shows, etc. It's not a coincidence; every day is special for different reasons in different places of the world. There are many holidays and commemorations each day; some of them might be disregarded because the nation or culture they belong to isn't getting enough attention. So you see, if the "norm" is broken only once anyway, the situation would naturally catch some eyes.--cloviz 21:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error on Main Page

Hi, I've spotted a mistake on the Main Page, the "In the news" says the ISS is pictured, however it is the flag of Thailand. Thank You. | AndonicO 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, The picture im seeing is the ISS. Have you refreshed or Hard refreshed lately? --Actown e 16:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have, but it's fine now; the Thai flag says (pictured). | AndonicO 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, currently it says that it implies that the picture is the flag of Bangkok, when its actually the flag of Thailand Bwithh 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. If more problems like that appear on the MainPage, please report them to WP:ERRORS (as per instructions near the top of this talkpage). Thanks. -- PFHLai 18:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikiversity and how come it's a red link? Ciacchi 15:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came in to say the same thing, wikiversity link is broken, but worked fine last night.
looks good/works for me BrokenSegue 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity is a MediaWiki project that made the horrible mistake of adding rounded corners to the monobook skin. It makes my designer's blood boil. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rounded-corners distaste. But see Spanish and Italian for (2 variations of) precedent [sadly]. --Quiddity·(talk) 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue at the English Wikiversity's Colloquium page. One of the site's eight sysops (also known as "custodians") informed me that "none of the Wikiversity custodians seem to be concerned about these sorts of subjective evaluations of the Wikiversity buttons," adding that "the buttons look fine on [his/her] computer" and "maybe [I] need a better display." Another opined that "if [I] have no greater concerns than the appearance of rounded corners than (sic) maybe this isn't the project for me."
That's some welcoming committee! —David Levy 07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what is the problem? The French one does it too. The German one has some wierd thing about it. What's so bad? HellaNorCal 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

same. it redlinks for me, and when i try to sign up there, it wont show me the security thing. --24.208.123.129 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I love that design! What is it and is there a setting to make Wikipedia look like that in the English version? Please someone help me! --Adriaan90 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity is Redlinked... Again

I believe this is the third time its done so, according to this page. --Tom 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be okay now. I wonder why this keeps occurring. —David Levy 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia links turn red on occation on wikiversity as well. It's like the database splits.--Rayc 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Again

For Wikiversity, it is a red link again. What is the problem? At least the 4th time! — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears fine to me; perhaps the problem originates from not clearing your cache? Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there not links to Wikipedia in other languages on the main page

The German version has links to all other Wikipedia projects. Why doesn't the English version? --66.111.51.110 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you look at the bottom of the Main Page. It has many language links, and links to the entire list. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neapolitan

The correct spelling of neapolitan in the original language is Nnapulitano. Nnapulitana is the female adjective. --Twilight 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about something on the Main Page? If not, please post it elsewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.231.231 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the "other languages section" that is not included in WP:ERRORS. --Twilight 15:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Profound bias on front page

Just look at it. Our main page has a horrendous pro Wikipedia bias. There must be at least 100 links to Wikipedia articles, but not a single link to Brittanica, Encarta, or other encyclopedias! What's worse, the few external links it does have are buried at the bottom and point to other Wikimedia Foundation projects. It's dreadful!! Has no one heard of reliable sources? Where are the references? Where are the links to other sites? It's as if everyone here thinks Wikipedia itself is the only source worth citing.

Clearly something must be done. Our policy on verification suggests we should just blank the thing are start fresh with only that material for which we can find external sources. Oh, and I'm sure some prominent links to Britannica and other encyclopedias would help convince people we are truly neutral and not just full of ourselves. Dragons flight 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Main Page is not an encyclopedic article. -- 199.71.174.100 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is probably satire. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I call that trolling. -- 199.71.174.100 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I'm shocked to see that kind of thing coming from an admin. I expect admins to be boring, callous, and devoid of all normal human characteristics. I prefer that they not even mention that encyclopedia that starts with B, neither on wiki nor off. I expect them to all have the exact same opinion about every subject imaginable because disagreement is a sign of weakness. And, above all, I expect admins to limit the number of consecutive exclamation points to just one. -- tariqabjotu 00:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot stolid.24.250.33.247 03:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasting Wikipedia's bandwidth due to sarcasm, argh. And I thought talk pages aren't forums. Lol. Frankly, these "Main Page bias" topics on the Main Page should be posted here if it is purely for entertainment or satire. --Howard the Duck 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to bookmark Wikimedia Foundation Board election pages. Now the election has closed, the sitewide notice has been removed. Can anyone provide the links? I am sure others will also be looking for this. Can something be suggested at the sitenotice page to leave the notice up (suitable amended) for just one more day. I know some people want it gone as soon as possible, but one more day after over 20 days won't make that much difference. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Meta:Main_Page - where they still have the link there, but saying that the election is closed. Remember that people will want to go and read about it over the next few days, and when the result is announced. Carcharoth 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I'm new here. Just getting acquainted with the site. Are the people who manage this thing, not necessarily the editors, but the Wiki-Foundation politically involved in American politics? Anything of remote historical concern which involves the US is written from a US Liberal vs. US Conservative bias. It's frightening. I think the Foundation is doing a disservice to international users by making itself irrelevant to the rest of the world with regard to history. I'm pretty firm that these areas should be specifically protected as best possible, while still remaining in the spirit of Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.81.33 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. However, no, the managers are not involved in American politics, and moreover, there are many international users editing the Wiki to keep it as broad as possible. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that some people automatically claim "Liberal bias" and conspiracy when they see academically cited text? What exactly is a "US Liberal" view of history and why is it frightening? And how does recorded history differ from "US Conservative" version of history? Wikipedia has a process of verification based on credible scholarly sources, any disputed text can be called to attention and undergo review. There is no conspiricy here. Contributors come from all over the World. You're invited to contribute but please leave your political and personal views at the door, and keep an open mind. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but there are people of disparate backgrounds working on improving it. --Monotonehell 11:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what they said. I suggest you reread the comment. Skittle 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yah I totally misread that even though I read it 3 times before I commented. Sorry. Now I'm unsure what they are refereing to. What's the link between some conspiracy of "management" and historical articles? What you see in articles is a result of many hands on the edit.
One thing that happens on articles that have two opposing camps of POV is they suffer from the dicotomy by ending up as an adversarial narative instead of an academic article. This is a sad thing and shouldn't happen with historical articles where there's a fairly accepted record. Even when some points are under flux in academic circles, there should be a stable set of references available.
I don't think protection is the answer though. --Monotonehell 14:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get some examples? 66.67.58.191 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to rephrase what the original user is saying: Many articles about history (as well as politics and so-called moral issues) are written from a US perspective, and are contrasting US conservative and liberal views, while ignoring views and opinions in other countries. They are right about that, and Wikipedia:Systemic bias is a page that gives some clues on that question.
About the foundation, politics: the foundation is not involved in party politics, and AFAIK, neither are board members or foundation staff (at least not at any significant level). They (foundation and people) are involved in politics as "public matters", of course, but that's a given for a public project.
The idea about protection is a consequence of unfamiliarity with the project, I believe. There are plenty of links at Wikipedia:Welcome newcomers and Wikipedia:FAQ that should be helpful for understanding how the project works. Zocky | picture popups 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Wikipedia's hometown mayor is the most egregious example of PR-Speak I have ever seen, worthy of historic preservation:

"The same energy Mayor Baker has devoted to youth and education can be seen in his progress in revitalizing the city's urban core"

This type of 'encyclopedic knowledge' simply doesn't contain any value for non-US readers, who chuckle at that type of speech, obviously written by one of Mayor Baker's pastry makers.

Wikipedia does not currently treat historical or political material in a responsible manner. I would suggest, if this were a serious effort, preventing anonymous users from being able to edit anything of historic or political importance. Given the obvious nature of human beings, this is simply logical. Besides, by keeping them open actually prohibits them from improving because so much time and effort is probably spent cleaning up the work of vandals, ideologists, and associated parties. There also needs to be a header above each article stating to readers that historic and political articles may contain 'institutional bias', not 'systematic bias' which is the boring type of bias. These things would vastly improve Wikipedia's quality and credibility.

Also, I've noticed a few times editors claim scholastic pedigree. Unfortunately 'Time' magazine is not a scholarly publication. Also, most of the scholars cited seem to be employed by US Thinktanks, whose work is not submitted for peer review nor generally known to be reliable. Likewise, no attention is paid to actual documents. For example, the article on the US-Vietnam war does not cite the Pentegon Papers or the LBJ tapes, which are the richest un-biased resources on the matter known to humanity. Instead, the article on the Kent State shootings is almost entirely pasted from the Nixon administration's lawyers! Can you imagine if that were one of your children who died that day, especially the one who supported the war?

Suppose the world's historians decided to take a look at this site. Suppose they were to announce publicly, for all of humanity to hear, that Wikipedia is a propaganda tool used by US politicians against its people and not even worthy of curious attention by students or learners. Suppose, for example, the world press--who is often critical of the US--decides to write about the site being used as a propaganda tool. Suppose, for example, US or world politicians decide they don't want their grandchildren to read the Administration's perspective on the war against Iraq. Suppose they publicly chide Wikipedia, while threatening to remove its tax-exempt status which exists as an 'educational' entity. Whether or not they could do it isn't the point. It would be silly to have huge negative attention on such a great site, which so many people obviously care for.

Also, there needs to be an article on Institutional Bias and another on Subversion. The 'race riots' article is no doubt offensive, and should instead be included in a 'Civil Unrest' article, but that title currently leads to something referred to as 'civil disorder', which sounds like a name from somebody who hates the public.

These things are all very important to democracy, and each of us should study them. In fact, we should simply study them because a great many people don't want us to. The best documents are those which come directly from the sources. For example, the LBJ tapes and Nixon tapes are very, very entertaining and enlightening and available online.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.81.33 (talk • contribs)

What does this have to do with Main Page ????????????? --65.95.106.8 14:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can Mushrooms Mold?

A--Gshart 16:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)s I rinsed fresh mushrooms and stored them in a tupperware I wondered, can mushrooms grow mold? I know this seems redundant. I found nothing in my searches.[reply]

A bit of a problem.

My cousin happens to think Wikipedia is his personal little blog, and has made Choas. It's arrogant, and I can't get it through his head that wikipedia is an encylcopedia, not a xanga. Can someone from staff remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjikun (talk • contribs) .

Fixed, it's now a redirect to chaos, as it was previously. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

military time

Is using military time on wikipedia a standard? dposse 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the 24-h clock time in UTC is used by default when ~~~~ or ~~~~~ is used. --199.71.174.100 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=77427641"