Talk:Main Page
![]() | This page is not the place to ask general questions. To ask questions about using Wikipedia, see the help desk. This page is for discussing the main page. For more information on this page, see Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ. Use this link to find out how to ask questions and get answers. |
Template:Main Page discussion footer
Sections of this page older than three days are automatically archived
![]() | Most issues relating to national variations of the English language have already been discussed here at length:
|
To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.
- Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
- Offer a correction if possible.
- References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
- Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 23:59 on 10 September 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
- Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
- Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
- No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
- Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
- Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Errors in "On this day"
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
general discussion
Shocking and Unbelievable Images?
Why have shocking pictures been featured recently on the main page? First there was the one showing the hideously scarred back of a black slave, and now we have one of a pit of Holocaust victims (with one more about to be shot.) These are NOT the kind of images most people want to see in the "cover" of an encyclopedia; I'm not saying they articles, where people would find them only if they're intentionally looking for them. Is this part of some agenda? How are featured images decided on anyway? -Wilfredo Martinez 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The order of images is usually determined by the featured picture time frame. The fact that they are "shocking" is just coincidence. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland tm 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- See User talk:Howcheng#POTD for an explaination of the order from the defacto POTD director. Also see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria for the criteria featured pictures must meet. (Any picture which meets these criteria can be a featured picture after going through the process here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates) Nil Einne 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That still doesn't justify the use of shocking pictures as featured images. I have the Main Page set as my default homepage, because I enjoy reading news and facts as soon as I log in every day. Pictures of mayhem are NOT what I want to see here, and I'm reasonably sure most people don't either. If anything, this shows very poor judgment. Just write me down as opposing this -Wilfredo Martinez 13:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- That they're "shocking" is POV. What you want to see may differ from what others do. And frankly, that's a pretty tame Holocaust image, as Holocaust images go. --Dweller 13:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I don't want Wikipedia to reflect a skewed POV. If images were excluded on the basis that they might be considered shocking, then that's not reflecting the world we all live in. Cuddly guinea pigs are great but there's more to the world than fluffy cuteness. MorganaFiolett 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia should reflect its contents - all of it. Besides, we humans need the reminders of just how in-human we can be. Genocides are not a thing of the past, nor is slavery, which is back in business not only in the third world but in Europe and the US... God help us all. Which is the more shocking? Shir-El too 22:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I knew that, but why don't we include in the "10 things you may not know about Wikipedia" that it isn't censored, since I'd think a lot of newcomers don't know that? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- 'cause then there'd be eleven. Macbi 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be 100% behind that. Chubbles 05:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it can be added under one of the existing headings. BTW, I read the article after commenting. The ease with which a band of bullies brutally took over a supposedly civilized nation, to the point where the judicial system sanctioned murder after-the-fact, is VERY frightening. I'm glad I read it. Shir-El too 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, you don't get it: WP:NOT#CENSORED. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- There are some other shocking pictures lurking in the Featured Picture pool that haven't made it to the front page yet. Have a look at Image:DeadchinesesoldierEdit.jpg and Image:V-2victimAntwerp1944.jpg. Do I need to warn you they are shocking? Carcharoth 09:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I am with Wilfredo.. Nobody is disputing that terrible things happen or arguing that Wikipedia, et al, should shy away from them. The argument is that "shocking" images should not be posted on the Main Page. The reason is that there is no warning or preview or choice involved when a user accesses the Main Page. Put it another way, if you type "holocaust" into the search bar, you cannot complain if you read about and see photos of atrocious things. But if you come to the homepage, you have no prior warning of what it might contain. No news site would do this and neither should we. There are children accessing this site, for goodness sake... --Oscar Bravo 10:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Come up with a definition of "shocking" that most people accept and take it from there. Bazza 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's ironic that a "shocking" image is the best of Wikipedia. These pictures can be way out of context when they are on the main page. But that's the point, isn't it? It gets your attention, and allows you to get the context if you want. That they are out of context can be dangerous. In spite of that, our readers are smart enough to understand that they are going to be faced with unpleasantness from time to time. It's inevitable. Hires an editor 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Incidentally, guinea pigs bite. More like cute little hamsters, if you really wanted something more harmless. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Section Edit Break 1
- In my opinion, the current criteria for featured images is good. Suppose we accept that we're basically going to censor Wikipedia by by only displaying non-shocking images, which I disagree with. However, you still have what Bazza pointed out- the term shocking is not clearly defined. Some people will find a sketch of a skeleton offensive, others will object to a picture of child labour. In my opinion, not featuring images simply because they display unpleasant truth is censorship. Anyways, this is a wiki. You can participate in the decision making process. Cheers! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is essentially already user censored; we submit the content; we nominate the best material to be featured periodically on the main page. If you feel an image is too shocking for the main page, you have every opportunity to express that before a picture is featured. But a lot of people must have felt otherwise for a "shocking" picture to make it as far as the main page. 007patrick 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
To Bazza, Re: definition of "shocking": Stop playing the smug Philadelphia Lawyer and put yourself in the position of an educated 12-year-old. We all know what's shocking and a picture of dead bodies and someone with a gun to his head is one of them.--Oscar Bravo 07:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- You must know different 12-year olds than I do. APL 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I knew these sorts of pictures existed as a 12-year-old, and I saw them, and I was not psychologically wounded by them. But most of my classmates, who did not read books about the human reproductive system and the inner workings of guns and minds, and who did not reason for themselves about why people were cruel to each other, would be psychologically wounded by these pictures if they were younger. Their parents really should've explained this to them - I only knew this all because I was gifted enough to have to read novels generally reserved for "older teenagers" at age 8. But given that Wikipedia is not in the least censored for the other people, this sort of wrangling is useless. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes guidelines and policies are linked, but the content is not quoted. Wikipedia is not censored. contains this statement: "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content" (my italics). Some images placed in isolation on the main page may not be "relevant to the content", and if such images may reasonably be expected to have a shock effect then due consideration to their value in relation to the negative impact should be considered. Wiki is not censored is not an absolute statement, we have and do exclude text and images we consider unwise. A deliberate use of a shocking image on the main page could appear to be rather provocative. It would certainly be worth reviewing Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, and I'll be going over there to have a look at what it says. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion here. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- For User:Oscar Bravo's benefit, I am neither a lawyer nor from Phildelphia. Whether a picture shocks or not is subjective, and it is not for you or anyone else here to decide on another person's behalf. "We all know what's shocking..." — apparently not, otherwise this discussion would not be taking place. My point was to suggest that a definition of unacceptability is needed — which of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 would "pass" or "fail"? As the archives show, there are lots of excellent pictures in Wikipedia, and it is not surprising that some people find one or two uncomfortable — sometimes even distressing — to view, but I do not think that that is a reason to hide them away. Life's like this, and I'm glad that my children (who are all now past 12) have had access to information like this to see what the world's like in reality, as opposed to the censored comfort of the middle of the last century which I grew up in. I hope that wasn't too smug. Bazza 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Who's talking about "hiding them away"? I've absolutely no objection to the pictures appearing on pages that relate to them. That's in context and the user has passed a disclaimer page by then. I'm talking about the Main Page - no pre-defined context and no disclaimer. Regarding your list of pictures - the ones with dead or dying people shocked me, didn't they you? BTW, "Philadelphia Lawyer" is an idiom - I wasn't claiming to be psychic :-) --Oscar Bravo 16:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The PoTD pictures all relate to the main page: they're ones which have been voted "excellent pictures" regardless of their content and are shown on the main page because of that, not because they relate to any other content there. And no, none of the ones I picked shocked me to the extent that I would not want to see them on the Main Page (I chose them because I recall most of them stimulating a similar conversation to this one at the time they appeared on the main page). Which is why I made my point: you can only come up with a policy on not showing shocking pictures on the main page if you can get a general concensus on what it means. Also: there is no disclaimer page a user must pass on leaving the main page; there's a link to one at the bottom of every page, but I doubt many people read it before selecting the page they want to visit. Bazza 09:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but there's absolutley no way the community will agree to censor the main page. Our contributors have chosen to allow even the most shocking FAs to be on the front page, and have defended vigorously our right to do so. Wikipedia is not consored; this will not change. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is an essential read. If you haven't read it already, do so. I'm not going to throttle the rate of FPC promotions just because someone thinks the image I am about to promote may be offensive. That way, nothing will be promoted. Featured Pictures aren't politically correct and will never be (at least while I am there). MER-C 09:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Bravo Bazza, RyanGerbil10 and MER-C!
The problem with censoring is that once it starts, there's no end to it. So given a choice, I'd rather be occasionally shocked than protected for my own good. Besides, we all have a choice: we can refrain from viewing WP. Shir-El too 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Where to report vandalism?
The Olaudah Equiano page is blank, I assume it's vandalism. I can't fix it myself I'm too new... so that needs to be fixed. Anyway, is there a place to report vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.149.14 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 64.191.210.200 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Texas The Education section has been vandalized with "which is composed primarily of suck and lose. The school district is so terrible, that students such as Ryan Ladner withdraw from it and homeschool themselves, leaving ample free time to vandalize Wikipedia pages." and I am too new to this on how to report properly or correct actions to follow. It took me almost 20 minutes to find this area for posting so I hope it works. 64.191.210.200 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone can revert vandalism, even if you're not logged in, unless the page in question is semi-protected—see Help:Reverting for instructions. It is also useful to warn editors who have made unconstructive edits; this is usually done with standardized templates. If an editor continues to behave inappropriately after being warned several times, they may be reported to administrators here. An admin may then choose to block the user, warn them further/try to engage them in discussion, or do something else :) (whatever is most appropriate). As for the Olaudah Equiano page, a recent edit (apparently in good faith) removed a closing "hidden comment" tag. It's now fixed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Not An Error, but a Question
I'm a serious Pirates of the Caribbean addict, as you can probably tell. I was wondering, if we'd like to make a request for the "featured article" can we do so? If so, I'd like Jack Sparrow to be the main article. BlackPearl14 —Preceding comment was added at 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Featured articles need to meet the criteria outlined here; when they do, you may nominate them here here. No one is going to write an article for you - be bold and do it yourself. Picaroon (t) 01:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Eh hang on, people will write articles for you, if you request it. But its better to do it yourself. 132.239.90.236 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- No they won't. Watch: Please write me an article about granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptors. See, nobody has written it – Gurch 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Um, yes they have: Granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- They spelt it wrong – Gurch 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also that entire article consists of the text "The granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor is a receptor for granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor." That tells me sod all – Gurch 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you didn't specify that the article had to be particularly illuminating :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe they are still doing the research? Carcharoth 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I added about 20 characters to it! (Yay!) Now can someone help? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also that entire article consists of the text "The granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor is a receptor for granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor." That tells me sod all – Gurch 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I found that rather amusing. Gurch's variation is not a redirect too. violet/riga (t) 16:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Gah! Now you've gone and ruined my essay :( – Gurch 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not your essay... oh well. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it is; I wrote it. Whether or not I "own" it, it's my work – Gurch 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not your essay... oh well. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Gah! Now you've gone and ruined my essay :( – Gurch 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- They spelt it wrong – Gurch 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Um, yes they have: Granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- No they won't. Watch: Please write me an article about granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptors. See, nobody has written it – Gurch 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll write a featured article for you. My current rate starts at US$20 per hour with a US$50 deposit to be paid before I start. I accept checks and money order. Contact me by email if you are interested. Technical and obscure topics may have additional charges. No guarantee can be made for FA completion date. Bribes to the FA director to get the article on the main page not included. Mr.Z-man 17:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not if someone is actually willing to pay that. I could use the extra money. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Technical and obscure topics may have additional charges." Systemic bias - one can't get rid of it even by bringing money into the equation. <sigh> - BanyanTree 08:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Technical and obscure articles require more difficult research. Mr.Z-man 18:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you show the actual article on the main page. For example, Jack Sparrows page. This didn't really get anywhere near the answer to my question, sorry. But thanks for the info. Oh, and, User:Mr.Z-man, that's a bit obsurd, no offense meant. BlackPearl14 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're still confused about. The only way Jack Sparrow has any chance of being the Today's Featured Article on the Main Page is if it is a Wikipedia:Featured Article. The only way it will become a feature article is is someone such as you improves it until it meets the criteria. Nil Einne 10:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, great, I think i get it now, will do! Thanks! BlackPearl14 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Featured article = current event
Is it wise to have England national rugby union team as the featured article on the same day that England plays in the Rugby Union World Cup final - regular updating, especially this evening, when the match begins, will mean that the article will be very unstable, even for a main page FA. Additionally, with the entry Scrum (rugby union) in DYK, we will probably end up with TFA, DYK and ITN all referencing rugby union today - something specifically advised against in Main Page guidelines. Laïka 10:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- DYK'll be updated before the match is over, so there'll only be two sections referencing the game, and the TFA was specifically chosen for today:
"Generally speaking, preference will be given to requests [...] that are particularly relevant to a given date (especially major anniversaries)." - WP:TFA/R
- The policy does tend to mean that there is occasional overlap between the two top sections. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Look I support England fully today and of course naturally want them to win but this featured article for england is a POV. It is contrary to the fundamental principles of wikipedia. If it was an article on rugby union or the world cup fine but it is actions like this which make wikipedia look a laughing stock when it extresses so often that "neutrality" is one of the major goals 81.102.25.233 13:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently no one objected when it was requested to appear today so it did appear today. The article itself is pretty neutral enough for me. --Howard the Duck 14:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say the only way it'd've been particularly partisan would've been if our article on the Springboks had been passed up in favour of England. But for better or for worse, it hasn't received as much loving attention. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia jinxed England. Bwahahaha. Prince William will now sue Jimbo... --Howard the Duck 07:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say the only way it'd've been particularly partisan would've been if our article on the Springboks had been passed up in favour of England. But for better or for worse, it hasn't received as much loving attention. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Category
How about adding "[[Category:Main Page]]" and "[[Category:Main Page alternatives]]" to the bottom of the page? WAS 4.250 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Are there any objections to me doing this? Tim Vickers 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Request to add InterWiki Link to Ido Main Page
Hello, I'm sorry if this is not the place to request this. Could the caretakers of this page please add an 'InterWiki' link on the English main page to the Ido language 'Main Page'? That page may be found at http://io.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontispico Thank you. AnFu 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ido only has 15000 articles. The cutoff is 25000 which according to this means vi wiki(Vietnamese) should be on the front page. 128.227.50.158 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- So it is. Vi added. Thanks, BanyanTree 01:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- 128.227.50.158, Thank you for your reply. I was not aware of the cutoff. Sorry to bother you. AnFu 04:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Champion photo
Raikkonen looks pensative on the photo. I think instead a photo of somebody who has just become world champion should convey more happiness. How about this one instead? --Ben T/C 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Suggestions are best posted at WP:ITN/C. --74.13.131.41 21:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- At any rate, thanks for adding "pensative" to my vocabulary :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Lame PoD cation
I've edited the lead section of the article at Kiwifruit and suggest the caption be changed accordingly. The final sentence here is a bit lame. Suggested final sentence: Originally known as the "Chinese Gooseberry" or "Melonette", the fruit was renamed for marketing reasons after the country's national symbol due a passing similarity to the small, furry-looking creature. --mikaultalk 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Suggested edits are best posted at WP:ERRORS. --74.13.125.102 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Anticipated vandalism
Given the inherent heat that surrounds anything remotely to do with Israel on Wikipedia, I anticipate an increased volume of vandalism on tomorrow's Main Page article. --Dweller 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- In related news, water found to be wet – Gurch 12:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Lol. I'm going to bookmark that gem somewhere in my userspace. Perhaps I was predicting that some types of water are wetter than others. --Dweller 12:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well if heavy water is denser than normal water, perhaps its "wetter", since theres more mass of wetness that your touching lol? Tourskin 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone get the San Diego fires on the news?
Please? I know theres an article but I don't know how to get it up there. Tourskin 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please make your suggestion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thank you. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Main Page suggestion on Village Pump
Over at the Village Pump, I have raised the idea of adding a box about the 2008 Summer Olympics to the Main Page next year. I would like to ask all of you to join the discussion and share your thought about this, on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Olympics on the Main Page. AecisBrievenbus 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Problem logging on
I was going to ask this at the help desk, but it is not a question about using wikipedia, so I will ask it here. I once was Chipka, but I stopped using Wikipedia for a very long time (it might have been a year or more), Now I want to start up again, but when I tried to log in it would not let me. I am almost positive I have the right passward, so I'm wondering if wikipedia will get rid of an user if he stopes editing for a long time or something. Thanks for any responce.76.189.123.239 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
stop the scrolling
I get we need to raise funds, but the animated text in the "ad banner" what you don't know about us is incredibly, incredibly distracting. It needs to go. Sdedeo (tips) 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Problem solved with a "dismiss". Thanks team! Sdedeo (tips) 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I don't know where to go to complain about this but what on earth happened? It needs to stop whatever it is. Paliku 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, if there must be something animated, at least make it cross-fade instead of scroll. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Shouldn't there be a dismiss option like every time before? -Oreo Priest 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree, there needs to be an option to hide this, as there was before. It is highly distracting to have this text scrolling. Ariel♥Gold 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wait until someone donates and adds cuss filled/racist/sexual comments
- I've just added "div#siteNotice {display:none}" to my monobook style file. Eugène van der Pijll 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- That worked, thanks loads Eugène! Ariel♥Gold 23:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Better use the code by GraceNotes, below, if you want to see any future sitenotices, though. His code only turns of this fundraiser box. Eugène van der Pijll 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've just added "div#siteNotice {display:none}" to my monobook style file. Eugène van der Pijll 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, am I the only one who has problems playing the video? Maybe it's from the high amount of traffic. Paliku 22:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Who the heck thought putting an animated, scrolling piece of crap on the main page -- no wait, on every page -- was a good idea? The way it jitters nauseates me if I try to read it. --FOo 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I also can't play the video after a certain point. To whom it may concern, please take down this ill-conceived banner ad. Thanks, JHMM13(Disc) 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is actually the right forum for discussion, since this box appears on all pages, not just the Main Page. The only thing I could find on the Village Pump, though, was this short query, unanswered as I type. I certainly agree that the box as it is now is awfully distracting. I certainly have not the slightest intention of making a donation if this type of non-turn-off-able advertising remains. It's simply unacceptable not to have a "dismiss" button. Loganberry (Talk) 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments: 1. The code is here. 2. It uses a <marquee> tag. (Help!) 3. It can be hidden with table.fundraiser-box {display : none; }
. GracenotesT § 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict: Doesn't look like the administrators will be able to help... the banner is loaded from m:Special:NoticeLoader, powered by an extension that was installed at Meta. In other words, it's hard-coded into the site now. Well, at least Jason Calacanis can't say we don't know about advertising. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What a pathetic thing to do. Try to encourage donations yes, but people are now going to be adding the hide option to their personal CSS in droves. violet/riga (t) 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It makes the site completely unusable. Where do we protest? Also, the monobook fix doesn't seem to work for me. Espresso Addict 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone mentioned objectionable comments above, I'm particularly fond of the bit saying thank you for telling me the truth about 9/11 scrolling across the main page. Narco 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all- the scrolling is a nightmare. Will be implementing the fix asap. Badgerpatrol 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested a way for the administrators here to add an opt-out link or something using JavaScript. At least we should be able to turn off the ticker. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- How do we get rid of it? Its incredibly distracting. Why do we need ads? A little link is enough. This is pretty much like adware.
Wikipedia was one of the very few sites where I never needed to use AdBlock+. Until now. I fully understand you pursue a very noble goal, but the kind of advertising method you chose to employ is simply NOT acceptable for any reason whatsoever. Please consider the the fact that annoying visitors is simply not a good way to plea for their help. 24.83.195.130 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So bringing a complaint here yields "sorry, it's hard coded" and bringing a complain here yields "this is about wikipedia, not us". Wikipedia really has been taken over by corporate interests, they've got customer support pat!
I personally agree the scrolling needs to stop, but at least there is a dismiss option (I can definitely see how it would be unbearable without one). Where is the proper place to discuss the content of the banner? I would like to weigh in, as first impressions are important on a behemoth project like wiki. Halond 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please bypass your cache (usually Ctrl+F5) to view a temporary dismiss button. GracenotesT § 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Whose idea was this? It was a terrible one. Pacific Coast Highway {Trick • or treat!} 23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Evidently it was the decision of the Wikimedia Foundation. Lord Dreamy tm 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Troubleshooting Fix
- Does anyone else find that the codes above don't work? (I'm assuming they should be in monobook). I'm using Camino (ie, Mac-ized Firefox) on a Mac OS X 10.4. Any help would place me in your eternal debt. --Bfigura (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Did you clear your cache? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. Command-Opt-E on a mac. Also tried quitting and restarting the browswer. :-\ --Bfigura (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
div#siteNotice {display:none}
in your monobook.css. Lord Dreamy tm 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The marquee code needs to go. I'm all in favor of contributing to Wikipedia by any means possible, including donations, but this is more likely to annoy people than anything. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- A bit of a disclaimer about that code: it will hide all future site notices, not just the donation notice now. GracenotesT § 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't even know anything about the marquee code, I just used the one above. Lord Dreamy tm 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been resolved. Apparently, I'm a bit of an idiot :) Many thanks all. --Bfigura (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems to work! Espresso Addict 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The box at the top is really annoying, and I noticed the lack of a "[dismiss]" button, like always. Additionally, it's making my computer go even slower when editing. I can barely even see the edit cursor on my computer. This should be modified. 166.129.150.188 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, it cannot be edited, unless you are a programmer. Lord Dreamy tm 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is now a dismiss link, only as a stopgap solution for complaints. Bypass your cache (usually Ctrl+R) to view it. GracenotesT § 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't help mentioning: this is not only about scrolling, the presentation is tasteless - the yellow polo over black t-shirt... the beard... the close-up of his eyes and hands, ugh, and then it abruptly goes back to reply this over and over. With so many volunteers around, could someone do a better job? it looks like a mock-up of a Steve Jobs' keynote presentation. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could someone please tell me where to find the monobook.css file (or equivalent)? (I'm using Firefox on a W2000 system.) Thanks. (I wasn't planning to make a donation anytime soon, but that annoying scroll makes it official.) Thanks, Wanderer57 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Try User:Wanderer57/monobook.css. --Bfigura (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! That opens a whole new dimension of Wikipedia to me. I probably won't do any editing for months. :o) Wanderer57 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Try User:Wanderer57/monobook.css. --Bfigura (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have even looked at that ad, naturally tuning it out, if not for the fact that I was so disgusted with the idea of Wikipedia having ads. Then I thought "They must be in dire straights to put in ads, maybe I'll click it" then I realised what it was. Surely a better idea could have been found than this? --69.138.69.107 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikibake sales? Wanderer57 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- What? Lord Dreamy tm 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Lord. It was just a joke in answer to the previous comment. "Wiki" plus "bake sale". Maybe they don't have bake sales where you are. Cheers, Wanderer57 06:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
English wikipedia
If this is the english wikipedia, why do we have messages from people who donate funds in different languages; surely they should be translated? Is it time for another fundraising event?--Hadseys 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it is a lot of programming work to make one for every language. Lord Dreamy tm 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- In which case, just omit the foreign language statements. I don't like the whole idea anyway, it feels to me as if I'm being pressured to raise funds, which isn't right --Hadseys 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you really want it changed, you could go to the village pump, and ask there, or poke a programmer, though, they may be a little grouchy. Lord Dreamy tm 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Plus it's really ugly.. :/ — jacĸrм (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Make it better
Fundraising is unfortunately necessary, but the ugly banner is not. If we can design a better banner, we can replace it. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Dragons flight 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That annoying Wikipedia Money advertisement
Hoe do you get rid of it? Ive cleared my cache several times but it is still staring at me. It is annoying and distracting. I can't even read whatever language they're saying. Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.227.133 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can't do anything about it. You'd have to register to "dismiss" it. --Howard the Duck 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you're using Firefox, install the Adblock extension and block the following:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeLoader&action=raw
- which will stop it showing up at all (once you've refreshed the page) even if the CSS is changed – Gurch 05:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)