Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.208.107.163 (talk) at 03:41, 4 November 2008 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

05:18, Saturday, November 9, 2024 (UTC)
Shortcuts

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 05:18 on 9 November 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.
Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(November 15)

Monday's FL

(November 11)
Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcut


Featured sounds on the main page

Signature to disable archiving: ffm 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's time to move forwards with adding featured sounds to the main page. There are 98 featured sound files, representing 65 distinct compositions (symphonies and such can contain multiple files because of the various movements) Our statistics are reasonably good, with about a dozen per month in the last three months, and October looking good for a strong increase on that.

And, of course, the greater visibility can reasonably be presumed to attract more people to Featured sounds, increasing these numbers.

This will need some set-up time, of course, so I'd suggest that we start by putting in featured sounds in place of the weekend featured pictures in, say, November or December (I have discussed such a move with Howcheng) and plan on starting a daily run of featured sounds in the new year. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about "featured media" - which would basically be featured sound or video, rather than a picture? Garden. 16:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Garden. That sounds a great idea. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above editors—given the relative scarcity of featured sounds (which is not a comment on the quality of the selections, of course) and the scarcity of space on the Main Page, folding featured sounds into the current "featured image" selection and calling it "featured media" is probably the way to go. If this is done, the first sound selection needs to be chosen very carefully as a useful introduction to the concept, so I'd advise not going forward until you have a specific selection in mind for it. Of course, that's true even if it's not folded into the featured images, too. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather appropriate to kick it off with - an extremely good quality recording of a song everyone already knows. Raul654 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, though, that Featured Pictures is already quite a bit behind. I wouldnt mind blending sounds with video, to take some of the load off FPs, but to add sounds permanently to FPs is just going to push things further and further behind. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support a rename of "Featured Picture" to "Featured Media" and the inclusion of sounds, but only if one sound is chosen per composition (such as the first movement of la primavera) for now. ffm 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that, as sounds don't take a lot of space, we could probably fit three or four in without too much trouble. That's enough for all but one multi-part sound, and, frankly, we could just take some samples from that one without much problem. In any case, the multi-part sounds are a distinct minority. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a great idea. ffm 22:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with swapping a Featured Picture out with a Featured Sound is that the FPs currently have about a six-month backlog before appearing on the Main Page. Adding Sounds only increases that backlog. Additionally, there's a lot of technical template work to incorporate sounds, which may or may not be feasibly done. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A six-month backlog is a good problem to have, no? Has any thought been given to having two Featured Pictures each day? I wonder if the current stockpile would accommodate that. Then maybe, some days the second Featured Picture space could go to a Featured Sound, and we'd take out two birds with one stone.--Pharos (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bust of Ludwig van Beethoven taken from his death mask.
 Template:Multi-listen start

Template:Multi-listen item Template:Multi-listen item Template:Multi-listen item Template:Multi-listen end

Piano Sonata No. 28 in A Major, Op. 101: manuscript sketch for movement IV.

I like the idea, if it could be implemented, and suggest it begin by pairing this featured sound with either of these featured pictures. (Note that Wikipedia has already done this once on 9/11/2008 when it ran George W. Bush's 9/11/2001 speech (a featured sound) in tandem with a featured picture of the World Trade Center wreckage). Howcheng, you are welcome to push back my featured pictures in the queue in order to mix in featured sounds. That would reduce about 1/3 of the backlog? DurovaCharge! 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think sound-picture paring would work nicely, as right now a bit of space is wasted on the main page for one item. ffm 22:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we wouldn't always have such a neat pairing available. =) But yes, whenever possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As I see it, there's a few ways to do this:

  1. 1 Featured media, either FP or FS - this is probably impractical. Too big of an FP queue.
  2. Two featured media every day: I'm a little uncomfortable with this, because it wouldn't really advertise the featured sound project very effectively (since the words "featured sound" would not appear, and it gives no firm schedule for featured sounds.
  3. Featured picture + second FP Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday-Sunday / FS Monday Wednesday Friday - I kind of like this idea better, simply because, with a simple bit of extra code, featured sounds could be named in the title and links on the designated days. Three Featured sounds a week seems quite possible.
  4. 1 or 2 Featured pictures + Featured sound every day: Perhaps in the future!

I would suggest that, whatever we do, that the new inclusion of featured sounds is worth a Wikimedia foundation press release, explicitly encouraging people to submit their sounds. Wikipedia can do sounds very well, which print encyclopedias can't, but we do need to make it known that Wikipedia welcomes and encourages such submissions, or we won't get 'em. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.241.102 (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The four-month FP promotion rate is around 10.4/week, slightly less than as proposed above. I don't know how things are going over at FS, but what concerns me is that sometimes we have a lull where the rate drops below 7/week for a few consecutive weeks. Maybe a 10/4 partition?

And how thwould e main page look like when we have a panorama, especially at lower resolutions (800 x 600 in particular)? If I did POTD, I would run only one item those days. This would scuttle more than a few designs in the 2008 main page redesign proposal. MER-C 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured sounds could probably manage 4/week. Also, figure that some FPs (e.g. that collection of fractals) and multi-part FSes might reasonably take both partitions, and we should be fine, particularly if we set up the code to allow things like panoramas to take up both slots. We'll need to do the extra coding, of course, but if we have the will to move forwards, I don't think that's a huge problem. I'll start setting up a test system, based on the current featured pictures code, using default values to make it backwards compatible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very optimistic number on Shoemaker's part. I suppose this deserves background: for nearly three years featured sounds languished with an average of fewer than one promotion every two months. A small core of people brought the process to life this summer and fall, but it really needs broader exposure to become sustainable. I would gladly sacrifice any and all of my FP work if that's what it takes to get a stable featured sound process. That would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. DurovaCharge! 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've managed about 3/week for three months running. Presuming a bit more participation, 4 should be possible, particularly given the 60-odd sound backlog that will help fill in the gaps while we build things up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose there's any hope for the idea that WP shouldn't try to cram something into every last square inch of its mainpage? The Mozart example above reminds me of this.

While you may have a point about not trying to cram in too much (media overload), it's worth remembering that Google is a search engine and their main page is intended to be a way to access that search engine. Yahoo clearly consider their main page as a portal and similarly our main page is primarily intended to promote our content not to function as a search engine or be a way for people to access our articles (that is part of the purpose but not the primary purpose). You may want to go to Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal where generally too much whitespace is frowned upon and voice your views Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, where does anyone mention Mozart? DurovaCharge! 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Beethoven, of course. APL (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we've been working on Mozart too... ;) DurovaCharge! 05:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not cramming things into every square inch on the MP - we're just adding something else next to the FP, that won't take up any more space than a panorama. This would be a welcome addition to the project. Dendodge|TalkContribs 08:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this idea; I trust you'll find a schedule that works. I'd also like to see a Featured List, Portal, or Topic a day.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main delay is going to be updating all the templates involved. I'm going to have to try and get a small task force together. At the moment, at 4/week, we can last about four and a half months even if we never promote another featured sound (currently 75 featured sounds), so I think that we should be fine. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

What does it take to get an article up here on the main page? Does it have to be FA quality or a DYK article or can it be some article of B class quality aswell? Oh, and I also wonder: does anyone ever vandalise the main page? Because it protected...J.B. (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all articles on the main page are FA. The DYKs I don't know about. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what article you talk about. Today's Featured article has to be an FA. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for more information. Also, DYK needs to be a new article that is not a stub, or a stub article expanded by over fivefold over the past five days. ITN articles must cover the topic in question, that is, the topic should be updated. Does this help? Zithan (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That answers my first two questions, thanks for that. What about vandalism? Are there still admins vandalising the main page? Has it happened in the past (just curiousity)? J.B. (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened. (That user was de-adminned about ten minutes later.) Hut 8.5 11:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty strange though... how one would do all his best to become admin and then does something like that. I fail to understand his motives... J.B. (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The common reasons are 1) an admin account is compromised, e.g. because it has an insecure password (although I think measures have been implemented to make dictionary attacks more difficult so this may be less common now) 2) an admin account is left logged on and someone with (usually) legitimate access to the computer uses it 3) an admin decides to quit wikipedia for whatever reason and decides to go out with a 'bang'. In cases 1 and 2, the admins will usually get their adminship back once they have proven their identity and explained what actually happened Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to that guy, then? Was it reason 1 or 2, or was he going out with a bang (3)? BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know for sure but about a month before User talk:Robdurbar he said he was leaving. There was no contribs after until someone started fooling around [1]. This likely suggests it Robdurbar deciding to go out with a bang (whether it was him or he lent his account to someone else we don't know), although it's obviously still possible someone broke into his account. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user has gone on several other rampages with admin sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar. Hut 8.5 07:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's TFA

Is it true that Tomorrow's (Nov 4th) TFA has yet to be chosen? Aren't these things done well in advance? Justice America (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are chosen no more than 2 weeks in advance, and no, I have not chosen it yet. Raul654 (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sousa's Transit of Venus

I like it, but the music file is too big for the DYK box. Can we shrink it so as to be more aesthetically pleasing? Thanks. Zidel333 (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


mughal emperors

There is no such thing as a 'Mughal emperor', because emperors in India can only be inaugurated by Brahmin priests and an asvamedha. 192.87.123.159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

That is not true. See Mughal emperor. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US election candidates on main page

After an extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#November_4a that garnered the support of many Wikipedia contributors (myself included), the featured article director, Raul654 decided to run two featured articles for November 4, John McCain and Barack Obama. Any questions one might have about this may be in the linked discussion.--chaser - t 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Obama's section have a "read more" link like McCain's? - -The Spooky One (talk to me) (Share the Love- Give a Barnstar) 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very nice. Good job on being bold. Looks great! Domthedude001 01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea for today's main page, and well executed. Majoreditor (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 FAs are brilliant! Congrats to the editors of both. We should have these more often.--Pharos (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 FAs? BRILLIANT!!! -- Veggy (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric bias

Just because the united states is holding a presidential election doesn't warrant having two featured articles, neither of which can be fully comprehensive as the results of the said election are unknown. How can an article about the next president ever be comprehensive, when his actions as present would be impossible to record until after their term had expired. This is quite frankly ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 00:07, November 4, 2008

Sorry. It's just... our election is more important than yours. Lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.157.155 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is wikipedia showing US bias, never before has this happened in wikipedia. And to be honest elections in zimbabwe are more important than an election in the United States, where regardless of the outcome there is still an impending financial meltdown, still wars all over the place and overall still very little change. Therefore i think elections in places where there is likely to be change are far more important than elections that change nothing other than who's going to be sitting in the oval office screwing things up.
Psst. Look above you. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, this is the English Wikipedia. A huge proportion of our users are from the US. PretzelsTalk! 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is typical wikipedia bias that is one-sided towards the US. I have no problem with an in the news blip on the US election, but giving it massive front page bias is uncalled for. You have to draw the line with this bias. Right now, Wikipedia might as well fly an American flag behind the logo on the US independence day. 72.184.108.209 (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but on Christmas I want a dual FA with Santa AND the abominable snowman. AND i want snow to fall from the top of teh page. AND I want it to make jingle bell sounds. AND I want little reindeer to fly next to your cursor. do we have a deal? 72.184.108.209 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the articles are comprehensive to this date. No article about a currently living person ever purports to be complete through the person's death. Date relevance is a common criteria in picking the Featured Articles, and non-US topics are exactly the same as US topics in that they're more likely to be placed on the Main Page for a relevant date. As it happens, November 4 is the most relevant date for these two articles. And of course it's silly to pretend that the US president is only important to US citizens. It'd be silly to pretend the Chinese president is only important to Chinese, the British Prime Minister only important to Britain, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I bet my brother 20$ that it would take at least 15 minutes until someone complains about "US bias". Damn, I say! >:-( J.delanoygabsadds 00:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you want this for _your_ election, feel free to work up the major candidates' articles to featured status. ffm 00:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Raul has claimed this will be a one time deal, so even if two candidates articles of other elections are brought to FA status he wont feature them, or so he says... 189.104.124.43 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where did he say that? ffm 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right here: [2] 189.104.124.43 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is the most important English-language election happening today, so on the English-language Wikipedia I think it's fine, and clever. Tempshill (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as I suggested during the TFA discussion, I respectfully disagree with Raul on that. If the articles on Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are brought up to FA status by the next British elections, then of course we should outdo this with a threefer. Nor do we need to keep this to politics. What if, on the day of the last World Cup final, we'd had France national football team and Italy national football team up to FA status? We could have done the same thing, and I doubt it would have been as controversial. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based off the above complaints, I'd like to propose an item for Did You Know...
* ... that if it has never been clear that the British Broadcasting Corporation and The Toronto Star are American biased then it should be now? --JayHenry (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is international news coverage. I don't think anyone has a problem with putting the US election in the "in the news" section of the main page, but dominating the page with the dual FAs is a bit over the top. Another point is that this wouldn't happen for any other election. Why should the US get this special treatment? It is biased72.184.108.209 (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see absolutely no evidence for your theory that this wouldn't have happened if a different country had its main election candidates at FA standard. I, for one, would have supported this for nearly any country in the world. Frankly had this been Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai at FA standard, my support (and I think many others') would have been much stronger. --JayHenry (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The USA is extremely powerful. Whoever wins this election will more or less be the most powerful human being on Earth. It may not be a pleasant thought, but right now we're teetering on the edge of WWIII and it's more or less America's call on whether we go over the edge. Zazaban (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, you're forgetting about the shadow government of evil corpos. ffm 00:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theirs and that of Russia, China, the UK, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. --81.157.137.228 (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this inclusion, and am not American. It is relevant, and I applaud Raul for having the balls to run the double-TFA on this date. That being said, this page is gonna be a hell of a mess very quickly, and it will just get worse when Europe wakes up tomorrow morning... Random89 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this US-centric bias outrage really ironic in light of the fact that much of the world both bemoans our current president and feels it should also have a voice in our elections... :-) thanks for cool FA main page, though, guys!--210.248.139.34 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why both articles are fullprotected. If complaints become a _major_ problem, feel free to put up a {{NOTICE}} like I did in WP:ERRORS ffm 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why are there two fas? looks reall ugly.--Navalscene1 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The date was naturally relevant, and we couldn't have one over the other; that would give the impression of bias. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a former contributor, admin, and FA writer I must say how impressed I am with the double TFA - it looks very good and was a very good idea. Well done. 91.110.133.193 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


there is nothing wrong with having current event article as featured article but i must agree that it makes wikipedia look highly US-centric when rules are bent and 2 featured articles are posted only during US events. either post more relevant to the day/2 feautred articles for other countries or keep it random. Wikipedia looked like 911 memorial site on sept 11. now it looks like pro US election. Again there is nothing wrong with it but if u gonna choose days like this u have to do it for other countries too otherwise people will obviously complain...99.237.123.217 (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints arn't a problem. And, by the way, WP:IAR. ffm 00:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can make that complaint if there is ever another general election where both leading candidates have featured articles, but don't get the same treatment from Wikipedia. You'd've thought the most likely non-US election to receive the same treatment would be the UK's, but right now neither Gordon Brown nor David Cameron are FAs. I'm not even going to bother looking at the head of state and opposition leader of Indonesia. --81.157.137.228 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop pissing your panties, it's just a featured article. OBAMA 08! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.11.53 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama at the bottom?

McCain is trailing in the polls, even Karl Rove predicts that Obama will win. So why the hell is he at the bottom? Fourtyearswhat (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter
Alphabetical order. See the notice at the top. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We try to be as unbiased as we can be. Thus, today's articles.  Marlith (Talk)  00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because we're a uber-right-wing cabal. No, seriously, see Talk:Main_Page#Errors_in_the_summary_of_Today.27s_featured_article_on_the_Main_Page. ffm
I knew that whichever one ended up on top, the other's partisans would cry about it. I'm surprized it took 42 minutes. It doesn't matter. Coemgenus 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read in the lengthy discussion before this decision was made, McCain is above because of alphabetical order and the fact he is a senior senator. Don't panic, I doubt Wikipedia's vertical ordering will swing anyone's vote. ;) PretzelsTalk! 01:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that, when the next election comes around for one of the "more powerful" nations, that they will adamantly insist their candidates be included on the main page. NorthernThunder (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? ffm 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least one and probably both of those candidates won't have FAs on Wikipedia, so that will be a very short discussion. --81.157.137.228 (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If the articles about both candidates running for the office are FAs, I don't see why we shouldn't do it. However, since that is extremely unlikely (read: "well-nigh impossible") to happen, I don't think well have to deal with that issue... Thingg⊕⊗ 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If another country has elections and both candidates' articles are FA status, then I will fully support doing a double TFA for them as well. Kachyna(talk) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, though most countries don't have two-year political campaigns that give editors ample time to improve articles to FA status. It would take some very motivated editors to work multiple articles on the potential head of state into shape in the short lead time in, for example, parliamentary democracies. Clearly the U.S. Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to bias Wikipedia. - BanyanTree 02:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm surprised someone hasn't said anything about a possible theme with Hamilton and Obama both on the main page at the same time....YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a biracial bias! Wikipedia clearly has a systemic prejudice in favor of miscegenation!!1!1! continues, frothing at the mouth —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added JavaScript to randomize the order of the candidates as displayed on the main page. I figured it was the most fair thing to do. It was good enough for our candidate listings during the WMF Board elections, so why not the US Presidential elections as well? :-P Cyde Weys 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm sure half the press is going to report now that Obama's on top, and the other half that McCain's on top. And a lot of people will write strongly worded letters of complaint on both sides. This should be interesting :)--Pharos (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I just sat there refreshing the Main Page like 25 times just to watch them jumping around. (sad, I know...) J.delanoygabsadds 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo, Cyde Weys. ~ priyanath talk 02:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see I'm not alone in doing that. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I like this solution. I'm an Obama supporter, but I was fine with the alphabetical order. This is an encyclopedia, after all.
As most readers will be unaware that the layout is randomly determined via JavaScript, they might not realize that neither candidate is always on top or might assume that administrators are wheel-warring (if they notice one or more swaps).
Also, Obama's picture is on the left (arguably the more prominent location), which helped to balance the previous setup somewhat. With the Obama blurb now receiving the top position 50% of the time, this seems like an unfair advantage. —David Levy 02:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole javascript is things is also just semi-working, because javascript gets cached for 31 days. So it will take up to 31 days before this will work for any of the visitors of the past 31 days. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody's seriously worried that the flipping will be misunderstood, add a headnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The divs alone are a noop, so the page will simply show in the McCain first/Obama second order if the JS hasn't been updated. That's a shame that the refresh period is 31 days though; looks like we should've come up with this beforehand, at least far enough out to get the change in for display on the relevant day. --Cyde Weys 03:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TheDJ, if only browser caching worked that well: Most browsers won't cache the JS beyond their session. For example, I started FireFox 2 and visited the page right after Cyde made the change and I picked it up right away. It's unlikely that the cached copy expired properly at just that moment. :) Not everyone will see it, yes, but thats better than not doing it at all. (I dunno why enwp never adopted my dshuf stuff in the past).
I think the wheel warring concern is without merit. Someone who understands the sausage making enough to understand wheel warring will know enough to go look to see if thats what is happening. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gmaxwell, I know, i'm just stating that for many folks that will be the reality, and any edit to Common.js should always keep that in mind. And enwp probably doesn't have dshuf, because we have never needed it before. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I can't comment on the JavaScript cache issue, but it's been pointed out that the code is active only for logged-in users.
2. I wasn't referring to people familiar with the term "wheel-warring" and the social intricacies surrounding it; I was referring to those with a basic understanding of the fact that the main page is edited strictly by administrators and the observation that the order is switching back and forth. —David Levy 03:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are an encyclopedia. We're also an electronic encyclopedia, so dynamic ordering is entirely within the realm of our consideration (where it wouldn't be for a static, dead-tree encyclopedia). We also prize ourself on our neutrality, so I do think having no preference over the ordering is the best solution. The alphabetical thing is entirely arbitrary in a short list of only two elements solely as a method of determining ordering. In a long list of many elements, alphabetical sorting helps you find members of the list, but that doesn't confer any advantages here. So I figured, why not get rid of the false arbitrary (going by last name) and going with true arbitrary (actual randomization). --Cyde Weys 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address the image issue. Can you correct that? —David Levy 03:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it is biased against Cain because his pic has fewer pixles, and his description has fewer words. LOLz 72.184.108.209 (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, McCain's photo is one pixel taller than Obama's. Scandal. Also, on Twitter already: "Even Wikipedia is getting in on the US election". Hear that? Even Wikipedia. Who'd have thought. PretzelsTalk! 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde, you don't work for Diebold, do you :-) ~ priyanath talk 03:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I work for Premier Election Systems. It's something entirely different, I assure you. --Cyde Weys 03:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor text of election link should read "2008 U.S. presidential election"

...Rather than just "2008 presidential election". Explicit context. — ¾-10 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though "United States Senator" nearby is a pretty obvious context clue. — ¾-10 01:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Changed it. Saying "the 2008 election", even though there's a lot of context, seems a bit too self-important. (to admins: revert me as you please) Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you (or another Administrator) also do it to the main article? It's full-protected. --Domthedude001 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE. Obama had already been changed, and I added the text to McCain's article.-Andrew c [talk] 02:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Raul

Raul,

I have to give you my kudos to the Obama/McCain double TFA. By giving us the change we need, you've proved yourself a maverick.

Lovelac7 02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm J.delanoy and I endorse the above statement. J.delanoygabsadds 02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
…and not only two, but both are full protected articles. I for one welcome this vandalism reduced future. It's nice to be able to have some biographies on the main page without subjecting a couple percent of the many millions of viewers to vicious libel on the persons. Since we're doing this for two well known people who aren't likely to be hurt by Wikipedia vandalism, we'll be extending this courtesy to other more vulnerable people in the future, right? --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely. Those pages are protected because of the US presidential election, and for no other reason. J.delanoygabsadds 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look good for us: We'll protect articles where vandalism would be bad for our reputation but mostly harmless for the subjects, but we won't protect more articles on obscure people where the subject is harmed more by vandalism than Wikipedia is. I hope that isn't true. Full protection is a pretty blunt instrument but protection is the only such option while English Wikipedia refuses to adopt revision flagging.--Gmaxwell (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Raul did a good job in being bold here. And I was shocked at how fast he grabbed a CSS fix. More of this kind of variation on the main page! PretzelsTalk! 02:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read that guy saying how the Zimbabwe elections should be FA instead. Now that was funny, especially since the en in en.wikipedia.org means English, not African, things important to the Anglo world. There are other Wikis for other places in the world.--69.229.173.135 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But do remember that Zimbabwe was once a British colony, and both of its presidential candidates, after all, had English first names. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The English language Wikipedia is widely used by the entire world because English is a popular language all over the world, and English language Wikipedia is the most popular and complete.. Traffic from countries where English the the well known primary language is still only a bit more than half the traffic as I recall. Also, the elections in Zimbabwe have impacts far outside of Zimbabwe, though the same is true for the US elections. I don't see anything wrong with today's choice, but I thought your argument wasn't good. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As well as for the fact that English is an official language of Zimbabwe. But the point of the matter is the articles need to be FA quality. Any major election, in an English speaking country or not that has FA quality articles should get featured at least at some point in the election course, whether it follows the same style as todays or not is up for debate. Sven (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that today's style, while not objectionable as a one-off, should not become standard. There are more than two candidates in the US election. The readers would probably learn a lot more if any one of the others were featured. We're doing the public disservice by furthering the myopic focus on the two likely winners, though an exceptionally mild one. I think articles on the history of voting, or on voting science make better election day fodder. ::shrugs:: --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to play devil's advocate, would we be injecting a fringe POV by presenting these candidates as anything other than the Don Quixotes that reality shows them to be? The notion that a two-party system is myopic and therefore undesirable is a POV. It's a normative statement about what should be and what shouldn't be. Whereas acknowledgment that two-party government is the de facto system in the United States is an NPOV-observation of the simple reality; reality is no disservice, on the contrary, it's our goal. --JayHenry (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Protection????

I was under the impression that today's featured article should NOT be fully protected. Why are these two? You cannot have it both ways - either remove the protection or remove them from the main page. Exxolon (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, read the above discussions and the discussion they link to. Next, look at Israel's sojourn on the Main Page. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protection is invoked when problems arise, not pre-emptively in case there are problems. There is absolutely no reason for these articles to be protected in advance. They should be unprotected and if vandalism becomes an issue THEN we can invoke our standard responses. Exxolon (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you really want to, WP:RFPP is that way. But I can almost assure you that there is not an admin on this site who will lower the protection level. J.delanoygabsadds 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Just so you are aware, it was decided (with nearly unanimous support I might add) that these pages would be fully-protected today even before it was proposed to use them as TFA. Also, as I mentioned before, the idea of a fully protected TFA has been widely discussed above and at great length on other pages. In addition, it is not without precedent to protect TFA if it is an extremely likely target for vandalism. (for example, Israel). If you don't agree with this, that's fine, but complaining about it now after it has been discussed at length on AN and TFA/R for nearly a week is probably not going to change the decision that was made there. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the articles either being TFAs OR being fully protected. However the two in combination is not acceptable. Exxolon (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=249569889"