Talk:Main Page

I've moved this to a subpage - see WT:ITN3.0. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now an RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

russell falls featured picture

todays featured picture looks very much like it's been photoshopped. it's possible that it's just a really poor quality camera or exceptionally slow shutter setting. regardless this picture looks like in game footage from an RPG or FPS Game. this picture can't do justice to the place it's of (presumably), and doesn't do justice to the featured picture section. i suggest that in future more care is given to picture selection, there are literally millions of better images and probably hundreds of better images of russell falls. i found this: http://www.wallpapers10.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Russell_Falls.jpg

(and others) in a yahoo search taking all of 30 secs, and this picture is of smaller size, higher quality and much better composition. thats clearly my opinion but not on the merits of the place pictured, merely on the poor quality of the image used when other better photos are easily available as free for use wallpapers. user : teknotiss (for such a small thng i really couldn't be bother to log in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.151.59 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a four-second exposure, not a photoshop. These issues were discussed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Russell Falls 2.jpg when it was made a Featured Picture 18 months ago. The images go up on the Main Page in a first-come, first-served basis in the order they were promoted (barring a few shufflings for anniversaries and to prevent two images of similar things on successive days). Modest Genius ^talk 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for clearing up the selection process. However it's still not a good shot of russell falls. Would anyone know why such a poor quality shot would be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.151.59 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Others disagreed with your assessment. You're welcome to participate in the selection process, thereby contributing to future decisions.

Also note that gratis and libre are distinct concepts; the "free" photographs that you found elsewhere might be the former and not the latter (in which case Wikipedia cannot use them). —David Levy 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you david i know where to find the candidate pictures now so i can comment. I would note that being placed in an unobtrusive link inside the "More featured pictures" isn't ideal for getting people to comment on them, but thats for another thread i suppose. As for the gratis vs libre issue, well I agree, I just used that picture as an example of how many images there are and easy they are to find. It wasn't a statment of this should be used, more that this is a better shot and the current image looks bad on wikipedia's front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknotiss (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take your own photograph of the waterfall and release the rights to it so Wikipedia can use it, we'd be most grateful... 狐 FOX 09:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not incredibly easy to find a free image as plenty of people who have tried will tell you and while there are a fair number out there that we don't yet have I think you vastly overestimate how many there are particularly quality ones so your point seems somewhat moot. Incidentally the picture in question is also a featured picture on the Commons and Spanish wikipedia. Of course both have different criteria, in particular I believe the Commons is more concerned about whether it's a good photo (or whatever) rather then how well it represents the subject (which does matter to us). If I understand Commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Results/R1/ALL/Table correctly, this picture received 22 votes in round 1 of voting for picture of the year 2009 in the commons which considering the most was 61 votes and its relative position isn't something to be scoffed at. (Incidentally there was another picture of the same waterfall File:Russell Falls Mt Field National Park.jpg that got 21 votes that year). In other words, while you are entitled to your opinion, it seems quite a lot of people dont share your view of how bad this photo is. BTW while I have no experience with that particularly site, I wouldn't trust images on some random site like that to actually be free in either sense of the word. Note that the 'More featured pictures' isn't an attempt to get people to comment on candidates. While we welcome feedback we tend to keep that off the main page because readers (who the main page are for) aren't particularly interested in it. Note that by the time an image makes it to the main page, it's probably been a featured picture for over a year as somewhat has pointed out above. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"but yes, you are right"

This has nothing to do with the main page.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

is the phrase "but yes, you are right" grammatically correct? 190.51.160.175 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting 'no' and 'wrong' in various combinations also works - so the phrase is grammatically correct, at least in colloquial (and possibly formal) English. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the main page. Please read the very large banner that appears when you are in the edit window, as it's purpose is to direct you towards the correct place to post comments. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering the question - but could have redirected to either the 'English language talk page' on WP or the presently underdeveloped English Language wiki on Wikia. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or Wikipedia's language reference desk. Graham87 02:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there could be a mention in the header section to the effect that 'for language queries see (list).' We all have the occasional 'grammatical puzzle.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITN picture alignment

With the ongoing 'ITN picture/topic misalignment discussion' - how feasible would it be to have the #word# 'pictured' in 'a colour'/more instantly visible typeface' - so readily visible? (But this will be one of the regular discussions when WP celebrates its 100th birthday - along with too much sport/beasties/US/other usual suspects) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, we tried displaying "(pictured)" in bold text. This quickly proved unpopular. —David Levy 18:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of those 'complaints whichever way you do it' topics with the same six suggestions being (g). 'Anybody who uses WP regularly' knows to look around the ITN section for the relevant entry.

Aren't we about due for a 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells about the main page' discussion? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not always bump the item related to the picture to the top and put other items in whatever order is otherwise being used? --Khajidha (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia's newest articles

Well, it is in reality "From Wikipedia's newest or expanded articles". Shouldn't we correct that to be more factual? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any case it is about newly created content. No need to be over technical, IMO. At least where we have limited place on the Main page box. --Tone 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP in principle, but we'd need to find a phrasing that fitted into the available space. "From Wikipedia's newest or expanded articles" would work fine on large screens, but wrap onto two lines for small ones (remember not everyone maximises their browser). Besides, they're not really the 'newest' articles anyway, usually several days old. Something like 'from recently expanded articles'? Do we even need to mention Wikipedia here? Modest Genius ^talk 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting a bit too pedantic here about the wording. I don't think the reader needs to know whether the article is completely new or just expanded. The important part is how good the content is. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"From Wikipedia's newest content"? That would clear up any anomoly, as well as no longer implying that lists do not make it through to DYK. —W F C— 14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But not all content qualifies - adding new information to existing articles but without being a 5x expansion does not qualify for DYK. Modest Genius ^talk 17:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That not all new content can be on DYK does not make the statement "from Wikipedia's newest content" inaccurate. —W F C— 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(the above point about -est notwithstanding) —W F C— 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...newest content" seems to be the most appropriate. Expanded articles are essentially new content. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this note even have to appear on the main page? Yes, the qualifications should be listed on the nomination page, but there doesn't seem to be any need to mention them here. It doesn't really matter to the reader how the DYK items are chosen. --Khajidha (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does because DYK is intended to highlight new content and show off the fact we are constantly getting new articles and stubs becoming real articles. A common question is why some DYK items seem boring or stuff everyone knows because people think DYK is supposed to highlight interest facts that people may not know but that isn't its primary purpose nor the way it is set up. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct this error (third time of asking)

In OTD, as reported above - 'license' in the Raymonde de Laroche entry in OTD should read 'licence'. Am posting here as no-one seems to be taking any notice of where I posted above in the OTD section, and the error has been up for 13 hours now. Thanks 86.142.104.120 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason why an article about a French woman should be written in British English? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason why it shouldn't be? 87.115.50.126 (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the start of a boring, pointless non-argument. Happy pancake day. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a silly issue, but fwiw, the article itself uses the British spelling of licence. Reso lute 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes no difference to me particularly, the hook being used links to an article with USEng spelling... Damned if you do, .... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's even funnier than that. From Raymonde de Laroche: "... an airplane pilot's licence." and "... the first woman in the world to receive a pilot licence when the Aero-Club of France issued her license #36 ...". No doubt someone will grasp the nettle and regularise the transatlantic spellings. --RexxS (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny? --118.208.182.238 (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found it incongruous (hence mildly amusing) that someone objected to the use of en-us in the hook which has a lifetime of less than a day, when the article itself uses a random mixture of en-gb and en-us and has been that way for months, if not years, without anyone mentioning it. --RexxS (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymonde de Laroche has been regularized to en-gb. Someone may want to check it since I'm American. howcheng {chat} 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]