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 The Land (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 16 December 2005 (Reverted edits by 69.76.224.95 (talk) to last version by 156.3.109.211). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Canadian Content

I am a Canadian from Toronto, and I would like to thank the Wikipedia editors for featuring a great deal of Canadian content on the Main Page. Canada's contributions to the world are often overlooked because of our own pre-occupation with our internal problems (e.g. Quebec secession, regionalism in general), and the fact that we seem to suffer from a inferiority complex due to our proximity to the United States. In other words, we don't do a good job of "selling ourselves," and thus don't give much of a reason for others to notice what we've done.

Part of the problem is that Canadians are not well educated in their own history and hence do not have a good understanding of the relative worth of our contributions. Hopefully, via Wikipedia, the world (Canadians included) will have a better idea of Canada's small but significant role on the international scene in the past and in the present.


Iranian president

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pictured) denies the Holocaust of Jews in Europe, calling it a "myth". "

Sorry, this is biased news. Do we see a top headline every time a Western president says something ignorant about gays, colonialism, communism, or whatever else they are prejudiced about? Mention it in the article about the Iranian President, sure, but wiki news should not be a mouthpiece for targeted propaganda such as this. (Not that it's not true, but it's "newsworthy" as the US/Europe are mounting a campaign against Iran.) Dan Carkner 18:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting he did not make such comments? Stating facts is not biased. --Nelson Ricardo 18:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iran has stolen nuclear bomb plans; and likely materials from Pakistan as well -- those in turn were stolen -- that leads back finally to the orginal theft from Jewish(Ironic?) communists fenced to the Soviets. Remarks by the Iranian president, given the willfull use of stolen nuclear secrets that could shed light upon their intentions, is legitimate news.

Don't think so - this comment has international implications - anyone remember Pat Robertson? -- Natalinasmpf 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You flatter Mr Robertston. --mav
Did we really have Mr Robertson? God. Well, if we had Mr Robertson than we should have Mr Imonajihad for the sake of avoiding bias. But I was under the impression that ITN is for articles whose subjects are in the news, not whatever takes the media's passing fancy. --Last Malthusian 09:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your last sentence is basically what I meant. If Robertson was there, then OK, I guess it balances out ;) Dan Carkner 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TOOT YOUR HORN!!! - See these Nature articles!

Yes. They are for real. Look at the URLs! --EMS | Talk 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here are the articles they sampled Raul654 21:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And see the new Wikipedia:External peer review. violet/riga (t) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia will probably fix the inaccuracies faster than Encyclopaedia Britannica !!! -- 199.71.174.100 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This site is CONFUSING!!!

How do you post new articles????????? There is too much going on on this site!! Somebody help!!

See where it says "Help" in the navigation box to the upper left? Peter1968 22:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things, new site policy after the Seigenthaler debacle requires you to register before you can create an article. - Cuivienen 02:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These are completely seperate occurences. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 03:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no they aren't. Direct cause and effect relationship, in fact. — Dan | talk 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fantasy

Hrm, peanut butter, why do you ask? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know style correction

Per Wikipedia style, shouldn't "Beautiful Boy", as a song title, be in quotes rather than italicized? I'd fix it, but, well, I'm not allowed. Scarequotes 03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Officially most boring F.A

Shoe polish? What the hell? CrazyAussie 04:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just upset that it was called Kiwi?-gadfium 05:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The debate begins: more or less interesting than Whatsherface Strychnine?
On a slightly (very slightly) more serious note, if the Main Page is meant to showcase Wikipedia, then right now the main page says "We like to write about shoe polish". --Last Malthusian 09:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First modern shoe polish?

Despite the blurb on today's (Dec 15 2005), "Kiwi" was not "the first modern shoe polish". The German brand "Erdal" was patented in 1901.Kar98 16:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i just don't like pink

OK so when I designed this, patterning my uncyc User Page after the Wikipedia Main Page, which I undersatnd lots of people do, I noticed I really didn't like the pnk color for the Featured article section to be on my User Page. Then I took a closer look at the Wikipedia main page and realized, heck I don't like it there either! It's ugly as hell! Green would look so much better, and as it does here. So, uh, yeah. That's my suggestion. A minor shift in the color scheme. --Nerd42 05:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i sort of agree with this chap, Nerd42. except his green is a touch to bright. something paler would work better. infact, isn't wikipedia contemplating overhauling the main page? Veej 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, It is proven that pastel colors for websites is best. It i seasy to read, soft for the eye, so that you are able to browse the site longer... What could be thought of is light yellow (puts people in a buying mood), green makes people calm, etc etc etc. It is interesting to look at what you want for your customers and not to look at what your personal opinion is!
I actually quite like the pink. Though I can't say I'd be upset if it changed. Run! 11:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the sex sites should be removed

well thw title says it all!!!

Why? --Vagodin 11:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that prides itself on its diversity. You would find the same articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica, so why not Wikipedia? Unless, of course, you found an article that violates rules? Kareeser|Talk! 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe polish?

As well written as it may be, "shoe polish" is a horribly boring subject for a "Featured Article". How many people are really like "Gee, I wish I knew more about shoe polish!" Just my 2 cents. :) Trojanpony 08:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. Nearly every time I go on Wikipedia the featured article is interesting.. not today.

Maybe the guy who does the F.A got Christmas and April Fools confused? CrazyAussie 09:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is precisely the sort of article I think shows the diversity of Wikipedia. I enjoy seeing articles here that are a bit unexpected. Not everything that is a featured article needs to be groundbreaking, after all. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for groundbreaking, just interesting. I think there usually is a good amount of diversity in the FA's. Something like "shoe polish" doesn't really "showcase" anything, frankly. You could find a good entry on shoe polish in any standard encyclopedia. FA's often highlight articles you won't find in a typical encyclopedia. I think these go a lot further to showcase the strength of Wikipedia. Trojanpony 13:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? Shoe polish is preciesly the kind of obscure thing which is neglected by traditional encyclopedias. I wouldnn't be surprised if the wikipedia article is now the world's leading authority on shoe polish. (Or at least it will be, once Kar98 improves it.) Doops | talk 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite ashamed to admit that I did comply with your request. Kar98 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the blurb on today's (Dec 15 2005), "Kiwi" was not "the first modern shoe polish". The German brand "Erdal" was patented in 1901 Kar98 16:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned in the article. Perhaps you could contribute? Doops | talk 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia is made so we can learn about stuff we normaly would'nt seek out. Hagamaba 19:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


I have to agree with the general feeling of disgust regarding the pedestrian nature of the featured article. Hagamaba said, "Wikipedia is made so we can learn about stuff we normaly would'nt seek out". Unless we have interesting featured articles then nobody will bother to seek out wikipedia's front page at all. This is all very reminicient of the kind of mindless frivilousness where some university students waste time & resources reasearching 'The probability of toast falling butterside down on the kitchen floor' or something equally useless. There are some truely fascinating articles within wikipedia, the like of which, cannot be found elsewhere. Feature them! instead of degrading the reputation of wikipedia. Whoever chose this as an FA, did you think it was funny? Is there some cutesy sweetness about it? Is it quirky & eccentric? Infact, it's none of these things. It's just tedious. When i want a laugh i'll goto badgas. When i want knowledge i come here. Please keep this the best place to come. Veej 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. The featured articles of late are becoming ridiculous. How can Wikipedia be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if it merely mirrors the Internet's random nonsense. People read encyclopedias to learn. Featuring articles on shoe polish and nobody-politicians simply tells me that Wikipedia is a gimmick. Too bad--Wikipedia had such great potential...
"Silly" stuff can turn out to be important - winmine.exe fascinates some mathematicians, for example, due to its relation to an unsolved problem in mathematics. Maybe Minesweeper will make it to featured some day. Metarhyme 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The best featured articles are those that come alongside nicely with current events, which happens a lot sometimes. Rosa Parks, for example. People who come to Wikipedia will see the featured article and think "I saw that on the news today" and probably want to go to the article to find out more. I'm not suggesting that the articles be events (that's for wikinews), but perhaps the articles could be people or places involved in the events. Run! 11:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said with Tom Brinkman who featured recently, there is a case for including seemingly minor subjects - the serendipity factor. (Having a major and a minor topic would fill up too much of the main page.

Jackiespeel 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the main criterion for a featured article that it corresponds to the various policies on what makes a good article and the Manual of Style? If so, I have to say Wikipedia is disappearing up its own rectum a bit. It's all very well to showcase Wikipedia's virtues, but if an article is boring (not 'obscure' - shoe polish is no more obscure than toothpaste or toilet cleaner, it's just an everyday object) then people won't read it and won't learn anything about Wikipedia. --Last Malthusian 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria list links to Wikipedia:The perfect article which describes a perfect article as engaging. However there's nothing else that might filter boring articles from the FA candidates. Perhaps there should be. Run! 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interrabang

Not sure how to sort this, but someone has created the page interbang, which is clearly a misremembering of interrabang. Could someone with powers and knowledge clean this up?14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed Interbang so that it now redirects to Interrabang. Thryduulf 14:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Length of page

Can some of the text be archived (or is year's end a better point)?

Jackiespeel

Discussions that have been inactive for a period of time, I think it's a week, are automatically archived. Leithp (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, maybe I'm wrong about this? Leithp (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no automatic archiving. The "procedure" is that eventually somebody gets tired of scrolling around on this page, cuts most of the text on this page, pastes it into a new archive, sticks a "archive: do not modify" box on top, and updates the header template. Normally the last couple sections that are still relevant are left, which also gives new users a hint of what sort of discussions happen on this page. BanyanTree 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a large picture of a penis from the featured article on Shoe polish. A day or two ago I saw a picture of an American murderer in place of the Iranian president (since replaced). So, editors-in-chief or whatever it is called around here, please pull off your gloves and grab your batons. Cheerio Io 19:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latter was probably from someone not being careful when they updated the In The News template — adding the Iranian President blurb, but forgetting to remove the word "pictured" from the Williams blurb. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me, but I think a picture of a penis would have been an improvement to the shoe polish article :-) Kar98 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're still using wiki species logo 4 at the bottom, but logo 6 was picked so they say. Metarhyme 03:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And a fine logo it is too. A local protected copy is now on the front page. - BanyanTree 05:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian House of Commons

I amended the introduction to remove the parentheses on the article. Could this be updated in the template for the main page? -- Natalinasmpf 04:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, can an administrator please give me a response on whether is this going to be done, and if not, why so? I did amend the introduction of the article itself, but this of course, should be updated in the main page entry. Can this be done, please? -- Natalinasmpf 05:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Put

"The House of Commons is the lower house of the Canadian Parliament, and holds far more power than the Senate, the upper house, and is in practice, by far the dominant House of Parliament"

to replace

"In practice, the House of Commons (the lower house) holds far more power than the Senate (the upper house), and is by far the dominant House of Parliament"

Thanks.

Natalinasmpf 06:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The "lower" of the two houses making up the parliament, the House of Commons in practice holds far more power than the upper house, the Senate." [Natalinasampf's new proposal]
  • I'll wait to see what other admins think. In my view, the new proposal is too confusing in its language and wording, and the current version is better. But we'll see what the consensus is. Harro5 06:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did we not just have a featured article on this? Jeff245 06:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free vs. Free Content

I observed that the main page no longer labels Wikipedia as a "free-content" encylopedia, although the simple layout and article on Wikipedia are still consistent in that regard. I read the talk page on the {{MainPageIntro}} template, and it seems the reason for this change was because of a statement by Jimbo Wales, but this statement is no longer linked from any page, other than 7 talk pages. I feel that this is a major oversight, because there is a major difference between free and free content. [1]. Either the main page should link to free content, as it did before, or it should link to Jimbo's statement. At least, that's my view on the matter. Signed, Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the/some recent legal issues this change doesn't suprise me at all. The guys upstairs are obviously feeling the pressure for giving unlimited freedom to the public in editing and creating articles on Wikipedia, and I don't blame them. I also don't see why their word choice has to be justified on the main page; people curious about the change are apparently able to find out why it happened.   freshgavin TALK    05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Free-content" means just that; that the contents of the encyclopedia are free. This has nothing to do with relative openness to anonymous edits. I guess the concept of a "free encyclopedia" can be seen in a bit broader way, but it certainly includes us remaing free-content.--Pharos 07:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Flag?

Should a flag be used to represent Iraq while the state of the flag is in flux? To retain a NPOV, shouldn't a map be used instead? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.245.12.91 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 16 December 2005

  • How is "the state of the flag is in flux"? Iraq is a country, a nation, a state; this is it's flag. What's wrong with that? Harro5 06:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, don't I remember something about a light-blue being proposed a couple years ago? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 06:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has been a huge thing about the flag, every since the start of the war. An American consultancy designed a new one, but the people utterly rejected it. So by default, they are retaining the Saddam-era flag, with the added Allehu Accba (sp). However, this is possibly not a long term solution, and a new people-designed one would be good. But elections first, I think. But I'm not sure this means the flag is currently in flux. 09:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

DYK: Nature reserves in Russia

"there are more than hundred" should be changed to "a hundred" or "one hundred". BrainyBroad 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article on wikipedia vandalised

the article "wikipedia" was vandalised

wait... it reverted back

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=31632141"