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 Randy Johnston (talk | contribs) at 00:34, 23 December 2004 (→Major introduction re-think). 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.

Time for a 50k article group of languages?

We've now got five Wikipedia languages (English, French, German, Japanese, and Swedish) with over 50000 articles. It might be nice to show these off in the Wikipedia in other languages section. --FOo 03:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said before, more groups is bad. It makes finding any particular language harder, and it makes it look cluttered. I'd support adding a 50,000 article grouping at the top if we dropped the 100 article group at the bottom. →Raul654 03:16, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Swedish? Wow. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, Swedes rule :D Gkhan 17:48, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
I'm also for dropping the 100-group from the main page (below-100-article encyclopedias are not useful to the reader, either. They are fun pet-projects for the editors). too much clutter. but how is finding a language a problem? you press ctrl+f (or find-as-you-type, with Mozilla/Firefox). dab (T) 15:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
agreed Adrian Bunk 18:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey, we swedes had a 50K encyclopedia in http://susning.nu about the time the German wikipedia was 50 K. Maybe not as comprehensive, but it certainly was something before Aronsson practically killed it. ✏ Sverdrup 19:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
who is this Aronsson and why would he kill an encyclopedia? Anyway, taking the ratio articles/native speaker, the swedes clearly lead the field, and may call themselves the most encyclopedic of peoples: sv: 5500ppm, de: 1400pm, en: 1000ppm, ja: 680ppm, fr: 520ppm (only topped by sa: and got:, which have more articles than native speakers :P) dab (ᛏ) 19:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He is the creator of Susning.nu and Project Runeberg and the reason he killed the wiki was because of vandalism. I don't know any thing more than that though. Jeltz 20:01, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
Why not a 100k group instead? Currently, this would include only English, but within a few months other languages will also pass the 100k. Adrian Bunk 18:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
WP's exponential growth will curb at some point. We might as well recognize that and start making smaller bins. We can still move to 100k once two or three WPs are there on top of en (no point in linking to ourselves, is there?) (and kick the Swedes back to second tier, then :p) dab (T) 18:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The German wikipedia already has 175541 articles. Thue | talk 10:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a good start to display pointers to other main pages, like what already exists in the left column of most foreign main pages?

Dirty front page

Lengthy discussion on Main Page featured article selection/censorship moved to a more long-term section: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Dirty Front Page. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:17, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

This has now been moved to its own page, Wikipedia talk:Dirty front page. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 21:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have moved it back, that lone talk page without an article makes no sense, especially with that title. If you want to make it into a proper policy discussion, feel free to do so. Also the discussion is not that long to warrant its own article just for that reason alone. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:58, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Well... it is likely to produce some sort of policy, isn't it? It also takes up the majority of Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, which is messy. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 08:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the news

Hamid Karzai (pictured right)

No, he isn't pictured right ;)

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The national day is in Bahrain, but the Bangladesh flag is shown. Strange :) Cmapm 00:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Less boxy version

I just created Main Page/Less boxy, which is the same as the current main page except with fewer boxes and some minor modifications. I think this looks a lot cleaner. (Also, the donations message is more prominent.) Thoughts? Fredrik | talk 11:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice attempt for sure, but I personally like the current "boxy" version better, although the difference is pretty small. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:11, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'd don't see any differences at all. -- user:zanimum. -- user:zanimum
Huh? Scroll down. Fredrik | talk 08:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Error message

Every page I open starts with an error message about a syntaxiserror. I have to click 'yes' to see anything. It doesn't happen on German and Dutch Wikis and it started a week ago. It's not a big pain but I just wanna let you know. Greets, B kimmel 14:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evolution

I''' personally do not belive in Evolution.[[Media:I have a ten page report due This friday. I was wondering if you new where i could find info on Fossil dating,and Natrual selection]] --4.154.39.142 16:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)From sdasdfasdfafdasfas--4.154.39.142 16:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)stafford'

do you, personally, believe in orthography? or google? dab (ᛏ)
I do not believe in you, so you don't exist, ergo, I don't have to help you. ;) MikeCapone 21:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan island image

The tool tip (caption) on the island image says it's the flag of Taiwan. It should read something more like "A view of the island of Taiwan from space." Brian Sayrs 19:10, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Methods to Learn topics

I just had a brain storm (..maybe it is dumb though..), I was imagining being on a dessert island with access to wikipedia. If you wanted to learn all about chemistry there should be a way to be shown the beginner topics, and wikipedia guide you through learning about chemistry from basic to the more advanced stuff. All most like a map through an encyclopedia, on learning as much as you can about a certain topic, even if you have no idea about it before hand.

...I think that would be great... but i'm really stoned right now...

I think that would be a textbook. See Wikibooks. If you have the expertise to help them out, I'm sure you'd be most welcome once you're sober (or whatever the appropriate term for no longer stoned is).-gadfium (talk) 04:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Aw man. Dessert island. Mmmmmm.... --Sean Kelly 05:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's preety creative. There would have to be some narrative to link the articles. Maybe that's where Wikibooks would come in. TimMony 06:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One problem is that Wikipedia doesn't know who the reader is and what the reader doesn't know. The articles can't all be written to instruct the beginner. Some articles have an infobox with the most basic articles first, then getting more complex. The top-level categories could provide a map, perhaps. That is why there is an infobox in the Electromagnetism article and category, for example.

5 days left to nominate for the Webbys— is Wikipedia in?

See: Talk:Webby_Awards#5_days_left.97_is_Wikipedia_in.3F

help. aristotelian model of compassion vs. dalai lama's view

can anyone help me understand the aristotelian model? - Transferred your question to the reference desk. Ancheta Wis 05:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Pinochet's alleged indictment, allegedly allegedly

I think talking about Pinochet's "alleged" human rights abuses is the kind of "balance" that wants to give equal time to creationism. Now I'm no expert on the english language, but if "charged" is the same as "indicted", it would probably be better to use since indictement sounds like convictement. If it's obvious that he isn't convicted yet, the "alleged" should be dropped. Vintermann 13:38, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Indictment: a formal statement of accusation, so it means exactly what is intended here. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:19, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Dayton Agreement

I think that The Dayton Agreement was signed in Dayton, USA, not in Paris, France.

Well, the initial conference was held in Dayton and ended on 21 November 1995, but the official signing occurred in Paris. See Dayton Agreement and for instance [1]. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:26, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Where to report Wikipedia abuse?

Not sure if this is the appropriate place.

Cyprus2k1 is a religious Baha'i who keeps deleting and reverting virtually all content on the Bahai page that disagrees with the official Baha'i PR program. I suspect he is acting in an official capacity for the Baha'i organization.

I am a former member of the Baha'i faith who is commenting anonymously to avoid retribution against members of my family who are still members of the Baha'i faith organization. I would like to be able to include relevant critical information in the Baha'i article without having it reverted the next day. I'm fine with having my work EDITED, but Cyprus is simply deleting information he doesn't care for. 65.184.35.245 22:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. &#0xfeff;--fvw* 22:34, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
"I suspect he is acting in an official capacity for the Baha'i organization."lol, please...... - --Cyprus2k1 16:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ml.wikipedia.org

has more than 100 articles - please add it to the list

I was about to, but it looks like it has already been done. [2] -- TomPreuss 17:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Add Ma On Shan (KCRC) as the featured article

I want to add Ma On Shan (KCRC) as the featured article on December 21, 2004. Would you accept my request? --202.75.80.6 04:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You need to nominate it as a featured article. If it is accepted there, it becomes eligible to be the front page featured article for a day, but there is no formal mechanism that I know of to determine when a given article appears on the front page. Get it to the featured article status first, then ask how to get it on the front page for an appropriate date.-gadfium (talk) 05:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I choose the featured articles for the main page. The formal mechanism is that once it becomes a featured article, you ask me :) →Raul654 19:25, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Easy-to-fix CODE TYPO on Main Page

WikiCookie
WikiCookie

Sorry to yell, but last time I mentioned this here it was ignored and fell into the archive. On the ninth ("other languages") code line of the Main Page, </i> should be </li>. Kdau 06:49, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Good spotting there. Thanks, it should be fixed now. You win a cookie. - Mark 13:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I just ate some of those. Chocolate chip cookies rule. Along with Bruce Springsteen, they are one of the few unilaterally positive things to come from the United States. Of course, they had to borrow the word for them from us, but still... 82.92.119.11 21:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Portugese

Should say "Portuguese" Juppiter 04:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. (be bold!) 68.81.231.127 09:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Defecation

On the main page, as we speak, the word Defecation is being pipe-linked to Defecate. This seems unnecessary, as the Wikipedia article concerning this topic is found at Defecation (unpiped) anyway. I hope I'm not splitting hairs. Bobo192 08:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nope, little errors should be fixed (even mine [3]). I fixed it, but in the future, feel free to be be bold! 68.81.231.127 09:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major introduction re-think

I believe the Main Page introduction is unwieldy, far too long and has far too many links. I believe most users will simply skip over it whilst in its current state. I'm proposing cutting it right down, from 46 words to 14, and 9 links to just one.

Let's go back to basics - what's the point of the introduction? Well...

  • Explaining what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia.
  • Introducing the wiki concept - anyone can edit it.
  • Most importantly, trying to get users editing.

Secondary goals include:

  • Getting a sense that Wikipedia is big, not some little tiny project.
  • Currently, getting across that Wikipedia is multilingual.

Yes, the current intro does have all this information, but also has far too much cruft - it's been added to and added to, and it's lost what's actually important...

Current intro text Comment
Welcome to Wikipedia Welcome, newcomers is an awful page - far too long-winded and text-based, more likely to scare users away than anything.

Wikipedia is a confusing link - the user has just arrived at Wikipedia, so how can there be a link to Wikipedia..?

a free-content encyclopedia Stating it's an encyclopedia is fine, a quick definition for brand new users. However, "free-content" is not a well-known term, and Wikipedia:Copyrights just looks like a boring legal document. I think stating Wikipedia is simply free for now, and explaining free-content later is preferable.
in many languages "Many languages" is important, in fact so important I think we should remove it from the introduction and have a much more prominent link to the language list.
that anyone can edit The most important three words in the introduction, but poorly linked to wiki - the article explains the wiki concept, but won't get people editing, and doesn't explain how to edit Wikipedia.
In this English edition Anyone who can understand those 4 words knows it's in English. Redundant.
started in January 2001 Is the starting date really that important?
we are working on 6,998,591 articles The article count shows we're not a tiny project, but it's not an obvious link to statistics - my guess is users would expect it to link to some kind of article overview or browse page (and no, the tooltip isn't good enough).
Visit our Community Portal to find out how you can edit an article The Community Portal doesn't really tell you how to edit pages. It's quite important, but slightly sprawling and full to bursting with links. Wikipedia:How to edit a page is most certainly not a good article to link to. Far too long and confusing for an introductory article.
or experiment in the sandbox. Sandbox? What's that? Let's properly guide the user through editing and experimenting.

So what's my grand idea for replacing it? Very simply...

Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,998,591 English articles.

As for the language link, I've tried to come up with a more prominent icon for it. Go and have a look at how this looks on a Main Page mockup (also see the talk page for more rationale).

I believe this says all it needs to. The "how to edit" link goes to the brand new Wikipedia:Introduction, which explains Wikipedia, gets users editing and sends them off exploring. I believe it's a vast improvement on what we currently have with Welcome, newcomers.

Looking forward to your comments! Thanks, Tom- 16:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I very much like the feel of your mock up, although the way the article count is added onto the end of the sentence doesn't sit quite right with me. I would like to see the principal (perhaps unamended) put in place, though --BesigedB 16:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How about two sentences: one that says welcome to the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, and a second that says that there are many articles and languages? Fredrik | talk 22:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I like it as well but agree that the article count seems a bit tacked on and really doesn't have that much context ie how does this compare to something like Britannica. Evil Monkey → Talk 02:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Why not just "Wikipedia—Anyone can edit!" :-D And for the record, I feel most "problems" with the introduction are vastly overblown. I agree that some links could be worked out better, and I also agree we should get our act together and provide a more coherent intro. Just cutting everything down to "Welcome to Wikipedia, edit me" and tacking on the article count is going a little overboard though, IMO. It's not like the current intro is a Proust novel. (The "anyone can edit" link really should be fixed, though.) In short: agree with some of your criticisms, disagree with the execution. Make better intro material, but don't just throw everything away we don't consider "immediately essential". No time for now, but I'm sure others will come with amendments to your proposal, after the "I love it" people are done. :-) 82.92.119.11 09:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the article count does mean much more than that Wikipedia is not "a tiny project," and ties in to one of the central definitions of the Wikipedia project: in terms of article topics, Wikipedia is a far more comprehensive encyclopedia than there has ever been.
Wikipedia's article count will soon be 4 times that of Encyclopedia Britannica online, which appears to be the largest traditional english-language encyclopedia. This is important. Try looking up EB's non-existent articles on the flynn effect or neuroeconomics at www.encyclopediabritannica.com (non-subscribers can view article intros).
For many readers, Wikipedia's unmatched article breadth will be as valuable as that it's free. Even the university librarians I've talked with admire Wikipedia's article breadth. IMO, "6,998,591 articles" should link to largest encyclopedia, which explains what this enormous article count means in relation to other encyclopedias, as well as the limitations of what it means, which is also very important. (and thanks for the thorough suggestions for the intro, Tom!)--Nectarflowed 12:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I support the idea of changing the introduction to:

Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,998,591 English articles.

--Randy Johnston 00:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unnecessary text in Anniversaries?

Recent days: December 18 – December 17 – December 16

Do we really need to say Recent Days? Perhaps there could be a more efficient system. Even just putting Dec 18, 17, 16 would be better...

Going backwards in time by a day each time is a very simple thing to understand :) unlike the very useful "recents" of the other groups.

Hope that made sense

Yukos

"To the previously unknown and recently-founded Baikalfinansgroup." If they registered it last week, maybe it's not so strange no body has heard of it. - Jerryseinfeld 21:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Strange upload behaviour

Something strange is happening now.. When I want to upload a new image, it tells me, that there already is one, but isn't! I agree to save it, but the image page opens, but the image itself is empty. I have to reupload again, but it appears twice in history. It happened with my Image:tartaric acids.png and Image:L-tartaric acid.png. The latter wasn't actually reuploaded, so the oddity can be seen in action. --Mykhal 22:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I apologize. The warning message was not about that there already is such image, but about name change. And the upload now also seem so work properly. --Mykhal 23:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bad grammar on main page

This sentence is incorrect: "The phrase "up to us" is vague admits of a variety of interpretations." You can afford carelessness like this on the rest of the Wikipedia, but not on a page that is uneditable. Proofread, people.

Thanks, fixed.-gadfium (talk) 01:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Announce request to rename page

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.


today's "Did you know..."

on my screen, the entire section of the Did you know... section appears in a smaller font than the rest of the main page. is this happening with anyone else? can this be fixed? Kingturtle 15:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • It's the same for me, but I don't know enough about wikipedia to tell what causes it. Jeltz talk 15:41, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

The other hero is likewise to Arland Williams

New layout

This is so much uglier than the old design, and it seems to waste a large amount of space, the red box is about 30 lines longer than it needs to be.--naryathegreat 00:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

the picture of David Blunkett should be lower and be identified. He has nothing to do with Mosul. Jim 04:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The blunkett story is NPOV tory proganda. "the application but said it was not possible to determine if Blunkett had personally ordered the visa to be fast-tracked"--Jirate 14:07, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Content Rating

I noticed that when using a content filter program (i.e. parental filter) that they warn that wikipedia pages do not have a content rating. I suggest that all pages of wikipedia get a content rating (I think a snippet of code can accomplish this). Specifically, the content should be rated as "educational"--jabelar 14:07, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

hola amigos

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=8732372"