Talk:Main Page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
See Wikipedia FAQ for general questions about Wikipedia;
you can ask questions at the Village pump.
See MediaWiki_talk:Wikipediatoc and talk:Wikipedia category schemes for general discussion of the category scheme on Wikipedia's Main Page.
Please post screenshots of the current Main Page to Main Page/Screenshots to assist in debugging design issues, especially when you notice that it looks different from the screenshots which are there.
Main Page cache purge (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&action=purge) - click this link whenever a change has been made to any of the MediaWiki pages displayed on the Main Page. This will clear the Main Page's cache (located on the Wikimedia servers) so that non-logged-in users can see the update. This may or may not force your browser's cache to expire. See Wikipedia:Reload to learn how to deal with that.
Subsections of the page have been moved into the MediaWiki namespace to make them editable. See Wikipedia:Editing the main page.
- "Featured article" || "In the news" || "Did you know..." || "Browse Wikipedia by topic"
- "Selected anniversaries ..." (section data is mainly in MediaWiki's Template namespace, but the top-level resides at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries)
- "Wikipedia in other languages" section || "Sister Projects" section
NOTE: Any bolded item that on the Main Page must be updated and listed on its corresponding subject area page before being listed on the Main Page. For example, a news item should first be listed on current events, then the article on the subject of that news item should be updated to reflect a current event. Then that item can be placed on Template:In the news.
See Main Page/Old for the old Main Page design.
| Table of contents |
Archived talk
Archives of older material from this talk page: Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
The layout of the Main Page underwent a significant redesign, implemented on 23 Feb 2004. Talk archives 1-13 relate to the old design. Archives after this date: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
Talk pages specifically dealing with layout and design, or alternative designs for the Main Page:
Reminder:
More intro rewording?
How about rewording the intro paragraph on the Main Page like this:
Welcome to Wikipedia! Since January 2001, we have been building an open-content encyclopedia in many languages, including 282199 articles in English alone.
Then we need to add something to entice new visitors to contribute, and let them know they can immediately become/are by default part of our community. The current final sentence is disjointed; I know Eloquence is -set on having "Sandbox" and "How to edit" links in that last sentence, but they're somewhat redundant and can be confusing if new visitors follow those links first.
I would prefer a single link in the final sentence to a newcomer-oriented page that introduces the community-edited aspects of WP in one place -- to someone who doesn't know what it means to "contribute" to such a project, and wants the notion and community explained in a nutshell. Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers takes a long time to explain a few concepts, and more than half of the page is full of links to ther info pages... not ideal for such an audience.
Throwing people into the CP might be the best single link for now; it gives a quick feel of what the community does, and has links to all these other things in the directory. Other thoughts?
Visit our community portal to find out how you can help edit Wikipedia.
What more would you add? +sj+ 00:03, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I like your proposal for the first two sentences. As for telling newcomers how they can contribute, I think the page that presents this information best is Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, actually. I have a feeling people miss that link, any thoughts? Fredrik (talk) 00:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We could take a lesson from the German Wikipedia here. They have a page called "First Steps (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Erste_Schritte)" which is a very nicely formatted step by step instruction for starting to work on Wikipedia. In my opinion, this is different from the purpose of the Community Portal, which is more a central hub for users who already know the basics, and which allows them to navigate the system.
Given that the Community Portal is itself linked in the sidebar, I don't think it needs to be the emphasized link in the intro. If we had an equivalent to the German "First Steps" page, I could agree with removing the link to the sandbox (which would be the first "step" on that page) and replacing it with something like:
-
- Simon Joseph, an Indo-Canadian
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built by volunteers. Anyone can improve Wikipedia articles! Read Wikipedia:First steps to get started.
However, as long as the CP itself doesn't fulfill this function and no such page exists, I must insist on prominently having the sandbox link as it's the best way for newbies to quickly experiment.--Eloquence* 03:12, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
I would also insist on leaving the sandbox link on the first paragraph. It's important enough to mention right off the bat that people can edit/create content here. Dori | Talk 03:14, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
I've done a little radical experiment by replacing the intro with the four most important links. Here are some other changes we could make:
- Now that we have the category system, we can move the whole "browse by topic" stuff to a single root category page, e.g. Category:Main page. This is all still very unfinished but linking it on the Main Page (with the appropriate notice) will only lead to more people working on it.
- The new skin puts language links in the sidebar. I don't know how many we can fit in there, but we might be able to move at least the largest languages there. That would be prominent enough to eliminate the need for an intro link, IMHO.
-
- I concur. People need to know *what* Wikipedia is when they come to the main page. Furthermore, the sandbox link is crucial to drive home exactly what a wiki is. - Seth Ilys 04:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- Agreed. It doesn't take up too much room and really helps orient people. -- nknight 04:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Here's a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&oldid=3835897) to my revision. I think the tutorial, or a similarly constructed page, is actually more useful than the sandbox, because it doesn't just throw people into hot water (especially as the sandbox header is often gone, and there is a certain risk of edit conflicts). Aside from that I do not see any argument above. Why do we need the prose? There's a clear "About Wikipedia" link for people who don't know us yet (and we should really reactivate the "the free encyclopedia" subtitle).--Eloquence*
- We need the prose, IMO, because without it, it's not immediately obvious that the site is 1) an encyclopedia, and 2) a wiki -- the two defining characteristics of Wikipedia. The original paragraph made that quite clear; the links do not. The "about" page which was linked to is poorly written and much less consise.
- BTW, I did take the liberty of putting the top Wikipedias (those with > 10k articles, as listed in the language section on the Main page) as interlanguage links which, in the new skin, appear on the sidebar. It raises their prominence substantially, and I feel like that's a good and useful thing. -- Seth Ilys 05:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- My suggestion is something like:
I dislike the current "we are building", it makes it sound like it doesn't exist yet. Tom- 12:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)Welcome to Wikipedia! This is a multi-language encyclopedia which you can contribute to. Learn how to edit pages, experiment in the sandbox, and visit our Community Portal to find out how to contribute to our 282199 articles in the English version.
-
- I dislike that it says to contribute to the current number of articles, rather than create new ones as well.
You guys are really spending too much time going back and forth for a paragraph of introductory prose. Especially, since it seems to be getting worse (for example ) I say we revert to an older one. Compare for yourself:
OLD ONE: "Welcome to Wikipedia! We are building an open-content encyclopedia in many languages. We started in January 2001 and are now working on 277632 articles in the English version. Learn how to edit pages, experiment in the sandbox, and visit our Community Portal to find out how you can contribute to Wikipedia."
VS
NEW ONE: "Welcome to Wikipedia! We are building an open-content encyclopedia in many languages. In the English version, started in January 2001, we are now working on 277632 articles. Learn how to edit pages, experiment in the sandbox, and visit our Community Portal to find out how you can add to Wikipedia."
"In the English version, started in January 2001" Something tells me that this is very awckward.
Of all the things, I could have thought that the old introduction was already good and subsequent attempts were much worse. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. At least the introduction could be "finished" if no other pages are. I do not think many will mind if the old one is used and just protected.
Oh and here is how I would have done the spacing:
- "Welcome to Wikipedia! We are building an open-content encyclopedia in many languages. We started in January 2001 and are now working on 277632 articles in the English version.
- Learn how to edit pages, experiment in the sandbox, and visit our Community Portal to find out how you can contribute to Wikipedia."
I split the two sentences because the ideas seem to be different. One is introducing the new user and the other is explaining the ways to contribute and idea of a wiki. Logically these ideas require separation IMO. --Exigentsky 02:07, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Exigentsky—the current revision ("In the English version, started in January 2001, ...") sounds very awkward. "Participate in the development of" is even uglier. We need brilliant prose, people, not this ugly junk tainting our front page!
- While we're on the topic, I'd also suggest trimming the second paragraph down to just:
-
- Visit our Community Portal to find out how you, too, can contribute to Wikipedia.
- It doesn't seem necessary to have three different links introducing potential contributors to the concept of an editable encyclopedia. Keep it short and simple; it's better that way. — Wikisux 18:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why was the introductory text removed?
Really, I find the new Wikipedia page which now only includes the links rather than a short intro is extremely dry, boring, and ugly. Of all the things to cut, it had to be the short introduction? How many people do you think will bother to click those links anyway? Not half as many as would have read the introduction which explained the main idea behind Wikipedia. In addition, it made the design more pleasing and the encyclopedia more welcoming. It was less in your face and provided the links neately organized to the side of the introduction.
I am totally agaisnt this change and if I had known I would have voiced my concerns earlier. Infact, I think that the MAIN PAGE should be made nicer, not uglier. For example, once the icons and bullet drawings mature, a TOC with bullets or icons should be added and I think that other Wikipedia sister projects should have icons above the plain links.
Who's ever idea this was, I am very dissapointed. I do not see what you meant to achieve with this and find it to be an irrational change not fueled by necessity. Please explain your reasons for ruining the front page. Thank you --Exigentsky 04:36, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for reverting the changes whoever you are, I am once again very pleased. Please ignore the above comments. I am as
content as could be. --Exigentsky 05:57, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- However, I do think part of the introduction could be improved a bit. "to find out how you can add to Wikipedia." seems
better if "add" is replaced by a word such as improve or contribute. --Exigentsky 06:29, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- That me was who reverted. The phrase you suggest "to contribute" was discussed, but reject for its monitary implications. →Raul654 02:40, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
- However, I do think part of the introduction could be improved a bit. "to find out how you can add to Wikipedia." seems
better if "add" is replaced by a word such as improve or contribute. --Exigentsky 06:29, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
User contributions
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find a link in this new skin to the user contributions of others. It was a handy tool in making sure spammers illegitate contributions were all reverted, but it's seemingly gone. Also, can we have "New Pages" back in the toolbox? -- user:zanimum
- "User contributions" is in the toolbox on user pages. Tom- 12:26, 2 Jun 2004
(UTC)
- Okay, my mistake... still, why is the only place to find New Pages in the Special Pages section? Is there a preference to
turn this on? -- user:zanimum
- Why is new pages hidden? It was there in the Cologne Blue skin. -- user:Zanimum
- Okay, my mistake... still, why is the only place to find New Pages in the Special Pages section? Is there a preference to
turn this on? -- user:zanimum
Editable Main Page glitch
I just discovered that the text-only and table-free versions of the Main Page are editable. I don't think I can fix it because I'm not a sysop, but it should be fixed before someone vandalizes those pages. Mike Storm 02:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's not a glitch. They don't get much traffic, so it's not a big deal if someone vandalizes them. They're more likely to go for the featured article. →Raul654 02:07, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
I love the new layout
Please do not revert to the old one, everyone I've shown the design to says it looks far more appealing, clean and professional.
- --Exigentsky 02:18, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
lets take a poll on the new background. lets see which one is liked the most. Vital component
ITN Screwed Up [fixed]
Apparently somebody changed Template:In the news to redirect to Template:In the news which caused the ITN screw up. Can a sysop *please* fix this ASAP? Thanks. Johnleemk 15:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- That was fast. Or maybe it was my browser. Anyway, fixed. Johnleemk
15:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- No, I fixed it. :)
- I encountered a similiar problem like this a couple days ago while I picked the new featured article for the day. It's a caching issue. Tim Starling fixed it by making a trivial update to the main page, so I just did it again. →Raul654 15:05, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Welcome message
Instead of "....and visit our Community Portal to find out how you can add to Wikipedia." won't it be better if we have "....and visit our Community Portal to find out how you can participate in Wikipedia." Users don't just add to Wikipedia, meaning content contribution, they participate in a lot of activities. That's ofcourse why Wikipedia won the Webby Award too! KRS 15:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
All links are underlined
When I login as exigentsky, all the links are underlined. Despite my efforts to return to the previous link style, they remain underlined. And yes, I did uncheck "underline links" in Misc. settings.
However, if I logout, the links are only underlined when hovered upon. This is far more stylish than the way I see the page when I login. I am not sure why this is happening and wish for it to stop.
I am using Opera 7.51. I do not need all the links underlined, they are a strong blue color and the underlines for all links make it look messy and ugly, please do not force me to stay as annonymous.
BTW: One way to improve usability would be to have each of the lgiht blue bullets change colors on mouse over. It's similar to the underline on hover concept. Besides that, it would look cool if the light blue bullets changed to black on hover. --Exigentsky 03:40, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
Serif vs SansSerif and Underlined/Non-underlined links
On the discussion of whether to use serif or non-serif fonts, it is recommended that for large bodies of text, serif fonts are good on paper and sans-serif fonts are good on screen. This is probably because of the anti-aliasing feature. Usually, serif fonts are more legible, while sans-serif fonts are more recognizable, hence, the trend (at least in printed documents) is to use sans-serif for headlines, and serif for the body of the article. However, as mentioned before, on-screen it is always advisable to make the font sans-serif as it is easier to read.
Some others seem to have problems with the links. I agree that the links should be a brighter color (traditional blue is the best). This makes it easy to find the links. However, from a web usability perspective, when you have a large body of text with numerous hyperlinks, as in newspaper articles on the web, it is best to not display the underline. This is easier for reading purposes. Displaying the underline for the on-hover event however, is essential for the cognitive affordance of a link. Similarly, in these cases, traditional blue is the best color to indicate links.
-Vikrant.
No word-wrap?
Is it only me or someone out there feel the same pain? I am using a highly secured Netscape 4.8 as my main browser (no Javascript, no page-assigned colors and fonts, no 3rd party cookies, and lots of privacy software). I find my editing text box ruined by the CSS codes. It used to be able to wrap the text. Now I can only see a very long no-wrap line.
Edting is now pretty difficult.
-- Toytoy
Bug?
When I try to click on the thing that says
Source code
The tables' text moves around.
--The Doctor Is In 11:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) Hello!! And welcome to wikipedia!!! The day is Friday 4th June and the time is 14:01, approaching 14:02
Featured Article Pictures
Can I suggest that since a picture is always positioned at the head of a featured article on the main page this should be made to link to the article itself not to the Image page for that picture. Newcomers to Wikipedia would almost certainly click on the picture expecting to see more of the article and will be both puzzled and disappointed to see the image page and think less of Wikipedia as a result. Lumos3 14:04, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, that's what I expected when I came here too. However, I soon got used to the way Wikipedia worked and like it this way. --Exigentsky 16:39, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
Idea
I have an idea, but it would mean modifying Wikipedia's source code. If a user is reading an article, and comes across a link that they are curious about, instead of having to interrupt his/her reading to click the link and go to that article, they can simply hover their mouse over the link and the alt text will be the first sentence of that article. Example: the little yellow box that pops up when you hover your mouse over Copyleft would contain "Copyleft is the application of copyright law to force derivative works to also be released with a copyleft license.". supadawg 18:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I like this idea, it is very useful. However, it may have the drawback that many people will not read the full article and contribute to those other articles. --Exigentsky
- Yes, that would be neat, except that it would suck up resources like crazy and we'd probably need to tripple or quadrouple our hardware. Dori | Talk 18:59, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Hmm, ok. Those are both good points. Oh well. supadawg 12:20, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Today's Main Page
The colored boxes are spreading out to cover up the right float section when using the Standard skin. This hasn't happened before. RickK 05:41, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
I was just coming here to say the same thing. It makes the whole thing ugly and non usable since we can't click on the links any
more.
I went to older versions, and suddenly it worked, and now works all the time. I am confused here. I am in cologne blue for reference. SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Aargh from me too. It's working in Cologne Blue and Monobook, but in Standard the coloured boxes are spreading out beyond the right hand side of the browser window (both IE5 and Netscape7 for Macintosh). And I hate sans-serif fonts for this kind of thing, so please can someone fix it? pretty please? Harry R 10:14, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Best viewed in compliant browsers?
Really, Internet Explorer is a pain to support and constantly limiting Wikipedia. For example even today on the main page the sister project images look quite bad in it because the piece of shit browser cannot view transparent pngs correctly. Its CSS support is also crap and harmful to Wikipedia's design. In addition, right now, the boise picture is totally off in IE.
I suggest that Wikipedia have a "best viewed in Mozilla" sign somewhere next to the GFDL at the bottom of its page. I do not want IE users to get the wrong impression, to think that the website is bad, not their web browser. I know that Wikipedia is viewed just as well in Opera and Konqueror, but I am suggesting Mozilla because it is open source, most popular alternative, arguably the most compliant, totally platform independent and easily installable.
Especially with Mozilla 1.7/Firefox 0.9, there will be no excuse to use IE. Let's support open standards and make it clear that IE is not giving readers the full Wikipedia experience.
- I second that. — Chameleon 19:00, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nonsense. You can't expect the vast majority of the Web to have to change to a different browser because Wikipedia can't make it work. And I'm not sure what you're talking about -- I use IE and most things seem to be working. RickK 22:37, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
- It is not nonsense and you are not understanding this. I do not expect the vast majority of web users to change their web browser, I am only expecting that a few will. I also do not want Wikipedia to be less complete in IE than in other browsers, but unfortuantely IE is one of the worst browsers and an absolute pain for web browsers to support. It does not even support something as basic as transparent colors in PNGS. Wikipedia should do its best to deal with this utter piece of crap which hasn't seen a major update in years, but sometimes it is not totally possible or practical. For example the transparent PNGs for Wikipedia's sister sites, it would be a shame to remove them because they display poorly in IE and so we leave them, but they do not look the way they should.
Therefore all I want is for Wikipedia to make a small note or graphic that endorses a compliant browser. Something like "Best viewed in Mozilla". This does not mean that it won't work in other browsers, it just means it will probably work better in Mozilla.
P.S.: The reason you don't see anything wrong is because 90% of people use IE, many web designers want to expand their CSS use, use of transparent pngs, etc. but they cannot, because they are limited to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, they have to deal with it and support it because it's what people use. --Exigentsky 07:32, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I agree. IE is actually holding the web back. While we should try to make Wikipedia look the best in all browsers, in cases where it's impossible in some, we should not hold back completely. However, in order to ensure that people do not think that Wikipedia is at fault, a "best viewed with Mozilla" image couldn't hurt. Johnleemk | Talk 07:38, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Dear God, PLEASE NO. Look, as a web developer, I hate IE as much as the next guy, but those things—"Best viewed in [insert browser here]"—are so @^#% obnoxious I honestly think they raise my blood pressure. Even when they're unobtrusive and friendly. The ugly, unnecessary and stupid "GNU FDL" badge already gets on my nerves as it is--I feel like RMS and his smelly minions are proselytizing on every page like those obsequious Crusade for Christ folks who like to ensnare you when you're trying to catch the train. Sure, I'm probably overreacting--though I know I'm not alone--but let me just tell you that having a "Best viewed in a compliant browser" badge is not a sign of professionalism. Just the opposite. I can't even believe we're discussing this. As you say yourself, Exigentsky, web designers "have to deal with [IE] and support it because it's what people use." Putting a badge up on this mediocre encyclopedia-in-progress isn't going to induce anyone to switch browsers. Wikisux 07:44, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- Wrong. Wikipedia *articles* are supposed to be NPOV, but Wikipedia itself is not. Quite the opposite - it quite openly and strongly supports the POV that open and free (GNU FDL-licensed) content is a better thing than closed content like that of other encyclopedias, for example. For that reason, the GNU FDL icon isn't a bad thing, either; in fact, it mostly serves as a visual clue/reminder of the license of these articles, and as such is not only *not* unnecessary, but in fact useful and good. I do agree that it might not be the best idea to advocate browsers, though. -- Schnee 08:21, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actively endorsing or deprecating a browser is fundamentally POV and therefore not acceptable. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has to have a position on soem things. For example its license, you cannot make a decision and be NPOV, therefore
Wikipedia itself is POV, only its articles are meant not to be. I agree with Schneelocke --Exigentsky
- The NPOV doesnt extend to wikipedia itself, just it's articles. You dont see anyone NPOVing talk pages, do you? (that would be a waste of time) Plus, having a GFDL'd website is inherantly POV. I say we put a little Best Viewed In Mozilla/Mozilla Firefox button on the site.KirbyMeister 20:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- I use Mozilla, Firefox and Opera because of links I followed from sites like this.
- How about this: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org ?
- It's funny how the meaning of 'deprecated' has developed since the W3C started using it. Chameleon 08:17, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster -- we should not let non-standards-compliant web browsers hold us back.
However, I agree even more strongly that "Best viewed in [insert browser here]" ... is not a sign of professionalism. Jahn Rentmeister said it so much more eloquently than I have: "This page optimized for ... arguing with customers" by Jahn Rentmeister http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Web/opti.html
Original poster, rather than stick a tag on every page that many people will find annoying, is there any other way of achieving your goal ?
If people find messed-up formatting, what is the appropriate place to complain ? Main Page/Screenshots ? Perhaps that would be the appropriate place to note that "Wikipedia is designed to be standards-compliant, and it refuses to allow non-standards-compliant web browsers hold it back."
-- DavidCary 00:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I doubt that most Wikipedia users will bother to complain formally. I know I do not, if I find a website that does not render well and does not validate, than I do not complain, I simply do not visit the page again. Most people do not even bother to check if their browsers are at fault rather than the page, they just assume the page is designed poorly and leave. You are overthinking this.
Also, I do not think a tag or image at the bottom of the page where there is already the GFDL logo would be intrusive. It might actually help users get the most out of Wikipedia and raise awareness of alternate browsers (Wikipedia is among the top 500 websites in the world according to Alexa.com). Also it is not mocking the readers becuase installing software such as Mozilla is a simple task and unlike IE it is available on every platform.
Until Internet Explorer 7.0 which is said to be able to render transparent PNGS correctly (Hooray!) and improve standards compliance but also make the web more proprietary thanks to technologies like XAML which will only run through IE I do not see any other way. As Wikipidia evolves, the problem will only grow more severe and Longhorn is still about two years away. This is a huge amount of time considering Wikipedia has only been around for about four years. --Exigentsky
Whether you or I prefer Mozilla or anything else is neither here nor there. The fact
is that most users of the Internet use Internet Explorer, whether
we like it or not - and hence most people whom we want to use Wikipedia also use it.
I personally prefer Safari or Firefox, and have on occasion used the Mac version of Mozilla but found it too slow - I am, however, in the minority and have to concede that much of the world (sadly) only knows IE....
Agendum 12:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sister project icons
The sister project icons should be links to their sites, not to the image page here on Wikipedia. --Yath 19:49, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I would agree with you had this been the case for the featured article images and all throughout WIkipedia, but it is not. Therefore, to be consistant, I suggest that it remains the way it is. I too expected images to be links toa rticles, but after viewing one to two images in Wikipedia I understood how it worked and I am now comforatable with the way it handles it. --Exigentsky
But new users may not be as comforatable with it. --bbotbuilder 01:12, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
When I clicked a sister project icon, I expected to go to its site. I'm a fairly experienced Wikipedia contributor and the results still confused me momentarily. I think general web convention (where clicking such an image would lead to its associated site) is more important here than Wikipedia convention. An exception should be made, just to avoid confusion. --Dreamyshade 08:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
George Tenet, director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and George Bushs scapegoat tenders his resignation, citing "personal reasons." He will remain at his post until mid-July.
Gee Scapegoat real NPOV word
- You're right, thanks for bringing that vandalism to our attention. You'll notice it was fixed in less than 6 minutes. See Wikipedia:Replies to common objections for more. Yours, Meelar 23:11, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Bilderberg News
This doesn't look like news so much as conspiracy theory. As an item of news it is not appropriate on the front page; it is not comparable to any of the other events that have been listed on the front page. The D-Day anniversary remembrances, the transit of Venus between the Earth and the Sun for the first time since 1882, or the abduction of U.N. workers in Sudan are all far more important and worthy of inclusion on the front page. - Centrx 02:46, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Rubbish. The Bilderberg group does exist; it does have many important / influential people; and it did have its 50th anniversary. Why wouldn't that be news? The only thing fueling conspiracy theories is claiming that it isn't. -- Schnee 08:21, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- I do think that is less noteworthy than the D-Day anniversary>
SimonMayer 14:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I do think that is less noteworthy than the D-Day anniversary>
Stanley Cup??
Why is the Stanley Cup featured on the main page of Wikipedia news? Wikipedia should contain international news, not some news for a single country. What bearing does the Stanley Cup have on the rest of the world? Who is responsible for this harum-scarum? Please delete the link off the main page. Nichalp 19:03, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, bollocks. I'm so sick of people here treating sports like a second-class citizen. What bearing does anything ever listed have on the rest of the world? That's such a fallacious and self-defeating argument. What purpose does Venus passing in front of the Sun have to do with the rest of the world? If you aren't interested, ignore it. Just because something isn't important to you doesn't make it unimportant. RADICALBENDER★ 19:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- Who said anyone was treating sports like a second class citizen? I'm all for sports. There's no problem if it represented in the expanded news articles. The Stanley Cup cannot even command a viewership of a billion. Besides Ice Hockey isn't popular in Africa, Asia or South America, where more people reside. Your Venus comments are really out of hand. Ignoring is not the problem, global relevence is the keyword. Nichalp 20:54, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- How are the Venus comments out of hand? It doesn't affect me in the slightest. It's not important, doesn't affect me (especially since it rained today), has no bearing on my life or well being and I don't even find it all that interesting. By that definition, it's unimportant to me. That said, it's important to some and should probably be kept. Same here. If global relevance was the criteria (it's not), then almost nothing would ever make the list because there is almost nothing that affects everybody. RADICALBENDER★ 21:27, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Venus may have no bearing to you. Fine. But almost any person in the world can associate that something is happening up in the skies. By logging on to wikipedia he can garner more information about transits, Venus etc. He may be an African, Chinese or Spanish citizen BUT any literate human can associate with it. This case does not apply with the Stanley Cup. If the Cup was a rotating tournament hosted in many countries, then yes it could warrant a top billing. Nichalp 19:30, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- So you mean American sports should hijack other sports? As far as Europe is concerned, would a Greek be watching the Stanley Cup? I don't think so. I don't think the majority of Germans would would be watching either.
-
-
Besides, it isn't just one country. Besides representing teams in both the US and Canada, there are several playes from Russia, Belarus, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and other countries. RickK 19:47, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
- These are club sports, not international teams remember. Nichalp 20:54, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Who said they don't deserve a mention? But certainally not on the main page. International events deserve a mention. Olympics, World cups, Euros etc. Anyways football has a lot more countries playing and a lot greater viewership. Nichalp 21:14, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not a big sports fan, but I must say that (I suspect) a good portion of our contributors are interested. →Raul654 20:02, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Who's interested is not the subject here, but international relevance. The expanded news section should suffice. Nichalp 20:54, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a news site. The primary purpose of the news section, as I interpret it, is to show off high quality articles that we've managed to keep up to date. The Stanley Cup article is quite good, so I don't see the problem here. That said, I do suspect this is a major event to lots and lots of people. Fredrik (talk) 20:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Please see the above replies. Also why don't we see sports such as rugby & Cricket ever making it to the top page? Nichalp 20:54, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- If it was done, then even the most minor sports would clamour to get top berthing on the main page. Events should be relevant. Nichalp 21:14, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Minor sports don't make it to the main page because people use common sense. If someone posted the results of the College World Series or the Grey Cup, they would be removed because they are of limited importance even in the sporting world. Ice hockey is not a minor sport. By your qualifications (billions watching) the only "worthy sport" is Football and maybe the Olympics, which is silly. Soccer, the Olympics, American football, baseball, basketball, ice hockey, tennis, sometimes golf, auto racing, cricket, rugby - the premier events of these sports are watched by millions worldwide in various areas.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Its not true that only football has a viewership of over a billion. Sports like Cricket_(sport) can also command a viewership of a billion, it is the second largest watched team sport. Similarly a lot more sports can command numbers really close to a billion such as Lawn Tennis. The Stanley Cup is the premier event for teams only of North America. You don't have lots of teams from the rest of the world which is the case of the UEFA cup. Look at the history of the cup winners. No non American team has ever won. If the cup had a fair representation of teams from around the world, then yes, it would be a major international event. Nichalp 20:13, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yeesh. I can't wait until the NBA Finals wrap up in a week or so when I'll have to go through this again (watched throughout the U.S., Canada, and the dozens of countries that have NBA players: China, Russia, Poland, Germany, Mexico, etc.). RADICALBENDER★ 21:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- By importing players from abroad, doesn't give it the fig leaf of international legitimacy. Nichalp 20:13, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
First, I support Stanley Cup being on our main page, since it is the main event of the season in ice hockey (and included players from 9 countries this year in the Finals alone). Second, the overall selection of articles seems to have some North American bias. Right now, we have 3 items predominantly about North America (Reagan, Tenet and Stanley Cup), 1 item of general interest (astronomy) and none about the world outside of North America. Can we resolve this constructively by asking our non-North American editors to contribute more to this section? I would prefer to discuss propositions about putting news there rather that removing news. Andris 22:50, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
- The cup is played between teams of a single country (I'm pairing USA and Canada here), not between countries. Hence the internal sporting events of a country doesn't grant it international status. As far as editing is concerned, you need administrator membership to edit the front page. I don't have it else I would have done it my self. I don't think that the problem is with non NA editors, but who decides the global relevency of the acme articles which is currently heavily biased towards North America. Nichalp 20:13, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Even more constructive would be for our North American editors to put more effort into finding news stories from outside
North America. For places in the world where English is less commonly spoken and/or internet access is more sporadic, we can
hardly punt the responsibility for updating the English Wikipedia (oops, maybe I shouldn't
be using a sports idiom). My contributions to the news section have been related to Japan, Uganda, and the Indian subcontinent,
and I wish I had done even more in that regard. As for hockey, at least we're talking about a major event like the Stanley Cup,
and not the Todd Bertuzzi incident that got featured a while ago. If you
really want something to complain about, that was one. --Michael
Snow 18:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I wish I could complain about the Todd incident, but, I wasn't around when the article surfaced. Nichalp 20:13, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
Interlanguage Links Location
Interlanguage links should be on the left side below toolbox on the Main Page. This is consistent with the layout used on general articles. I would suggest all WP languages should be there unless the list is too long to fit. They can then be removed from where they are presently on the Main Page. I don't know why this was reverted. dml 02:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The Foundation Series
Great to see Asimov's Foundation trilogy, er - double-trilogy - er, whatever - featured here, but wouldn't this be considered a spoiler?
It does give away a little of the plot of Foundation, etc and, in so doing, could spoil the enjoyment of some people. The same, incidentally, applies to the articles linked from it, eg, Terminus and Hari Seldon, etc.
What think thee?
Agendum 12:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm missing something here but the Foundation article is accompanied by a photo of George W Bush (captioned as Hari Seldon). Perhaps I need to read the novels to understand. --Roisterer 02:46, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dunno what Roisterer is talking about--it should be Hari Seldon. I'm so happy that my Favorite Book Series is the featured article, and it should say in the article that there are spoilers...the thing on the main page doesn't say much more than the back of the book. Ilyanep 02:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The picture of George Bush was vandalism. That user has been warned.
- Ilyanep, I agree with you that the series is great - I consider that article to be my baby because I wrote most of it :)
- Yes, the article has a spoiler warning. 2 hours before posting this on the main page, I asked in IRC about the details I have on the main page, and pretty much everyone thought it was OK, particularly for a 50 year old book. Plus, all of those "spoilers" are in chapter 1. It's pretty hard to write a valid summary without giving away *some* plot information. →Raul654 02:54, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
Point taken, Raul - I guess you can't avoid telling something about the story. Gosh, is it really fifty years old? - incredible! As you may have guessed, it's my favourite series of books too - well done on writing the article. Agendum 12:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Double spacing.
Get rid of the double spacing! It sucks! Mr. Jones 14:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Links to Chinese wiki
They are both wrong now. Please fix them up. Thx. ---koyn 14:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Bullfighting article
The excerpt of the Bullfighting article on the main page reads:
- Bullfighting is a sport where professional performers (matadores) taunt bulls at close range, and possibly kill them. It is a controversial but popular spectacle staged principally in Spain (where there are over 400 arenas) but also in Portugal, some countries in Latin America, California and in the south of France. Bullfighting goes back to Crete where youths jumped over bulls and ancient Rome, when many people-versus-animal events were held as a warm-up for gladiatorial sports. Many supporters of bullfighting regard it as a deeply ingrained integral part of their national cultures. Animal rights campaigners object strongly to bullfighting because they think that the bull suffers a slow, painful death. Bullfighting is banned in many countries.
Compare that to the actual, current Bullfighting article which reads:
- Bullfighting or tauromachy (Spanish toreo or tauromaquia) involves professional performers (matadores) taunting bulls at close range and often slowly killing them.
- It is sometimes described as a sport, although there is no scoring or competition between human participants. Although there is a significant degree of skill and danger involved, the bulls are often physically compromised before or during the match. In some countries people taking part in such activity would be liable for terms of imprisonment.
- It is a controversial but popular spectacle...
The current version discusses the concerns about animal rights under a section entitled "Criticisms of bullfighting."
I think the current version is greatly superior to the version excerpted on the main page, and that it is a great example of the Wiki Way: someone posts something, someone else makes it better. But can't the current version be excerpted on the main page, instead of the older version? The version excerpted now reads very amateurish compared to the current one, almost to the point of embarrasment. Taco Deposit 15:18, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
- If you want to, You can do it! ✏ Sverdrup 15:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I did it! Wikipedia kicks ass. Thanks, Sverdrup. Taco Deposit 16:52, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
The headline for Tenet stepping down looks biased. Certainly "personal reasons" does not need to be in quotes.
