This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think there should be a place where people put their comments of Wikipedia, not only the Main Page. A suggestion page should be set up and hyperlinked to the Main Page.
I'm not convinced that the Main Page is really inviting people to contribute to Wikipedia, which is a shame as collaborative editing is one of Wikipedia's key strengths. Perhaps we could add a link to the current collaborations of the week? I am...
Abhishek has done a mock up of what I had in mind at User:Talrias/Main Page. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Erm, you rang? →Raul654 03:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
1. The four items of news and daily DYK collection often outsize the other side creating room for a small section.
2. This is the user built encyclopedia, lets make a more direct attempt to encourage our readers to become editors.
3. If we want to do that, what better place for an anon to start than in the heavily watched COTW.
4. Be bold, if someone disagrees with you inserting the COTW box onto the front page, they can revert with one touch and the harmless experiment ends. If it survives the day, then by consent implied by the silence, the community welcomes a new feature to the front page.
I agree. A lot of people I talk to say they use wikipedia all the time but when I talk about how I edit it they're fascinated as if they were ignorant that they could do the same. I sent a link to one of my articles to someone and she said "Did Wikipedia have to approve that or something?" - again, this is someone who uses the Wiki to obtain information. --Tothebarricades 09:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Multilingual Portal is not unly un-editable, but even lacks a discussion page unlike, say, the Wikisource equivalent or the www.wikibooks.org redirected page. What is the justification for this? Cigarette
That page is a rather special case, in that it's not generated using wiki-markup. →Raul654 18:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Because it looks nicer that way, perhaps? gkhan 21:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, perhaps. It's a very nice graphic. It's certainly a better looking multilingual portal than the Wikibooks or Wikisource ones. But is that a worthwhile justificaiton? It's obviously a special case in that it's not generated using wiki-markup, but is it not generated using a wiki-markup because it's a special case? I'm just curious what, in more explicit terms, the relationship between its specialness and its unique format is. :) Cigarette21:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, it had been generated from the Wiki page at meta:Www.wikipedia.org; however, since the design switch to CatherineMunro's version in the beginning of this year (the one with the globe in the the middle), it switched to reading the contents directly from a HTML file -- the reason being that the HTML required to create the pretty page is too complicated... and that as a high-profile page it would be protected anyway. -- Marcika17:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Agree, in part. I searched the wiki for about 10 minutes looking for the proper place to make a comment on the splash page and decided that I should just leave it here because there is no discussion page for it. My issue is that I have to click 'English' every time I visit www.wikipedia.org(com). A non-wiki splash page offers some potential scripting opportunities - like a 'Remember my preference' checkbox that would save a cookie and take me to the English Wikipedia on my subsequent visits. Oddible 20:32, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
Just visit en.wikipedia.org instead.
What about a google-esqe front page for each language? Basically just a search/go box with a small logo over it. I feel bad wasting bandwidth on the frontpage by visiting it 20 times a day. -Ravedave01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Mohammed bin Fahd bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud
The "Did You Know" has a figure of $500,000, but the article claims half a billion dollars, which is an error of three magnitudes.
Yermo02:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Blair
Look at the photo of Blair and Bush shaking hands. There's a chick in a cowboy hat in the upper left corner. It's not there when you look at the image page. What's going on? Eixo08:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:If you look at that picture's image page, you'll notice there's a revert war going on over that image. user:Zippydeedoodah has been vandalizing it. →Raul654 08:31, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oops. A mistake on my part. Lemme fix it. →Raul654 08:31, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, it should be fixed now. →Raul654 08:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Everybody always asks these sorts of questions as if there's some sort of intentional reason behind it. People, if something hasn't happened, 90% of the time it's because somebody forgot, or hasn't gotten around to it, or didn't know it needed doing. -- Cyrius|✎16:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Cyrius speaks the truth, and not just about Wikipedia. You go. jengod 18:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Also, if they were to edit one of the sub-featurettes, everything (including IP address) is pretty much tracked, and editing such high-profile pages maliciously can result in a quick banning, if I recall. Crtrue 03:40, 2005 July 29 (UTC)
Humorous News/Image Juxtaposition
Excuse me if this is off-topic, but I can't be the only one who finds this funny...
For now, I have put the map up. The mural could go up at some point if an appropriate image could be found. Cheers, [[smoddy]]10:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
It's alright, but it isn't very clear. The brightness of the sky means that the building is very dark. It doesn't really help the item that much. [[smoddy]]10:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The only other thing I could think of doing with this one, would be to crop right down on the black and white mural. Trouble is, I don't think this lad in a gas mask is actually meant to be a member of the IRA. The BBC had a better mural to work with that actually showed three IRA members with rifles. -- Solipsist11:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Look, we don't want an edit war on the Main Page. Keep the status quo or change it back to Did You Know and keep it like that. --Member00:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, very much so. I eradicate them from the featured article write ups when the introductions to the articles have them. →Raul654 20:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
That and your featuring an article that doesn't even exist yet, that alone doesn't make much sence.
Hero of Belarus
Might it not be considered tasteless to run this as a Featured Article while Belarus is allegedly persecuting Belarusian Poles? Lee M02:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Featured articles are based on the quality of the writing, not politics or world events. Nelson Ricardo 03:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Quality of writing is all very well, but in the real world you can't just ignore the political impact of a front-page article. Lee M12:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that Belarus is the most despotic state in Europe, and that the award is obviously given out to a bunch of corrupt oligarchs with one genuine hero thrown in for good measure? Or would that be POV? Eixo06:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
While formulating it that way would certainly be POV, someone with a better knowledge of the country should include a criticisms section or something of the like, because I am certain that there is a good deal of truth to your observation. --Zantastiktalk13:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
While the statement is overdue (I just found this today), I have not noticed any criticism of the title from the sources I have consulted. Plus, I mainly intended for the HoB article to be about the title itself, not about the Belarusian politics. Another thing, I was told this might be the only Belarusian article that can be Featured, but I promise you all that there will be more to come. Zscout370(Sound Off)05:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC) (the article's creator).
Every month a different Africa-related topic, stub or non-existent article was chosen.
The aim of the collaboration was to improve articles to featured article status.
It doesn't have it now, but I imagine it was there for the article on Uganda, not for the article on the Kuiper Belt. Sometimes the pictures don't match the first article on the news page, though I suppose in principle they ought to... --Fastfission17:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Commons images
I've created Template:C-uploaded to help us deal with images from the Commons with the greatest protection, and without having to find an available Commons admin. We can just upload the image here, and slap this template on it.--Pharos07:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
It's legitimate to complain about this bad decision, and why should anyone be expected to read all the old comments on the offchance there might be something relevant?
Because there's a person complaining about it a single heading up. By starting a new heading, it makes you look like someone who doesn't care enough to read the page first, and is thus unlikely to care enough to read any responses. -- Cyrius|✎00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Why should they care about a page full of irrelevant comments when they have a specific point to make?
They weren't making a point; they were asking a question. Are you seriously suggesting that the poster was overwrought with their frenetic and fast paced lifestyle that, rushing to the Main Page talk to ask about "Did you know" , they didn't have time to see the section titled "Did you know" missing in the ToC? I'm not feeling a lot of sympathy. - BanyanTree22:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You can still do it the old way: Left Hand Column->Recent Changes -> Utilities line, has New: -- note that the old way to find DYK articles still applies: just look for the new articles which are larger than the others.
Maybe we should kept those links at the bottom of the DYK template on the MainPage when DYK takes the weekend off, with Today's featured picture pinching hitting. A note on the MainPage about this rotation would be useful, too. It would be less of a surprise for those wikipedians who don't come back every single day. Just my two cents... -- PFHLai 23:08, 2005 July 31 (UTC)
I definitely think the "New Pages" link should always be prominent on the Main Page. It encourages every Wikipedian to check out what's being created - and take out the garbage. Eixo23:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that switching the bottom two items (anniversaries with DYK/Featured picture) would be more logical. We would then have the following layout:
Today's featured item
In the news
Today's featured picture / Did you know...
Anniversaries
Because they are vertically linked (in the coloured boxes) this would show the features/articles of interest together and the date-relevant items together. The featured picture image is left-aligned, so that would also look better in the left column, matching the featured article. violet/riga(t)18:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I like it better than the current layout. It is really quite a lot more logical, and it looks good. It suggests renaming DYK as "Featured facts (from Wikipedia's newest articles)". — Pekinensis13:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Erm, this is a horrible idea. "Featured" indicates content we consider our best (featured articles, pictures, lists). DYK (your so called "featured facts") is far, far from it. →Raul654 14:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not trying to say that DYK is the same as "featured facts", just that those two parts naturally go together and ITN and anniversaries naturally go together too. violet/riga(t)06:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
No, you didn't suggest it - Pekinensis did. Which is why I was replying to him :) →Raul654 06:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
With all four images on the side, the distrbution of images in User:Violetriga/inprogress looks a little odd to me. Can Today's featured picture have the image closer to the right and hence the middle of the screen ? It would be okay with DYK on the left and its image on its right and in the middle of MainPage. Or is this new layout just for weekends ? -- PFHLai 23:18, 2005 July 31 (UTC)
Support Raul isn't comparing the front page to a peer standard. High traffic pages serving millions of visitors are crowded and in comparison to medium sized webistes even, the Wikipedia front page with only four modules is light. We want to recruit more people - always. The COTW is an excellent entry path to promote. lots of issues | leave me a message13:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the most popular page on the internet, the google front page, consists of a single picture and 50-some words. It's simple, very light, and extremely useful. That's the kind of design we should strive for. →Raul654 22:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
That is of course an exception brought up just for the sake of holding an argument. I compare our page to the standard, which can be found everywhere from Craigslist to CNN. What we should aim for is a front page that befits our needs, which includes tidy-ness. And we should more directly recruit contributors. lots of issues | leave me a message01:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with lots of issues. Google's popularity and usefulness is not unrelated to its clean uncluttered look. Its not an exception for the sake of argument, its an important phenomenon worthy of our recognition. The thing is, most people really appreciate not being distracted by a bunch of stuff everywhere on home pages. It pulls the user into interaction, rather than pushing them away by throwing out information that they may not want. Then, the user types in what they are looking for, and, voila, success. This is what we should strive for in the main page.Djbaniel 16:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Talrias added the become-an-editor section and I have removed it. While I'm not fond of switching the DYK/POTD and selected anniversaries section, I'm willing to consider it. On the other hand, the 5th section is absolutely awful. As has been stated repeatedly, this page is for readers, not editors (I know for a fact that many editors don't even look at this page). Introducing a 5th section makes this look lopsided, and adds (yet another) unnecessary feature. →Raul654 17:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
In the short blurb, saying what license it's under is hardly as relevant information as saying what it does. It's already a pretty long entry and I don't see what could be cut just to mention that it's GPL. Lord Bob 20:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Plane Crash not main page-worthy
I live in Mississauga (the city that Pearson is located in) and this will be completely forgotten in 3 days, unlike the other much more important items that usually make the news page. Greggae
Think anyone in Mississauga will remember King Fahd in three days? It's the current news section. It isn't supposed to last for weeks. - Tεxτurε23:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Guess what? Its made the news here - Ireland. Its more important than you think... Much of the news in ITN is never relevant in Europe, usually utterly ignored here, but this isn't. --Kiand23:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Any aviation incident of this magnitude is important, period. --Madchester 23:40, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I got my sense of the events importance through NPR. They were covering the story "as it breaks". It's pretty important. 67.85.62.18400:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Guess what? Its made the news here - Mexico.--Fito 02:12, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
This is along the lines of why Paris Hilton is popular - she's famous because she's famous. An accident in which nobody dies is being covered by the media because the media is covering it, not because it is even vaguely worthy of the amount of attention being lavished upon it. There are regularly train accidents in India that kill dozens that aren't even mentioned in articles, nevertheless get to ITN. Get some exciting video of something blowing up in an industrialized country and watch the media scramble... <sigh> CNN must be dying to fill up airtime since Fahd's funeral. - BanyanTree04:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Well actually I think it is being covered widely, because in the first hour that it was being reported live, the news was that a plane had been struck by lightning, crashed, gone up in a fireball, killing all 300 people, along with video of the raging fires. It then turned around to be 'everyone escaped alive', which was almost as dramatic. -- Solipsist11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
IMO, it's newsworthy because the plane was destroyed but MIRACULOUSLY no one died. It's also "In the News" on the MainPage in French Wikipedia [1]. If you have a better item than the plane crash to feature on "In The News", please post it at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 11:39, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
Newsworthy or not, shldn't it read "... bursts into flames; no loss of life.", rather than "... bursts into flames without loss of life"? -- Doldrums15:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Getting Started
I'd like to suggest making access to Wikipedia's rich contents quicker and easier.
Examples:
focusing the cursor automatically in the searchbox (so the user can immediately type and press enter)
giving the searchbox a more prominent place
provide easy, clear, intuitive hints on how to use wikipedia. The links to browsing/index tools are not sufficiently prominent and inviting.
Explain to any passing visitor what the basics of Wikipedia and its sister projects are. This is not done now! I propose to describe wikipedia in merely 1 to 3 lines and offer 1 link to detailed info on wikipedia (philosophy, statistics, history, ways to access content, how to contribute) and 1 link to a central page explaining all wikimedia projects and their relations on 1 page. For example, I thought wikisource to be about software.
Offer pooled search / browse possiblities that cover ALL wikimedia resources. After all, while differentiation of projects is surely necessary, it is hardly possible to draw hard limits between projects such as wikisource and wikimedia (how about hisorical pictures?), wiktionary and wikipedia, wikispecies and wikipedia, ... I might add that from a contributor point of view the separation between wikisource and wikibooks makes perfect sense, for a user simply looking up relvenat info it does complicate things.
Wikipedia is a truly splendid project but I still find it a little off-putting at times. It confuses me and I don't easily find answers to my questions.
Your critique is very valuable because you are taking the consistent point of view of a reader. Currently, the features are really for the editors, which is natural for the writers of the encyclopedia, and the readers are really looking over the shoulders of the editors. For example, to put the the default cursor into the search box would enrage any editor simply trying to write an article, because this would involve moving the cursor back into usable position after any significant event like a [Show preview]. One approach to your suggestion might be to have a set of skins or the like, which takes on different looks depending on whether you are browsing or editing.
You are raising difficult questions which have hardly been answered well by anyone in the history of the study of knowledge. An adequate summary of all knowledge in three lines is very hard. A good answer ultimately rests on the interests of the individual reader or writer. Vocabulary is yet another problem at another level. (Who would guess that "Village pump" means a place to talk about things -- unless you are a native English speaker, living only one century after the time when everyone in the village came to the pump to get water. Now that Wikipedia is considerably larger than the 500 people in a village, ...)
It appears that Wikipedia has pushed the definition of "difficulty" into a new location which you have so nicely encapsulated above. I can imagine a future version which addresses the problems you have listed, and can only wonder what we will be worrying about next.
On a personal level, may I suggest that "having a specific question in mind" always helps when approaching any source of knowledge. The encyclopedia is tuned to the specific needs of a reader or editor who has a specific question. When that point of view is taken, it is quite easy to get to the limits of the encyclopedia; when you get there, Be Bold and add to the Wikipedia, please.
In the vein of radical suggestions, if the search box of Wikipedia could somehow be integrated into address line of the browser itself, then this would address one of your concerns ... Ancheta Wis10:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The first suggestion about selecting the searchbox by default could be applied only in the main page. Rendering most of the use for newbies or readers, and not disturbing editors.
Has anyone else noticed that the Search Engine box in the upper right hand corner of a Firefox browser no longer has a working version of the Wikipedia search engine? When I try [Add Engines], and choose Wikipedia, nothing happens. Ancheta Wis10:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be free-as-in-speech, alas, and using proprietary stuff (even if we could get permission to do so) has always made baby Wikipedia Jesus cry. Lord Bob 18:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Could we make out own? We wouldn't have to copy the 'wrap-around' feature. But if you could see similar articles as you type into the search box, it would show users the vast quantity of articles there are, and also cut down on the need for redirects and disambiguation pages. Seabhcán19:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Double Beast Number
It looks like today or tomorrow the article count will hit a Double Number of the Beast=666 666.
Right now it's at 66 55 66! What does that tell ya?! gkhan 10:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Because of the bandwidth-hungry nature of RSS, the site administrators have been reluctant to create such feeds. On the other hand, that has not stopped others from creating them. →Raul654 18:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Whee!
Just rolled onto the page and saw we were at 666,666 articles. Article of the beast ;) AND 2/3 of the way to a million!! jengod 07:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Why is the article count on the Main Page different to the count on the Special:Statistics page? On the Main Page it says that there are 666,688 articles, and on the statistics page it says that there are 666,698 articles. Not that much of a difference, but slightly inconsistent. -Whiteheadj07:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Special:statistics is updated after every edit; the main page is a cached copy; so the main page is almost-always a few minutes stale compared to the statistics page. →Raul654 07:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I dabbed the link, as I wasn't sure that "Simple layout" was any better than "Table free", and it makes that line a bit crowded. Thanks! - BanyanTree20:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
(Speaking as the person who writes up the featured article every day) - maps generally do not make good images for the main page. →Raul654 21:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Is there any plan to announce or otherwise advertise Wikimania on the Main Page? I think it would be a good idea -- certainly if a journalist hears about the celebration, they might come here expecting to find out more about it. Is there a standard method of announcing something like this, or would this require some special wikiformatting voodoo? Jwrosenzweig23:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
How about putting the Wikimania logo () above ITN and below the link to the Table-free MainPage ? Do we allow advertising ? -- PFHLai 07:50, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
Today's featured picture: Image too small
I think the image on Today's featured picture should be enlarged. I can't see the A, B and C as mentioned in the 'very wordy' figure legend. Let alone all those little numbers surrounding the bug. -- 199.71.174.10000:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I 100% agree. The featured image ('picture' is a bad word choice for this) should be just that - an image. Only a very small amount of text should be with the image ; just enough to tell the reader what the image is. The current method has several sentences from the lead section of the article that the image is displayed on. That confuses the reader since the featured content is the image not the article and this makes the purpose of the whole section vague. As is, this section looks too much like the featured article section. --mav07:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a good start, but it'd need some retooling for use on the main page. →Raul654 07:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'm someone of the 'describe the picture' (not the general topic) school. This is difficult for a generic illustration like this, though. As an encyclopedia, we should have some accompanying (but short) text. I should note that since the first comment I did increase the image size from 130px to 200px.--Pharos07:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we can include a link to the text version (what we have on the MainPage now) instead of "Full labels on image description page". -- PFHLai 07:57, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
Maybe a simple photo of a nice scenery would not require such a lengthy description. -- PFHLai 08:15, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
OK, I've just been very bold. Have a look at the main page and the new link for 'image description'.--Pharos08:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The featured picture on the main page is a reformatted version of Wikipedia:Picture of the day. The picture can be bigger there and on the captionless POTD, but wider images cause formatting problems on the current Main Page layout. Featured Pictures and POTD isn't just about the image, it is also about how that image illustrates an article on Wikipedia. Pretty pictures that don't really illustrate anything are not so useful. As with the other items on the main page, the first bolded link leads to an article that the featured picture illustrates, so that you can see it in context.
Ideally, the feature picture should stimulate interest in illustrating articles on Wikipedia. If it persuades someone to draw a better diagram, that's great. If it leads us to improve the wikicode and handling of images, even better. Today's featured picture of insect anatomy is particularly interesting for showing the technique of labelling between different language wikis. This diagram was originally drawn for the Polish wiki, but placed on the Commons. It didn't have embedded text so it was easy to translate and bring over to the English and German wikis (possibly more by now). In some ways this interwiki labelling is still a little clunky, so if you can think of a better way to do it, the Commons would be very interested in the discussion. -- Solipsist09:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
New layout looks terrible in 800x600
The new layout looks terrible in 800x600 resolution. The right column is bloated in width, with a lot of extra space at the bottom, while the left column is tall and thin. —Lowellian (talk) 08:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
MacGyverMagic recently pointed out on the Help Desk that recent changes to the Did you know template caused problems with section editting on any pages that included it. While this is a bug (Bugzilla:2128, which it was thought had been fixed), it's only occurring because of the use of HTML <h3> headers, as opposed to the straight-forward wiki markup ===. So, the question is: Why does the Main Page use <h3> in place of ===?
There used to be a couple of advantages - actually side-effects of the same bug - such as the heading not being included in the TOC, but those have been fixed, and AFAIK the two markups should operate identically (except that they don't). Since the Main Page doesn't have a TOC or section edit links, I'm at a loss to see why they were used in the first place. The only thing I can see is that a couple of them are of the form <h3 id="foo"> but since a) the software generates an anchor for every heading anyway, and b) the id could as easily be parked in the <div> tags just before, this doesn't seem necessary.
So, my suggestion is that all these <h3>s be turned into their equivalent wiki markup, which is far more likely to behave predictably in any and all circumstances. - IMSoP13:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Yep, I'd support the change of headings to the wiki-markup and I'd point anyone opposing it to this discussion. Since the side-effects of the bug no longer provide anything that's useful to the main page it should be changed. - Mgm|(talk) 21:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
What happened to "did you know"?
Personally I always liked browsing the "did you know" section as a starting point to see new content (and sometimes only new-to-me content), but it appears to be replaced with the "featured picture" section. Is this permanent, and if so what is the reason?
User:Eldar, DYK is taking the weekend off. It will be back on Monday. -- PFHLai 23:20, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
Vandalism on MainPage today
Penis Image on Main Page
Can someone get rid of that penis image on the Main Page? Thanks.
Why the penis!? It should be immediately removed!!!
There is no attached information of the picture, or even a link to an article of the penis or of circumsision. Why is the picture even there? It is offensive, vulgar, especially for what should be a welcoming introduction to the rest of the site, and what everyone who types wikipedia.org would see. This bit of vandalsim should be immediately removed.
Wha??? The penis lives again! Whoever is in charge of the Featured Pic forgot to lock the page when they put it on the main page. Harro5 04:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism on front page??
Where the "featured picture"/"did you know" section usually is, there is a picture of an, ahem, penis. It can't be edited. Is it just my computer, or did someone in a position of authority screw with the page and lock it?
Image of penis. A red, white and blak nazi flag with svastika. And some two words about "niggers". The comments of the talk page are not visible unless you edit.
And that's still under attack... could somebody please protect it? Tenbaset 03:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
The vandalised template was already under protection since yesterday. It had to be unprotected then re-protected to get the protection 'on'. Hope it works better now. Many thanks to all those who helped out with the reverting. -- PFHLai 04:15, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
Discuss about Wikipedia
Why don't you organise a discussion page for the whole of "en.wikipedia.org" on the front page?
User: Hubert Wan, a single discussion page for all of "en.wikipedia.org"? That would be hard to get things well in order wherever we put it. Please see Wikipedia:Community Portal and Wikipedia:Village pump if you need something or have some ideas to share. Thanks. -- PFHLai 08:50, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
Lisbon is not in the mediterranean (Featured article)
It's just a little thing, but it might lead to wrong ideas. In the Featured article presentation it reads: "The only success came on the opposite end of the Mediterranean, where English crusaders, on the way by ship to the Holy Land, fortuitously stopped and helped capture Lisbon in 1147."
I suggest something like: "The only success came outside of the Mediterranean, where English crusaders, on the way by ship to the Holy Land, fortuitously stopped and helped capture Lisbon in 1147."
I suppose the point is that seen from the Holy land, Lisbon is on the other side of the Mediterranean. Sure, it isn't on the Mediterranean, but neither is Jerusalem. dab(ᛏ)13:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider Lisbon Mediterranean, but dab is right, it's close enough. ~~ N (t/c) 20:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Image use on MainPage
File:Peterjennings.jpgPeter Jennings, in a screenshot taken in 2004. Is this okay for ITN ?
This has been discussed before, but I forgot the reasons and rationale for it. Nor can I find much old discussions in the archives. So, I'm asking again. Do we allow {{fairuse}} images on MainPage ? Why not ? 'Bad form' ? [3] Obviously, PD-pics are preferred. And, using photos "borrowed" from newspapers is bad. But I think some fairuse pics should be fine for the MainPage. Things like {{logo}}s, {{bookcover}}s, {{magazinecover}}s and stamps should be okay for DYK or SA... These images are meant to be widely circulated and displayed. Would showing a {{screenshot}} of the late Peter Jennings (pictured right) on ITN be a good case, too ? Many people grew up watching him on screen. Any comments on this issue, legal or otherwise, are welcome. Thanks. -- PFHLai 05:42, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
Introduction?
Of course I can do this myself as an admin but its always good to get consensus. What say we add a link somewhere to Wikipedia:Introduction? I notice it shows where the Edit this page thing is, and most people should notice it, but still someone might not... but everyone we show the introduction to is someone who's already edited. So I was thinking we have the link on the Main Page... so the newbies can take a look. Anyone agree or disagree? Redwolf2405:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a link on "MainPageIntro" next to "Browse" would be okay, I guess.... But actually, I prefer a link to Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, instead. This, I dunno where to put. -- PFHLai 13:03, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
Small 'm' is fine. I doubt if SI prefixes apply here. Please see mya (unit). If you want a big 'M', the 'y' has to go. -- PFHLai 12:22, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
'M' for 'mega' would only be used if Ma for mega annum were used instead of mya. The current use of 'mya' stands for 'million years ago' not any SI standard. --mav13:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a section on today's In The News that contains a grammatical error. It reads
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi dissolves the Japanese House of Representatives and calls a snap election for September after rebel lawmakers from his Liberal Democratic Party vote down legislations regarding the privatization of Japan Post.
"Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi dissolves the Japanese House of Representatives and calls a snap election for September after rebel lawmakers from his Liberal Democratic Party vote down legislation privatizing the Japan Post. "
I've changed that to "dissidents within his" party. Is this less hilarious now ? -- PFHLai 02:41, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
Personally, I think "rebel lawmakers" was just fine. Anyway, I changed it to "dissenters" with no link; "dissident" conjures up images of someone like Aung San Suu Kyi.--Pharos02:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey ! User:Gozar ! Just who are you calling "bastards" !?!?! Watch your language, pal. -- PFHLai 04:42, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
Today is the 10th anniv of Jerry Garcia's death
Lets do him the honor of havin a link on the main page of wiki, eh?
User:Mveino, how about the 35th anniversary of Dmitri Shostakovich's death, eh ? Actually there is a list of other notable people who was born or dead on the same day on the August 9 page. How about helping improve the Jerry Garcia page and make it a featured article ? This way, you may get to see Garcia on the MainPage next year, instead of Sharon Tate, yet another person who died on August 9th. -- PFHLai 14:47, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
Please correct the portuguese
Thieves steal 150 million reals ($65m) in the Banco Central Fortaleza robbery, Brazil's largest bank robbery and possibly the second largest ever.
The plural of Real is Reais; and it´s the Banco Central robbery at Fortaleza.
I don't think it's accurate to ask to correct the Portuguese in this sitution as the news headline isn't written in Portuguese. While reais may be the correct plural in Portuguese, we should use the correct English plural in this situation Duomillia21:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the changing to reais. In many English business stories it's written as reais. Also I think it should be changed to Banco Central in Fortaleza. Saopaulo1 21:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
The text on the featured article of day (Augustan literature)is getting cut off on the right side, running "behind" the blue box. Don't know if anyone else is having this problem, though. siafu00:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I"m getting the same thing. The whole left box is messed up (trying to figure this out, any ideas?)--Pharos01:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm seeing it too, and no, I have no idea how to fix it. By my estimate though it seems to be cutting out the last 5 or so letters in a word. TomStar8101:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Good work, Detective ! :-) -- PFHLai 05:47, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
Picture
The space shuttle photo appears directly to the right of the headline about the Brazilian bank robbery, instead of one level down, where it belongs. It makes it look like the bankrobbers got away in a space shuttle! Could we add a photo of the bank and move the shuttle photo down? --Jpbrenna01:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Did you know item disagrees with main article
Says "... Mohammed bin Fahd bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud is estimated to have lost $500,000 ..." but the main article says the sum is $500,000,000 !! I would correct this, but I know not how.. Someone once told me how, but I forgot. Too Old02:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I changed it to "tens of millions" in the blurb until I see a really good specific source for the almost unbelievable $500,000,000 figure.--Pharos02:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted Pages
@$#^$@ Wikipedia! You don't like fake pages I edited here! Why does Cyrius have to block me for that one? RyanCahn
A few days ago, I saw a picture of the day, and was elated because I think it's a good idea. I see that other people disagree, but I think we should include both the pic du jour and the new articles. I enjoy them both. Clarkefreak∞22:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Please read the previous discussion first; "Did you know..." is on weekdays, while the "Today's featured picture" is on weekends.--Pharos22:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
There's this really big news story happening in the U.S. about some shooting in Tennessee. It's Wikipedia page is 9 August Shooting Kingston, Tennessee. The story is making front page headlines on news sites, like Fox News,CNN, and more. Do you think we could put it on the main page? For such a big story, I'm surprised it's not on the main page! --Newguineafan 17:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This is a wiki. Every article is a work in progress. Thus, "currently working on ###,### articles" is perfectly alright. -- PFHLai 20:36, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
News
There ought to be a comma after "Tom Delay" in the first news item in order to make it more clear.
"Washington, D.C. lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a key figure in the ethics investigations into Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay(,) is indicted by a federal grand jury on wire fraud charges."
Someone fixed this already. -- PFHLai 00:48, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
proposal for featured pictures on main page
My Proposal is this, I think that we should fit Featured Pictures on the main page every day instead of just on weekends since featured pictures are good examples of the image contributions to wikipedia and should be on the front page every day even though similar proposals have been shot down before I feel that having a featured picture on the front page on every day would make a great addition to the page. JtkieferT | @ | C ----- 00:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Something I forgot, I know that there's an obvious layout issue to this due to the constraint of the layout format and the fact that the layout may break at lower sizes (800x600 notably) but I was thinking that there has to be away to get around this even if it means that instead of switching from Did You Know on weekdays and Featured Pictures on weekends maybe even alternating every other day to give both high visibility and so that the layout would not have to be modified to fit an extra element. JtkieferT | @ | C ----- 00:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think there is a lot a benefit in considering whether the MainPage layout is optimal or whether we want to make some changes. At the moment I'm not in favour of FeaturePictures appearing every day — principally because, unlike Featured Articles, we are currently promoting fewer than seven new pictures a week, which would mean that we would end up recycling pictures at some point. But also because there are other areas of Wikipedia that would benefit from being promoted too. DYK does a good job, and whilst I can see a point when all the genuninely interest new articles will have been written, I don't think we are close to that yet.
I would suggest continuing with FPs on the weekend shift for a little while longer, and then consider alternating DYK with POTD every other day, perhaps with last week's WP:COTW appearing on a Sunday. In any case, it would need community support and should be discussed on the Village Pump.
The MainPage's principle role is being an interesting place for readers. Its secondary role is in encouraging contributors. People work hard to get a Featured Article up to scratch, partially in the hope that it will get selected for the Main Page and get wider exposure. That secondary purpose should be used carefully to encourage contributions to a number of different areas of Wikipedia.
I also think there is scope for revamping the Community Portal as a MainPage for editors. I don't know whether I am typical of most editors, but my first and most frequent port of call is my Watchlist. I only occaisionally take a look at the MainPage, and only used the CommunityPortal when I was a new editor (for the links to WP:MoS etc.) The CommunityPortal has improved and now has several sections for various collaborations, but it doesn't do so much to highlight the fruits of those collaboration with more dynamic content. In fact several of the WikiProject portal's have excellent examples of interesting pages and simply rotating through some of them would make a stimulating page for editors. You would of course still want another page with the handy links for new editors. -- Solipsist19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that wikipedia community portal needs a bit of a revamp as well and I think that changing the entire layout of the front page would be tricky at best due to size limitations on people's computer screens. Even though featured pictures are slow at the moment I made the assumption (possibly a wrong one) that if it was on the front page featured picture activity would pick up to the point where we wouldn't have to repeat pictures. JtkieferT | @ | C ----- 20:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Why not add a howto section in the link sections when applicable??
Or on the page for bows have links on how to build your own bow.
Or on wind power - link to pages on how to build a wind generator?
Like this:
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind.html
(again I've never done this, not my page - but it is a GREAT howto)
Or on the "String" page - add links on how to make string twine rope etc.
Or on the foundry page link to pages that show how to make a home foundry.
Google this - what people do is amazing.
Or on a sword page, link how to make swords. Knives on knife pages, etc.
I'm sure there are about a billion other quality pages (at least a million) on DIY projects -
It is so much cheaper than buying or going to the library to find a book, so why not aggegate the links here? We have the brain power and the resources, no?
I propose a standard to call this link section
either
Howtos
or
DIYs
'Indexes'? Grr!
The front page has the word 'indexes'! GRRRR! Surely it is 'indices'?[[User:Zhengfu|Zhengfu (talk)]]
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary indexes is an okay plural for indexes, but that might just be American English.
Main Entry: in·dex
Pronunciation: 'in-"deks
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural in·dex·es or in·di·ces
I agree it sounds aweful, but apparently it is also ok English according to the Oxford English Dictionary (ref:AskOxford.com), though it notes that 'indeces' is preferred in technical contexts.
Where's the NPOV?
The snippet of an article on today's Main Page about Helen Gandy, is hardly wanting for vitriolic POV. Who wrote this thing? And who chose it to represent Wikipedia? (NB: I have no love for Hoover or his crowd; however, for a site that screams for NPOV even in the face of all common sense regularly, it would seem logical to keep something as one-sided as this out of immediate public view.) 12.73.198.10213:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it gives both Hoover's positive assessment of her, and the negative assessment of Hoover's biographers. →Raul654 16:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
With great emphasis on the latter, which blatantly attacks her on the basis of her alleged physical appearance. In other words, POV. Besides, "assessment" material does not belong in an article's header, but in the body of the larger text. Here it is almost entirely the text itself. And note on the Helen Gandy "History" page, there are 4 claims as of the date of posting here that the article has been "vandalized". Sorry, your excuse does not hold water: Wikipedian hypocrisy has reared its ugly head here. 12.73.198.10216:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Bottom switch
VioletRiga switched the featured picture and the selected anniversaries (so the FP was on the left below the featured article, and the selected anniversaries was on the right under the news). I've reverted this for a few reasons. First, the right side (the In-the-News/Selected Anniversaries) was significantly longer than the left and the main page looked lopsided. It's generally OK if the left side is a little longer and it tapers off to the right, but it's very odd to see it the other way around.
Second, I'm not sure if this was meant to remain in force during the week (when it switches back to Did-You-Know). If so, I vehemently object. Did-you-know gets by far the fewest click-throughs. Moving it to the center of the page and moving a more popular section (the selected annivs) is bad design. →Raul654 16:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not at my usual machine, and on this large screen it looked balanced, so sorry that it didn't to you. DYK might get fewer links because of its positioning - if it were on the left then maybe it would receive more. I would think that we would prefer people to look at DYK rather than the anniversaries anyway, since they are new and generally require more input. The main reason is to link like-for-like though, with dated items on the right and featured/new articles on the left. It would be easy enough to balance the sides anyway, adjusting the column widths and the number of news/anniversary/DYK items. violet/riga(t)17:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I really like having the featured things together and the dated things together, as well. I won't revert, but I wanted to add my support for having them switched. Every time I load the page and the featured picture and featured article are diagonal from each other, I twitch a little bit. :) kmccoy(talk)17:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
One advantage with putting the second feature on the bottom left, is that there is a bit more room on the left, which would allow the featured picture to be a little wider. There were some previous calls to have a bigger picture and less text. Also Raul654's argument on click through analysis is a little circular, in that there is plenty of evidence that the top left corner gets the most clicks on any web site — and the bottom right the least. You can only determine that it is due to the popularity of the section if you do controlled experiments with swapping sections around. DYK might turn out to be popular in the bottom left quarter and as Kmccoy says that could be a good thing for those articles. On the other hand there was a counter argument a couple of weeks back, that if the MainPage is mostly for readers, you don't necessarily want to be drawing attention to the newest material. -- Solipsist18:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The left side length versus right side length issue shouldn't affect this decision. The number of DYKs and Anniversaries has always been adjustable to keep the coloumns the same length. I liked the idea of putting the featured image under the featured article because they're related items, as are the news stories and the anniversaries (historical news stories in a way). If we voted, I'd choose VioletRiga's layout. --81.154.236.22121:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
It would appear that Kmccoy, Solipsist, Pekinensis, Evil Monkey, UkPaolo, lots of issues, the above anon and myself prefer the switched order. Raul654 is the only person to have spoken out against it, so should we therefore go with the change? violet/riga(t)11:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Note: my comment is about when there is a featured picture up, not DYK
I much prefer the way it is now. The page does look lopsided violetrigas way, not only because the columns are uneven (that can easily be fixed, as someone pointed out) but also because then we would have the two featured things on the left (which are basically a slab of text and an image), and two lists to the right. I think that looks very unbalanced. When the text and the image is top right and bottom left respectively the page looks kinda like an X instead of looking like II (am I making any sense to you, or is this simply a mad-mans ramblings you are reading?). I think the X is much more balanced, it "integrates" the two columns nicely. gkhan 12:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with gkhan - it's fine the way it is now. Staggering the lists and text makes for a main page which is much easier on the eye. — Dan | Talk14:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
In the news
It seems to me that for every headline on the Main Page 'In the news' section, there should be a link to the full story. I have been very frustrated on many occasion to try and find the full story on wikinews to no avail. Case in point: currently the headline "Researchers for the first time identify a word in the knotted strings of Incaquipu." appears to have no corresponding wikinews story. If a user clicks on quipu they get sent to the wikipedia article, and have to hunt through the article to find one line on the story they were interested in. I understand that some headlines do not yet have wikinews articles, and that I, if I had the time, could have created one, but it seems that, for the Main Page to be a polished introduction to the general public, all 'In the news' headlines should have corresponding wikinews stories with a link thereto.Djbaniel 21:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Wikinews is a separate 'sister' project. 'ITN' on Wikipedia is for encyclopedic topics in the news; it's too bad Wikinews didn't have a news article but they're still a relatively new project with as yet far fewer members than Wikipedia. I do agree there could probably be more back-and-forth between the two projects.--Pharos21:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Pharos is right, but the important thing to notice is that In the news is not a tie-in of wikinews in wikipedia. — Sverdrup12:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the responses from users who have my upmost respect. I do however feel that I have made a valid point about a way in which the main page could be improved. I ask that you please consider the points below from a blank slate, without any assumptions that the main page 'is best the way that it is'. Four issues seem relevant here:
If 'ITN' is "not a tie-in of wikinews in wikipedia", why is the first link underneath all of the headlines a link to Wikinews?
What is the implication of, "'ITN' is encyclopedic topics in the news"? Is the line between newsworthy topics and encyclopedia-worthy topics not fundamentally blurry/complex?
Wouldn't showing the best face of Wikinews on Wikipedia be a good way to attract more quality people to Wikinews?
Doesn't the name of the section, "In the news", carry an implication of news-type content? Or even if it doesn't to seasoned wikipedians, shouldn't we consider that it will carry such an implication to perhaps the majority of the public?
Thank you for the consideration.Djbaniel 21:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Wikinews is our sister project. We are affiliated with them, but we are not them. We have a section on our main page about the news, because it's useful to our audience, and we give them a link to wikinews, which specializes in that sort of thing. However, we are not responsible for their (Wikinews's) shortcomings. →Raul654 21:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if Wikipedia and Wikinews might be able to work together better if the latter moved to a GFDL license, which would make it easier to directly incorporate Wikipedia content, but of course fashioned into a newswriting context. Currently there isn't really any regular syndication of Wikinews, so I don't think their PD policy is that valuable. Wikinews could easily choose to move back to a PD system when it's more popular and is less dependent on Wikipedia, because unlike encyclopedia articles, news stories are written new every day.--Pharos21:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
In terms of WikiMedia in general, is collaboration not preferable over apathy?Djbaniel 13:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
ITN predates Wikinews by a few years (the Sep11 attacks were the first ITN items). The purpose of that section is the highlight encyclopedia articles that have been *updated* to reflect current events. The links and mentions of Wikinews are conscious effects to attract more attention to that project. Generally, Wikinews is the place to cover current events in detail while Wikipedia is the place where topics are covered in their entirety (whole history). Thus Wikpedia articles serve as background. But yeah, once Wikinews is a lot larger, we may want to require ITN listings to first have a Wikinews article before they are listed on the Main Page (ITN listings already require the Wikipedia article to be updated along with current events or recent deaths depending on the item). --mav13:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Again, anyone who is not a long time wikipedian is not going to be aware that ITN predates Wikinews.Djbaniel 15:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Should be moved to suggestions
The assaination of Roger Louis Schutz-Marsauche should be placed not only to recent death but to inthe news!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The phrase is "a navy blue wheel with twenty-four spokes, known as the or the Ashoka Chakra", please get rid of the "or the". --Brian Z04:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
In the anniversaries section, it took me some time figuring out what that "Solidarnosk" logo is... I don't think most readers will make the effort.
Could someone legend it and put it next to the related line (the Polish strike of 1980)? Or remove the picture altogether since it isn't informative at all as it is?Jules LT07:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The "slashed l" for Lech W does not seem to come through but gives nonsense-squares: the same problem as affecting the Ceaucescus?
Although I'm sure this won't matter much in the long run, I would suggest changing the image on the main page corresponding to Helios Airways Flight 522 to something from the article itself, as the current photo has very little to do with the story.
No, it's accurate. The Earth is destroyed by the Vogons. The Vogons do not (intentionally) help Arthur escape. ~~ N (t/c) 03:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Grammer is ambiguous/poor. You mean the destruction is by the vogons, but the grammar implies the escape is by the vogons. Sentence is too complicated/long. Needs to be split into several smaller ones, IMO. I'll have a go later.
Also, it reads as though Arthur survives the destruction of the Earth by way of Zaphod's ship, rather than by way of one of the Vogon ships.
How about :
"
Arthur Dent, a hapless Englishman, faces imminent death when he learns that the Earth has been scheduled to be destroyed to make way for a HyperspaceBypass. He escapes with the help of his friend, Ford Prefect, an alien from a small planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse and researcher for the epomymous guide, who hitches a ride on one of the ships in the Vogon destructor fleet and takes Arthur with him. They again escape 'certain' death when Zaphod Beeblebrox, Ford's semi-cousin and Galactic President, unknowingly, and very improbably, saves the pair.
"
Perhaps it is too wordy, but is, IMO, easier to understand. Feel free to contract.
The original is perfectly fine. The grammar does not imply that the escape is by the Vogons. "Arthur Dent escapes the destruction of the Earth by the Vogons" is what you would get by stripping the other stuff out, and it's very clear what that means. Also, while the sentence may make it seem as though Arthur is rescued by Zaphod's ship, that's only weakly implied. The blurb is written the way it is because it's an attempt to concisely describe the plot and link to all the major characters and topics in the novel.
Also, by the way, if it had been the case that the Vogons had rescued Arthur, then your correction to "escapes the destruction of Earth by way of an alien race..." would have been just awful. "By way of" means "through" or "via", not "with the help of" or whatever you thought it meant. Pubbawup15:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Liberia is a colony
"Did you know..." states that "Liberia is the only nation in the history of West Africa never to have been colonised?" This is untrue. Liberia is a colony of 'returned slaves' from the US. It was set up by the American Colonization Society who deported African Americans there in 1820's. Seabhcán11:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention the tautology - 'history of' is useless when you follow it by 'have been' - might as well say, simply, "Liberia is the only West African nation never to have been colonised". However, if the above is true, then my point is moot.
The main page has a photo of Brisbane to represent Australia. If the picture was the Harbour bridge or the Opera House from Sydney it may be more "recognisable" but would ultimately be misleading as well. Why wasn't a map of Australia shown?
Maps do not make good main page images - in fact, they're about the worst possible images you can put on the main page (besides the occasional penis that shows up there, I mean...) I choose the picture used there because (a) it's an absolutely fabulous image, in fact it is one of our featured articles (which are recognized as the best pictures on Wikipedia); (b) it's actually used in the article, unlike the more recognizable Sydney Opera house picture, and (c) the Sydney Opera house picture itself is, erm, rather crappy. It's fairly bleak and does not show it from an good angle →Raul654 04:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I would have just put up the Australian flag. Though the current flag is unpopular among some Australians, it is still the clearest symbol of the country.--Pharos04:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I can understand the reasoning against the other images mentioned (I would be against them too). Nevertheless, a picture that represents the featured article should have some direct relevance. The picture of Brisbane is very good, but Brisbane is not Australia. A more general iconic picture is needed, say Bondi Beach, Parliament House, Canberra, Uluru, Flag of Australia, maybe even a NASA image? --One Salient Oversight04:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
None of those things "are" Australia either. I think the photo should remain on the front page as it is a good quality picture, and there should be images other than Opera House, Uluru, continent, etc. used to illustrate Australia. Brisbane is hardly an insignificant part of the country anyway. Cf. South Africa's appearance on the main page a while back. Slacspeak up!05:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Newark isn't insignificant either, but it hardly represents the USA. If someone had put the Harbour Bridge or Opera House on the front page it may, as I said, have more popular relevance but, in the end, they would be just as unacceptable. The flag seems to be good enough for me, even though we should probably change it. --One Salient Oversight06:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with maps ? I like a map showing the location of the cities listed in the last sentence of the paragraph. An image that goes well with the text. Can't go wrong this way, eh ! -- 199.71.174.10004:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Um, no, actually that's the flag of Austria, not Australia. On the other hand, Pharos has already made the switch, and I can live with the change. →Raul654 04:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, good to see the change was made. I logged on earlier, and had the same concerns raised here, but didn't have time to voice them. The problem with using that photo was that it just looks like a generic city, it just doesn't symbolise Australia. Flags on the other hand, are generally created for that very purpose - good decision! --Brendanfox08:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Erm, sister projects are other projects hosted by the Wikimedia foundation - Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, 'etc. Astrologynotes is not one of them. →Raul654 17:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include, in keeping with the publishing of the Helios accident, this on the main page.
--treff89, 23h18 AEDST 16.08.2005
The statistics special page needs amendment
The statistics special page that you get to by clicking on the number of articles states that the "Detailed Wikipedia article and user statistics" and the "Log analysis for the English-language Wikipedia, including most commonly accessed pages" are "automatic internal statistics", but they are not. At present they aren't being updated at all. It isn't possible to comment on this on the special page and my comment on Wikipedia talk:Statistics has received no response in almost a fortnight. Osomec19:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
--Mb1000 18:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
) above ITN and below the link to the Table-free MainPage ? Do we allow advertising ? -- PFHLai 07:50, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
