Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dutpar (talk | contribs)
113 edits
extra knowledge on subject
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Main Page]]
#REDIRECT [[Main Page]]
[[User:172.163.228.109|172.163.228.109]] 19:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
<!-- ---------------
Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so please use it.
------------------ -->
{{notice|1=<div style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 185%">'''This page is for discussing the [[Main Page|main page]] only.'''</span><br/><br /><span style="font-size: 150%">This is not the place to ask general questions.</span><br/> To ask questions about using Wikipedia, see the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]].<br/> To ask questions about Wikipedia policies or operations, see the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]].'''<br/> For more information on this page, see [[Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ]].<br/>[[Wikipedia:Questions|'''Use ''this link'' to find out how to ask questions and get answers''']].</div>}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 112
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Main Page discussion footer}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
<div style="right:10px;" class="metadata topicon">'''{{Currentdate}}'''</div>
<div class="infobox" style="padding: 1em; width: 300px">
Sections of this page older than three days are automatically '''[[Talk:Main Page/archivelist|archived]]
</div>
{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors}}

=General discussion=
__TOC__
<!-- ---------------
Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so please use it.
------------------ -->

== [[Powderfinger]] ==

How many times have powderfinger figured on the front page in the last few weeks? WHo are they?--[[User:Kitchen Knife|Kitchen Knife]] 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:Read the article. --[[User:74.13.128.59|74.13.128.59]] 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

::I have an cannot see why they should be on the front page so often. The seem like a rather no mark band.--[[User:Kitchen Knife|Kitchen Knife]] 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I suggest you read the article then. They are a very well known band. [[User:DPCU|DPCU]] 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Main page appearances aren't dictated by the topic of the article -anything that meets [[WP:NN|Wikipedia's notability requirements]] can be featured on the main page. -[[User:Elmer Clark|Elmer Clark]] 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::They are back again after 5 days. Sounds like PR to me.--[[User:Kitchen Knife|Kitchen Knife]] 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Or a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Powderfinger|WikiProject]] doing what it's supposed to do... [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]]<small>&nbsp;([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]])</small> 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::"supposed to do" according to their own lights or those of Wikipedia?--[[User:Kitchen Knife|Kitchen Knife]] 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: Both. The problem is we don't have enough contributers in other areas. More different people with different expertise and knowledge bases contributing will mean more different DYK candidates to choose from. If Kitchen Knife wants, we can have many DYKs about knives. Get working on articles on your favorite topics, everyone. --[[User:74.13.131.144|74.13.131.144]] 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"[A] rather no mark band"? WTF, Powderfinger are one of the best and most well-known Australian bands. Kitchen Knife, just because you obviously don't know much about recent music doesn't mean that it doesn't belong the Main Page. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.110.207|203.208.110.207]] ([[User talk:203.208.110.207|talk]]) 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*Let's [[WP:CIVIL|be civil]]. Powderfinger are one of the most popular bands in Australia, but their success has been confined to the continent. [[User:Teemu08|Teemu08]] 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry, but even if the person ''hadn't'' heard of them, the Wikipedia article should have tipped you off to the promince of the band. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.110.207|203.208.110.207]] ([[User talk:203.208.110.207|talk]]) 12:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::They appear more often than the beatles, rolling stones, Elvis or the Sex Pistols. There promince is very limit by comparison.--[[User:Kitchen Knife|Kitchen Knife]] 12:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

== Active cursor in search box ==

A [http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore_browse WP donor] earlier today suggested the implementation of an active cursor in the search box on main page. Seems like a good idea, doesn't it? --[[User:Camptown|Camptown]] 09:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:Giving focus to the search box prevents the user from using the arrow keys or other shortcut keys to navigate. We long ago decided that being able to scroll down at the push of a button was the more important function. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 09:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
::It's in the FAQ btw [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Ahh, the good old argument of 'but we've always done it like this...'. Can I ask how long ago this was decided? In this era of scroll wheeled mice as pretty much standard, I would have thought that most people navigate a page using that, or if not by dragging the scrollbar. Not being able to type directly into the search box I feel is more important. Whilst frequent visitors to WP, may spend time browsing the main page, most casual folk just want to use WP as an encyclopedia - by searching it. Is it possible that this can be looked at again? Thoughts? My two cents courtesy of [[User:Dutpar|Dutpar]] 08:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::::From my experience, most ''non-editors'' go straight to the search box. Only the contributors themselves (these are generalisations) browse through the main page. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Discuss]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|&#169;]]</font></b></sup> 09:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::But how many readers actually search from the main page as opposed to www.wikipedia.org, Google, IE/FireFox search tab etc? Mind you, this question is almost impossible to answer as are most claims about the majority of users. By definition, people who only come to the main page to use the search box are not likely to be checking out the talk page and even if we were to put a big banner ad on the main page for a survey they might not notice (I guess we could put it throughout wikipedia but anyway...) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::You know, search box focus doesn't really prevent arrow key scrolling. All the user has to do is TAB out of it first. The result is scrolling at the touch of two buttons. --[[User:Siradia|Siradia]] 18:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::::I use a laptop, with a [[touchpad]], and I have always found scrolling with the arrow key more comfortable than dragging the [[scrollbar]]. However, maybe it is time to revisit this topic, and confirm consensus. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::I use a laptop with touchpad too, but I have scrolling enabled on the touchpad (as well as back/forward) so I just have to run my finger along the edge to scroll. It's very nice. And this is coming from a person who does a lot of shortcut keys to get around. I understand not killing functionality for keyboarding types, but I don't think it's really that disruptive to focus. Especially if keyboarders want to type in the search box. That's a lot of tabbing. --[[User:Siradia|Siradia]] 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Well if you've set up your system to work well for you, that's good, but this doesn't answer the question of what the majority of people with touchpads are going to do. I suspect it's probably with keys (arrows or page up/down, neither of which will work with focus). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hate it if when i typed it went straight to the search box because i have a heavy hand and it tends to press the odd key on my laptop. the way it is perfect. [[User:Philbuck222|Philbuck222]] 11:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This idea gets mentioned every once in a while. I actually think it's one of the most often given suggestions. The reason why it isn't done is because it (a) immediately breaks some important shortcut keys (giving focus to the search box means you can't use space bar to scroll down, for example), which is a major pain when visiting a long article, (b) it doesn't even matter too much as most people come to an article either via the www.wikipedia.org homepage (which ''does'' steal focus) or via a wikilink. I myself find it hugely annoying that when I view a Flickr results page, I first need to click the page to be able to use space bar (I can't even use tab, because it just jumps to various other input boxes). Anyway, I'm against this! <tt>—msikma ([[User:Msikma|user]], [[User_talk:Msikma|talk]])</tt> 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::Hmmm. Whenever I think of this as a possibility, I think of it happening only on the main page, not on the other article pages. Is that not technically feasible? I hadn't considered that before.--[[User:Siradia|Siradia]] 15:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can see there is a weight to continuing as is, (Thanks Mskima, I don't think I ever realised space bar could be used for scrolling!) but perhaps as a compromise the tab order could be amended so a single tab takes you first to the search box, as opposed to the 270th as on today's Main Page. [[User:Dutpar|Dutpar]] 19:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

== Featured picture too controversial ==

Please remove the picture of a dead Chinese soldier from the main page. It's common decency not to display a dead body in such a ghastly manner. Featuring this picture so prominently on the main page of Wikipedia offends the Chinese people and every fair-minded individual of any nationality. Being able to edit the main page of Wikipedia is a great responsibility, and I highly recommend anyone who has been entrusted with it to examine himself for any trace of vulgarity, insensitivity and prejudice as often as possible. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hai Huang|Hai Huang]] ([[User talk:Hai Huang|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hai Huang|contribs]]) 07:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:See heading "Shocking" above. [[User:128.227.55.145|128.227.55.145]] 07:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::And the [[WP:CD|content disclaimer]]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 07:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::And the [[Wikipedia:Schools%27_FAQ#Is_it_a_safe_environment_for_young_people.3F|Frequently Asked Question about whether Wikipedia is safe for young people]]. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Thanks both, but as long as a selected few are allowed to editorialize on the main page, I don't think I need to bother too much about the technicalities when lodging my protest. No offense. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hai Huang|Hai Huang]] ([[User talk:Hai Huang|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hai Huang|contribs]]) 08:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::The content of the [[Main Page]] is selected on the quality of the articles and images themselves. If you do not feel that a particular article or image is of high quality, please voice your concerns at [[Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Nomination_for_delisting|featured picture nominations for delisting]] and [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|featured article review]]. I assure you [[WP:TINC|there is no main page cabal]], and if there is, I wasn't invited into it :(. Hopefully this helps. Cheers =) --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 09:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:Apparently, this guy really doesn't like this pic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&diff=prev&oldid=133914000] [[User:128.227.55.145|128.227.55.145]] 08:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::Who likes to see the dead body of a fellow man?
:::Yea its so much better to pretend people don't die in wars. [[User:128.227.55.145|128.227.55.145]] 08:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::The reality argument again? See heading "Shocking" above, or just go on with this type of reality education for your children. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.167.153.21|76.167.153.21]] ([[User talk:76.167.153.21|talk]]) 08:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::[[WP:NOT#CENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored]], and that includes for children. That's one of the main policies [[WP:LOP|policies]] of Wikipedia. If parents wish to [[Censorship|censor]] their children's access to [[Internet censorship|internet content]], they are free to do so, but Wikipedia does not do that job for them. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 08:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sure. Certainly a very admirable policy. What I am concerned about is if Wikipedia has an effective enough policy to ensure the selected few are not to editorialize in one way or another on the main page. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hai Huang|Hai Huang]] ([[User talk:Hai Huang|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hai Huang|contribs]]) 09:12, 2 November 2007</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->
:::::::You might have a point. Check out our project for [[WP:BIAS|countering systemic bias]]. Though, please be sure to refer to my post directly above about how to nominate articles and pictures for delisting. Keep in mind, featuring pictures, articles, and other content is based on [[WP:CCC|consensus that can change]], so it's totally within your power to raise your concerns. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 09:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:Have to agree - this featured picture does not belong on the front page. Someone is showing exceptionally poor taste and insensitivity by using this gruesome image here. 08:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Socrates2008|Socrates2008]] ([[User talk:Socrates2008|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Socrates2008|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Why can't we get nudes of chicks on the main page?! WHY?! --'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Howard</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">the</font>]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Duck</font>]]''' 09:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:We already have. See [[:Image:Orlando Furioso 20.jpg]]. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 09:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::Do we more for the future? --'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Howard</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">the</font>]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Duck</font>]]''' 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::There's the more saucy one: [[:Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg]]. Of course, it's quite possible people would get more worked up over censoring someone living than someone dead. :) --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 09:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::There should be more of these! :p --'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Howard</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">the</font>]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Duck</font>]]''' 09:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::I cannot believe that some ?? put such a picture as a "featured one" It is a shame to the so called free encyclopedia became a such racist place!! To be a balanced report why don't you also put a picture with a dead US white soldier? For that war, both sides lost a lot of young ones. none can be proud of it.<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|64.238.164.81}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|64.238.164.81}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|64.238.164.81}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|11:48, 2 November 2007}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->
::::::Again, images are selected for [[Main Page]] inclusion based on quality and relation to good content. I assure you we also have pictures of other dead people from monumental wars that are in the rotation, as well, so that we avoid being racist. Check out [[Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History|featured historical pictures]] for more examples. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Errr - this is not about racism for everybody, so rotating a picture of a different corpse tomorrow will not fix this. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Socrates2008|Socrates2008]] ([[User talk:Socrates2008|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Socrates2008|contribs]]) 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:All of you could have participated in the community discussion [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Korean War causality]] which decided whether the picture was suitable. Wikipedia does not exclude images based on controversiality, or "common decency". The sum of all human knowledge (which is our goal), includes such images. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 12:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::I just came here to make sure this thread was here. ;) [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I have seen worse on [[Law & Order franchise|Law and Order]] at 3:30 in the afternoon on a Thursday, on the news, and in textbooks. These complaints, as usual, are pointless and without any real validity. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC) <small>Except for the sytemic bias stuff, which I am pretty sure everyone affiliated with the Main Page does their best to combat.[[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 12:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)</small>

::::Yeah. I remember that after the [[2004 Indian Ocean earthquake]] some newspapers had images of dead bodies (even of children) on their front pages'. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 13:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[[#I'm detecting a theme|Today's All Souls' Day]]. It makes perfect sense. --'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Howard</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">the</font>]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Duck</font>]]''' 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, but what shall we say in [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 2007#November 27 - Tue|about a month or so]]? I'm sure that picture will generate a lot of discussion. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

::You know what, there have been ''lots'' of war-related FPics lately. Now I'm not sure how they're selected to appear for each day, but if they're by basis of promotion time - perhaps they're batched nominated - then that'll explain it.
::Also, if we want WP to be shocking, why can't we get photos of naked women (as I've said earlier) on the Main Page? That'll be nicer. Young people must know the reality that is sex. --'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Howard</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">the</font>]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Duck</font>]]''' 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Wow, I can't believe people are really this shocked by an image of a dead body. Puchiko: I think they are front paged in the order they are promoted, except when they are mixed up a bit to avoid topic stacking. I think [[User:Howcheng|Howcheng]] is the de facto FP director. As for the November 27 FP, that's racist against white people of European descent, and in poor taste, as all of reality is. ;)[[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, IvoShandor has it exactly in regards to scheduling. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 17:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:There was a discussion on this topic recently. I raised the question on [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_criteria#.22it_might_be_shocking.22|Featured picture criteria]], and the consensus was that the pictures have been through a lengthy selection process and have been chosen for their merits. I am not unhappy with the images, though I am concerned that people are sometimes disturbed by strong images and there is no acceptance of this in the guidelines - indeed the criteria includes the phrase "it might be shocking" without a qualifying phrase to encourage awareness of the impact of the image. The BBC has a policy on the use of images: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/stillsphotos/politics.shtml here] and [http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/stillsphotos/harmoffence.shtml here] for example - and, as we know, the BBC is not censored, and is widely respected for its strong, factual reporting. I understand the point of view of the picture editors involved in creating the featured picture criteria, and I do not wish to hinder the use of stunning images. However, I would like some sensible, non-censoring guidelines along the lines of the BBC, though less severe: ''"Images should not normally feature the following:
:''* Graphic violence, torture, or any extreme violent behaviour.
:''* Gratuitous nudity or graphic/extreme sexual acts.
:''* Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context.
:''* Explicit drug use.
:''* Self-harm, suicide, or attempted suicide.
:''* Hangings or other forms of execution."''
:<span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<font face="Roman" color="#0ccccc" size="0.5">SilkyTalk</font>]]</span> 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

::I disagree. It is a form of censorship. However, to calm your worries, ''"Images depicting children (under the age of sixteen) in a sexual context"'' are illegal, and are therefore not in the encyclopedia at all. However I feel that no picture should be excluded from being featured based solely on the controversy of what it depicts. That would be a form of censorship, which is something I strongly oppose. Furthermore, doing this would decrease the encyclopedic value of the main page, and I see no reason to do that. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with Puchiko here. What you call "non-censoring" guidelines, I call censorship. Semantics won't change an apple into an orange. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::The problem with censorship is to who's ideals it should be met. If it's my ideals, we oughta see more naked women and more naked women on the Main Page. --'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Howard</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">the</font>]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Duck</font>]]''' 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Which is why censorship should not be engaged in. Who gets to play [[Thought police]] on Wikipedia? Who decides what is offensive, shocking or vulgar? The community has expressed its will that Wikipedia not be censored for anyone. If folks feel differently I would suggest bringing it up at [[WT:NOT]], but would suggest so with the caveat: don't expect it to go ''anywhere''. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::No, it's not censorship as no-one is asking for the page to be removed from the Encyclopedia. Those people wishing to find out about acts of war, should fully expect to see pictures of this nature in the context of articles on that topic. However to pull one of these pictures out of that context, without the story, and without sensitivity to the broader audience of the Encyclopedia, and put it on the front page where people do not expect to see gore of this nature, is wrong. What some folks are missing is that everyone's reaction to a photo of this nature is subjective. Someone who has just returned from a tour of Iraq might not blink at a high resolution image or video of a decapitation, because they've been desensitized to it; however others might have trouble keeping their meal down. So please stop viewing this from your own subjective points of view, and consider what other people may or may not have seen. In this light, the BBC guidelines described above are perfectly reasonable. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Socrates2008|Socrates2008]] ([[User talk:Socrates2008|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Socrates2008|contribs]]) 03:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::Actually it is a form of censorship. This isn't intrinsicly wrong but the problem is, how do you know what people don't expect to see? Indeed, the problem is the whole thing is subjective. For example, a fundamentalist Christian is probably going to be offended by FP October 18th. Other people may be offended by one or more of September 3rd, 8th and 10th. Note that even if we were to adopt the BBC criteria as worded, there is likely to be a very large variance in interpretation between editors [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 12:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Nope - no-one would have had issue if the article from which this photo was taken had been featured instead. In that case, there would not have been only a single gratuitous war photo, but an article putting it in context. Guidelines would mean less variation in interpretation between editors, not more (e.g. "Don't show a potentially controversial photo out of context of an article" would seem like a pretty clear guideline). There is a balance to be struck here between the desire of individuals to see any photo they want (e.g. gore, child porn, extreme violence, executions etc) and those of society as a whole. To say that this is about censorship is an extremely selfish point of view. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Socrates2008|Socrates2008]] ([[User talk:Socrates2008|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Socrates2008|contribs]]) 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

FYI, we've had [[Template:POTD/2007-08-28|dead white people]], [[Template:POTD/2007-10-08|dead Jews]], and [[Template:POTD/2007-09-25|dead Filipinos]] in recent months, so I think we can say that Wikipedia is racially/ethnically blind when it comes to showing pictures of corpses. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

::To IvoShandor's comment, I think you are right in your stance of who is to decide who plays [[Thought Police]], and I feel it should be the community as a consensus. Therefore, I have expressed my opinion on [[WT:NOT]], given it seems the consensus is to put nude female pictures (preferably attractive ones) on the main page! Justice for all! [[User:68.143.88.2|68.143.88.2]] 17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Haha. I am sincerely laughing, now that ''is'' justice. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Finally my naked women crusade is bearing fruit! Justice to all''!!!'' --'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Howard</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">the</font>]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Duck</font>]]''' 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this all mean that if I had created an article for [[Fuck (film)|this movie]] now instead of eighteen months ago, it could make it into '''Did You Know'''? Back then I was told that while "...Wikipedia is not censored, it also should not intentionally try to offend." [[User:Cigarette|Cigarette]] 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

:[[WP:CENSOR|[/me whacks everyone with a wet noodle (again)] ]] ~[[user:orngjce223]] [[user_talk:orngjce223|how am I typing?]] 03:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why people think the image is racist ''against'' the Chinese soldier. Whenever I personaly see a war photograph that includes a corpse my first emotional response to to think negatively of whoever killed them. Why would anyone think negatively of the corpse? There's no shame in having died in a war. I would have expected far more accusations of racism if the photograph was of a white man killed by a Chinese solder. [[User:APL|APL]] 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The photo should not have been posted. The argument of those defending it is rubish. I don't think this has to do with censorship. You wouldn't want photos taken from shocksites, even if they were free and of high quality´, would you now? Or what about photos of tortured people, raped women, slaughtered babies? They address an important topic in our society and if they are of high quality, you will accept them, right? I say bull. --[[User:Anittas|Thus Spake Anittas]] 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:It would depend on the encyclopedic value (and that is often very little for images from shock sites). However, I disagree with your statement "''I don't think this has to do with censorship''". If we look at the [[censorship|censorship article]] the first sentence is <br />''Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.'' {{Fact|date=August 2007}}. <br />In a way, refusing to put the picture in a prominent place based, solely on the fact that it depicts a controversial topic, is "withholding information". Of course, the sentence has a citation needed tag, and so should be treated with caution. In my opinion, we should feature photos of tortured people, raped women, and slaughtered babies, should they be high encyclopedic quality, high quality, free, legal (and this might not be the case, identifiable images of rape or torture victims '''might''' be illegal due to privacy issues), and satisfy [[Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria|other criteria]]. <br />In my opinion, refusing to feature images because they display corpses is moral censorship. I have once again decided to quote the censorship article:<br />''Moral censorship is the means by which any material that contains what the censor deems to be of questionable morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of what it deems to be the values behind the material and limits access to it. [[Pornography]], for example, is often censored under this rationale.''<br />In conclusion, I will include a brief passage from [[Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria]]<br />'' A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See [[Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?/Example subject matter|these examples]] for a basic guide.''<br /> I would encourage all who participate in this discussion to carefully read through [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]], as well as [[WP:CENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored]]. Thank you. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:So it doesn't have to do with censorship, just limiting the use of content that offends you and others like you? --[[User:APL|APL]] 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

::Editors cite [[WP:CENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored]] as though it means there is no control on Wikipedia - yet there is. Quote from that policy: "obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed". Also, intro from [[Wikipedia:Profanity]]: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." So we already have an awareness and an acceptance that there is material we don't want on Wiki. What is being suggested here is not that content is censored, but that content is used appropriately. What is being suggested is that an ''awareness'' that some images may shock be included in the Featured picture criteria, and care taken when selecting those images. The front page is the landing platform for the encyclopedia, as such it has a political purpose and impact which is somewhat different to the main encyclopedia and as such there are different criteria - for example, one our main founding principles is that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, immediately; yet most long standing editors cannot edit the main page. It's a different animal to the rest of the herd, and slightly different guuidelines are needed. I agree that information should not be withheld in the main encyclopedia, but care applied when selecting images for the landing platform. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<font face="Roman" color="#0ccccc" size="0.5">SilkyTalk</font>]]</span> 09:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:::undent
The [[Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria | Featured Picture criteria]] are
#Is of a high technical standard.
#Is of high resolution.
#Is among Wikipedia's best work.
#Has a free license.
#Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
#Is accurate. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page.
#Has a good caption.
#Is neutral. It illustrates the subject objectively.
#Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.
There is nothing there about how unshocking, inoffensive or tasteful a picture should be. And the comments about the content of the main page being different from the rest of the encyclopedia is pertinent — the main page's content is decided by a nomination and approval process. Other pages are not. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:The criteria are exclusive in the sense that images of a low technical standard, low resolution, etc are excluded - so the notion of adding a criteria such as "Is unlikely to shock" or "Is not unnecessarily provocative" is already present, as is the notion of using a judgement with the criteria of "best work" (by whose standards?) and "neutral". As for the nomination process - that is what we are discussing. We are discussing adding into that process an ''awareness'' that some images may be too shocking for a landing platform, rather than the ''encouragement'' that the image "might be shocking", which is the wording in the current [[Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria|criteria]]. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<font face="Roman" color="#0ccccc" size="0.5">SilkyTalk</font>]]</span> 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not sure what you mean by the exclusivity bit - the criteria are about what properties a picture ''should'' have to be included, not what it ''should not''. And I read the bit about being "shocking, impressive, or just highly informative" as saying those qualities are as much of a qualification as being aesthetically pleasing. That's not an encouragement to be any of those, just a statement that it doesn't have to look good to be good. In any case, I'll go back to a statement I made earlier in the month when this was being discussed: come up with a definition of "shocking" which most people will accept, and then you can determine what criteria to apply to content you think should or should not be displayed. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

== Donation banner ==

The banner at the top has changed!!!!! [[User:The Placebo Effect|The Placebo Effect]] 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Hiding the fundraiser box]] how to hide it. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:Seems like the new design is having problems on IE. See the bottom discussions on [[Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign]]. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 05:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't have that 'Wiki feel' to it. The previous one was better, I'd say. --[[User:Ouro|Ouro]] <small>([[User_talk:Ouro|blah blah]])</small> 08:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I'd forgotten just how well-hidden I had it. To see what had changed, I had to disable my custom stylesheet, NoScript ''and'' Adblock :) – [[User talk:Gurch|Gurch]] 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely true that the new fund raising banner is way too much like a big, flashing banner ad, and definitely doesn't fit in well with the Wiki style. What about the first fund raiser graphic? I recall it being eye friendly. [[User:24.7.71.43|24.7.71.43]] 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

=== This makes me want to donate less. ===

--[[User:Henry W. Schmitt|Henry W. Schmitt]] 04:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::I'm afraid I have to agree-- the previous donation banner was much more appealing... :( [[User:Lusanaherandraton|Lusanaherandraton]] 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This is almost as bad as an ad, and one step away from an animated GIF banner. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.174.1.125|24.174.1.125]] ([[User talk:24.174.1.125|talk]]) 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I thought that the last one was bad, until this one showed up. No offense to whoever created this banner, but the people in a line showing how many people have donated doesn't do it for me. A graph is much more helpful compared to a bunch of people in a row. I understand it is trying to convey the message of a world-wide effort, but it sounds preachy. The red button helps in the long run, I think, but the whole left portion of the banner does not. If you have any questions, please contact me at [[User talk:IanManka|my talk page]]. [[User:IanManka|Ian Manka]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this current banner, which is very close to an ad, is not apealing to anbody at all. I liked the old one much better. [[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] 18:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

=== I don't see whats the problem here ===

Scroll down if u don't want to contribute, or just scroll down enough to have it out of your way. Its not like its jumping out of the screen. [[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]] 07:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This banner really looks much like an aggressive ad... the previous one was much better. 11:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.218.178.220|77.218.178.220]] ([[User talk:77.218.178.220|talk]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Huh? What banner? I can see it on other computers but not this one. In fact, logged on or off, it is invisible on this computer. How is this possible? Can someone tell me what it looks like? Thanks. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]][[User:AstroHurricane001/U|U]])</sup> 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:: You probably have JavaScript turned off. I recommend you leave it that way – [[User talk:Gurch|Gurch]] 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I also thought the new banner was an improvement on the first one. Although, I'm using firefox, and the text and some lines look a little squished compared to the old one. Perhaps that can be fixed, but otherwise the new design is nice. --[[User:NickPenguin|<font color="darkgreen">Nick</font>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<font color="darkblue">Penguin</font>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<font color="blue">'''contribs'''</font>]])</sub> 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::Though I hate both banners, the second one is better. Having the banner on the top seems a bit "pushy". I am not a fan of asking people for donations. If they want to donate, they will donate. Also, this could have a counter-effect and make people '''not want to donate'''.--[[User:SJP|SJP]] 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::<sarcasm>Yeah, because not reminding people to donate will make them more likely to donate.</sarcasm> Seriously, they're both fine, and there's a nice little button there that says "hide this message". Use it. [[User:Grandmasterka|<font color="red">Grand</font>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<font color="blue">master</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<font color="green">ka</font>]] 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree the second one is better, the first one drove me nuts because I have a serious pet peeve with animations on web pages, movement on the screen is distracting especially if trying to read an encylopedia. The current one is far less distracting then the previous one. The hide button works well on both and the little meter that is left when hidden isnt too bad (though I think by default something this size would be better). I do support the foundations effort to solicit donations, running this stuff isnt free and many people wont donate if they dont realize there is a current need. As an american I liken it to PBS and NPR fund drives, which while they annoyed the hell out of me, I saw as a unfortunate nessesity to allow me to get commercial free unbaised and quality programming the rest of the year(and I did donate every year). Think about this reguarding wikipedia, suffer the banners for a breif period, the alternative is something like google ads all day everyday, personally, I will take the banner. [[User:Russeasby|Russeasby]] 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah, I see what you mean:) Will they be pernament, or are they temporary? I hope they are the second!--[[User:SJP|SJP]] 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Yes, we're aware that the "people bar" is currently squished; hopefully this issue will get sorted out tomorrow.

I think no matter what we put at the top of the page, we'll probably get 20 comments telling us that it's horrible, unprofessional, too professional, too preachy, not preachy enough, too irritating, not irritating enough, too colorful, too gray, too banner-like, not sufficiently banner-like, too familiar, too unfamiliar, ... I'll stop now.

Since we put up the new banner, the number of donations per day has more than doubled. [http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/node/22] Whether this is due to its newness or the new design -- it's clear that we have to make modifications like this to meet our fundraising goals. We need $4.6M for the FY 2007-2008, and so far we've raised $368K. We expect that we'll need another fundraiser in 2008 and we also have some major donors interested in contributing for this fundraiser; this one will run into late December. During that time we'll experiment further with the notice, the landing page, etc. Helpful comments are appreciated at [[Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign]]. ---[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::It is great that we have gotten that much money! It is excellent. I am happy with that. I hope that it will be taken down when the goal is met though.--[[User:SJP|SJP]] 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:Unless you've got a lot of corporate donors in reserve, we might miss that $4.6M by >70% in this drive, which could easily put us in the position of needing 2 more long fundraisers just to pay for 2008. At which point, much of the year is a "fundraiser". This leads me to wonder about the origin of that $4.6M number. Traffic only grew ~40% in the last year, but if I understand correctly the projected budget is ~3 times larger than this year's budget. Any chance you guys are grossly overestimating the costs for the coming year? A number more like $2.5M would seem much more obtainable and in line with growth in Wikimedia's core activity. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:: There are two paths the Foundation could take in its organizational development: 1) Focus, 100%, on hosting Wikipedia and generating enough funding to do so -- rely almost exclusively on ad hoc volunteerism for everything beyond hosting. 2) Build WMF into a mission-driven non-profit that is not merely hosting a website, but distributing knowledge to people world-wide, and reaching out to the global community for participation and content creation. These paths are ''extremely'' different. For example, in scenario 1), it would not be necessary to relocate the Foundation from [[St. Petersburg, Florida]] to [[San Francisco]], as we've decided to do -- we would surely be able to support basic server hosting without it. On the other hand, becoming a successful and global charity requires access to a different talent pool, the ability to execute program directives, etc.

:: As Jimmy's video should make clear, the Foundation (through its majority-elected Board of Trustees) has chosen path 2) -- we're not merely a webhost; we want to be a new kind of charity: a charity of free knowledge. And this necessitates that we prepare & plan our growth accordingly.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 06:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::: In the end, it all comes down to numbers, and they aren't big enough. Obviously I can't say "you should have gone with 1)" without being accused of trolling, but... you get my drift – [[User talk:Gurch|Gurch]] 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Theres no '''Hide''' button :{ ~ <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.112.227.194|71.112.227.194]] ([[User talk:71.112.227.194|talk]]) 10:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

===Discrepancy===

Seriously, has nobody noticed that when the donation banner is opened, it shows a different number of contributors than when the donation banner is closed? Right now there's a discrepancy of between 8 and 14 contributors. Which is the real "updated" number? Is there some sort of lag? ~[[user:orngjce223]] [[user_talk:orngjce223|how am I typing?]] 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:The same things happens with the number of articles: nothing can be dead on, dude. Stuff changes moment to moment, they can only be exact to within a second or two. [[User:Bmrbarre|Ben]] 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Besides, what is the difference between 14,900 and 14,908? Does 8 people really matter? I know every donor counts, but statistically, not so.
::The discrepancy is much bigger on my screen. When the banner is open, it says "0 have donated". When closed, the number is over 14,000. It has been a while since I took statistics, but I think this is statistically significant. :-) I am running Firefox, if that makes a difference. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Mine is showing a discrepancy of about 1000 now...[[User:Bmrbarre|Ben]] 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Hmm...mines off by 1. '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa">SashaCall</span>]]</font>''' <sup>([[User:Sasha Callahan/Autograph Book|Sign!]])</sup>'''/'''<sub>([[User talk:Sasha Callahan|Talk!]])</sub> 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Mine's off by 11, but considering the gaps listed above, this IS somewhat serious. [[User:Yadaman|Yadaman]] 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

== Featured articles not protected? ==

How come featured articles are usually not protected, in this case, GameFAQS? There have been a lot of vandalism in that article and yet it's not protected. How come? [[User:Kashakak|Kashakak]] 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:This has been discussed time and time again; very often, the current FA article will not only get attention from trolls, but also legitimate editors willing to add useful informaiton. That's primarily why it isn't protected. --[[User:Ouro|Ouro]] <small>([[User_talk:Ouro|blah blah]])</small> 13:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::And for some reason people choose to cling to this hypothetical concept, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The day is not half over yet and today's featured article has been vandalised over 100 times, yet the text has not been improved in any way whatsoever by anyone who is not be able to edit semi-protected pages. Statistically there is a good chance that the page will be vandalised when viewed, giving readers a bad impression of Wikipedia. Yet this idea that it must not be semi-protected persists. It's a real testament to the power of the wiki concept that this project survives despite incredibly poor management of issues such as this one – [[User talk:Gurch|Gurch]] 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::: The whole idea of wikipedia is that its better to have it open to vandalism and good edits then completely closed. You see we can undo the vandalism but we need the good stuff to get in there. [[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]] 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::::What kind of image would we give to first-time visitors if the most visible page on this encyclopedia that can supposedly be edited by anyone was closed to editing for them? -[[User:Elmer Clark|Elmer Clark]] 01:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::The Main Page is already ready closed to editing so your argument is bunk anyway. Frankly it would leave a rather good impression if the FA was protected or semi-protected, as it shows that Wikipedia ''does'' in fact have some control over the quality of its content and does care about maintaining and protecting that quality against vandalism. First time visitors would frankly not give a shit over whether a page they're reading is protected or not, and in fact it would be a good way to introduce them to Wikipedia's protection policy. Let me ask you this: What kind of image would we give to first-time visitors if the most visible page on this encyclopedia that can supposedly be edited by anyone was vandalised when they viewed it? Not protecting the FA is a stupid ideal which does more harm to Wikipedia's reputation than good. The outside world will view content protection as sound thinking and judgement; it is only us Wikipedians who hold onto this notion of completely open editing and view protection as something bad. End rant. '''<font color="red">[[User:Zunaid|Zun]]</font><font color="green">[[User Talk:Zunaid|aid]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Zunaid|©]]</font><font color="orange">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Zunaid|®]]</font>''' 10:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:Well, the argument goes that there is no need to edit the main page, as not only do we want to keep the colours/layout the same (brand identity), everything should be double checked before going on the main page, and the source code of the mainpage is bewildering to anyone who isn't a master with <tt><nowiki><div></nowiki></tt> tags. On the other hand, TFA, while it should be checked, will never be perfect, and there is always room for improvement, be it spelling errors or a major edit, and the clear, simple layout is an excellent starting place for Wikipedians (many of the people who start off writing "omg lololololololol!!!!!!" on the TFA end up as admins, after all!) [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:: If the main page was editted it would be far more chaotic than vandalizing an article - the code will get screwed up, changing one or two letters can seriously screw up code. [[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]] 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

== Keep an eye out! ==

This discussion page is starting to clog up with random stuff that has nothing to with ''improving the main page''. What should we do? [[User:LB22|LB22]] 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:Wait for the offending sections to get automatically archived? By the way, this section itself would fall into the category it describes. [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] <sup>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]</sup>⁄<sub>[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>&bull;&nbsp;20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</small>
This site needs a major makeover <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.54.98.101|65.54.98.101]] ([[User talk:65.54.98.101|talk]]) 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Indeed Wikipedia is not perfect. Do you have some constructive criticism (like what exactly should be fixed)? If you can pinpoint exact problems, we are more likely to be able to fix them. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:::What he is talking about is all the discussion that ends up on the main page because people are not sure where to post it, although it does not really belong on this page. --[[User:Credema|Credema]] 06:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Shouldn't this discussion be on [[Talk talk:Main Page]]? (Yes, I know it doesn't exist, and it's probably a bad idea.) --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 09:52, 8 November 2007 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])

:::::Generally speaking, on all talk pages it's accepted that stuff solely related to the talk page is on topic. E.g. archiving, BLP talk pages issues, reminders about staying on topic [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::Awww! I was hoping for [[Talk talk talk talk talk talk:Main Page]]... [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 12:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::::No I meant really random stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Like waht they won on a game they played last night! I've seen that many times... [[User:LB22|LB22]] 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I just remove random non-sequiturs posted to the page on sight. [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] <sup>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]</sup>⁄<sub>[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>&bull;&nbsp;21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::Crap that's unrelated to Wikipedia should be removed on sight. People with Wikipedia-related comments and questions should be directed to the most appropriate avenue for that discussion, if it is not here. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

== Globe Logo ==

Why is it that on the English [[Main Page]], the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde? --[[User:Ye Olde Luke|Ye Olde Luke]] 00:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

:The "backwards [[Ñ]]" is a [[Cyrillic]] [[Й]] (as opposed to [[И]]). You must learn to think in Яцззїаи. -- [[User:!!|!!]] [[User talk:!!|??]] 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not quite sure why, but there's a couple of differences between the www.wikipedia.org logo and the en.wikipedia.org logo; in addition to the Й, "'Ω" has been replaced by just "Ω" on the portal. [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 12:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

== What happened to Wikimedia Fundraising C.O.R.E.? ==

Why is the [http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore/browse/ Wikimedia Fundraising C.O.R.E.] ''practically'' not updated anymore? [http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore/browse/2007/11 November figures]. --[[User:Camptown|Camptown]] 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
: A question for ''meta''? --[[User:74.13.125.143|74.13.125.143]] 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

: The core has been switched; you can browse the new one [http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore_browse here].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just learned that the Foundation is working on this issue. In the meantime, the daily balance of the fundraising is updated manually [http://donate.wikimedia.org/en/node/22 here]. --[[User:Camptown|Camptown]] 19:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

== Protection Question ==
Has the main page always been fully protected, because in the page history I've found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=128802941 this] and it confused me. [[User:Noahcs|Noahcs]] 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
:That was back during the rogue admin scare. A handful of admins got their accounts taken over by someone. [[User:128.227.61.237|128.227.61.237]] 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
::There were also one or two admins who took it into their hands to unprotect the Main Page as an [[April Fools' Day|April Fools' joke]]. And of course page protection itself hasn't always existed. [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] <sup>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]</sup>⁄<sub>[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>&bull;&nbsp;22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)</small>
:It has been policy to protect the Main Page and all its component templates since February 2005 - see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-07/Main page protection]]. Admins are human, however, and they would sometimes forget to protect templates or images, so [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-15/Cascading protection|cascading protection was added in January 2007]]. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''<font color="green">[[User talk:Graham87|87]]</font> 07:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
::The Main Page is meant to be always protected. However, it has been unprotected before as an April Fool's joke (after that, an anon changed the width of one of the columns by one pixel, was reverted, and the page was reprotected), it has been unprotected by compromised administrator accounts (and protected shortly afterwards), and when the Main Page has been deleted in the past (usually by compromised administrator accounts, but once by mistake), that causes it to be unprotected as well, and on occasion admins have forgotten to reprotect it immediately after undeleting. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 18:02, 9 November 2007 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])

== How about a tab on the main page that leads to the Village Pump? ==

Then we won't have rude people above telling us to use an unfamiliar page to give our two cents as one had it. [[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]] 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
:It ''is'' already linked in the giant box at the top of this talk page. There've been attempts to push it more heavily in the past, but they've generally been rejected as being too ugly. I suppose we ''could'' just condense the page to WP:ERRORS, and shove every longform topic over to the Pump. [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] <sup>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]</sup>⁄<sub>[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>&bull;&nbsp;01:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)</small>
::Actually, I can't see any link to the Village Pump; there's the Help Desk, but that's very different to the VP. I'll add one after the Help Desk link. [[User:Smurrayinchester|<span style="color:#00BB55">Laïka</span>]] 15:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:::The link on the NavBar to [[Wikipedia:Community Portal]] may be a convenient route to the village pump, but newbies may not know about it. Perhaps we could use a link to the village pump on the NavBar. --[[User:199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

May I add a side point here - I'm still kinda new here - only a year since I was a user. So when i ask something, I'm not asking if someone knows. No, this not a test for experienced users to prove themselves. I'm asking because ''I'' don't know. In other words, if there is a link to the Village Pump, can you make it visible so that even someone like me can find it and not just say that there is one? Thats my original point here. People above have left unhelpful comments saying "this is not appropriate for the talk page" well thats great but if newbees like me can't find it, then its broke and needs fixing[[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]] 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:I am probably one of the 'rude users' of which you speak, but can I please just add that both myself and the IP on the occasion I recommended you move the discussion to the Village Pump linked to it? It wasn't a matter of 'Oh My God, you are such a pathetic user, you should know that this should be at the village pump, you're obviously an idiot.' It was a case of 'This isn't appropriate here. Try [[WP:VP|this page]].' You proceeded to become sarcastic, and said that as the conversation had started, it should stay here. There are a number of reasons that that is nonsense, and I will not patronise you with them. Anyone interested in the discussion can see it [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_112#Notes.2FRefrences_Thought|here]], although it has not been fully archived as a large section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&diff=170270821&oldid=170227161 was removed]. Tourskin, you were the one being rude, if anyone was. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] 14:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

:: Such "rudeness" was developed from experienve of other administrators telling me to "lighten up" and "develop a harder skin". If people can't take sarcasm, why should I? Well anyways, the first rude comment was the one asking the discussion to take it elsewhere. A link at the Main Page to the Village Pump (preferably a tab) would be great. Come on, whats an extra tab at the top going to do?[[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]] 19:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

== Donations ==

The donation figure seems to have frozen. When you close ther message you get a higher figure than before you close it.[[User:Harland1|Harland1]] 13:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:<s>Please see [[#Donations Dead?!]] above.</s> --[[User:199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
::No, he's reporting a different problem. This has to do with caching situations -- the progress bar (shown when it collapsed) is cached and regenerated at different intervals than the counter text, which causes the discrepancy. The difference is generally very minor (if it exists at all), but under certain conditions may grow relatively large. At present the difference is 19,315 (expanded) vs. 19,314 (collapsed). [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
::: I see. Thanks. --[[User:199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

== [[Webley Revolver]] as the featured article the day after [[Jokela school shooting]] ==

It seems an odd coincidence that an article about a gun should be featured the day after a prominent school shooting. Any thoughts?--'''[[User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]''</sup> <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/HisSpaceResearch|r e s e a r c h]]'''</sub> 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:It was chosen to go on the front page on the 27th October. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/November_8%2C_2007&oldid=167488365] [[User:AlexJ|AlexJ]] 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
::Just a coincidence. [[Truthiness]] was the main page article the same day [[Stephen Colbert]] announced he would run for President of the United States (in South Carolina). '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:white;background:#4CBB17">Sasha</span>]][[User:Sasha Callahan/Autograph Book|<span style="color:white;background:#4CBB17">Call</span>]]</font>''' 22:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Spooky. D'ya think if I asked him nicely, Raul would pick some lottery numbers for me? -- [[User:Vary|Vary]] | [[User talk:Vary|Talk]] 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More [[apophenia]] in action. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:Also, for my next trick: Bobcat is going to be the FA on the 11th. I predict that somebody, somewhere, will have some experience involving a bobcat, and that searching on google news for "Bobcat" will reveal at least one story for that day. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

::Oh man - [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=bobcat&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=w&as_mind=3&as_minm=11&as_maxd=10&as_maxm=11 Google news] has not one, not two, not three, but thirty eight bobcat related articles for today. Clearly the article's selection for the main page for this date was indicative of some sort of bias towards the subject of one of these articles (The fact that the Bobcat article was scheduled for this date more than two weeks ago is totally irrelevant). [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

::Haha :) [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

:: Maybe the [[Charlotte Bobcats]] will win a basketball game that day... [[Houston Rockets|Houston]] may have a problem with that. :-) --[[User:199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

::Raul, it would be a greater coincidence if that incident made its way onto [[WP:ITN]] '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:white;background:#4CBB17">Sasha</span>]][[User:Sasha Callahan/Autograph Book|<span style="color:white;background:#4CBB17">Call</span>]]</font>''' 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it would only be a strange and eerie coincidence if the shooter used the Webley in the shooting, which he didn't. [[User:Hbdragon88|hbdragon88]] 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

== [[Montreal Screwjob]] is today's featured article?! ==

You've got to be kidding. [[User:Heathcliff|Heathcliff]] 22:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:Ah, damn it! I honestly thought this might go the whole day without anybody complaining. So close! Anyway, its been said before, so here it is, again: ANY article can be a featured article, and ANY featured article can be on the main page. That's the way it always has worked, and always will work. If you want to go get [[Tschirnhaus transformation]] or some other, more "serious" topic on the main page, feel free to work on it and get it up to featured status.--[[User:Fyre2387|Fyre2387]] <sup>([[User talk:Fyre2387|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fyre2387|contribs]])</sup> 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
::A minor correction: [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson|<u>almost</u> any]] featured article can be on the main page. [[Montreal Screwjob]] doesn't come remotely close to raising the same level of concern. - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Meh. I'd call even that debatable, personally.--[[User:Fyre2387|Fyre2387]] <sup>([[User talk:Fyre2387|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fyre2387|contribs]])</sup> 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Heathcliiff loves it really :] [[User:172.203.251.100|172.203.251.100]] 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
::Ah well, I ''was'' wondering where the greasy pitchfork-wielding mob had gotten to. In any case, I can't imagine anyone objecting to today's article on the grounds of "encyclopedicity". [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] <sup>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]</sup>⁄<sub>[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>&bull;&nbsp;01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)</small>
:::::Hey the article is great, it reminds me of when i use to watch wwf. [[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]] 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:You give absolutely no information on why you protest it being the featured article? Another WWE hater? Great. Look, it's a good article. Informative, and most importantly, every single statement has been sourced, somehow magically making it more informative than a fansite or God forbid, official ones. Strange how that works isn't it? Anyway, care to extrapolate on your criticism to the article's FA-ishness? --[[User:Kaizer13|Kaizer13]] 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

:: Lol probably because the FA was [[Shoot (professional wrestling)|unexpected]].[[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]] 07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

== Suggestion ==

I think you should add "Fiction-Related Article of the Day". Does anyone agree with me? [[User:Pokemon Buffy Titan|Pokemon Buffy Titan]] 10:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: No, because every time there's a fiction-related article on the Main Page, somebody moans here about the supposed bias in Wikipedia's coverage – [[User talk:Gurch|Gurch]] 12:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
::Articles about fiction are written from a real-world perspective anyway. Is [[Harry Potter (character)]] a 'fiction related article'? Even though it talks about the character from a real world perspective? Is [[Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone]] fiction related? The book actually exists. Is [[J. K. Rowling]] fiction related? She's famous for writing fiction. And so on... In short, no, it is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] 14:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

== Fundraising bar at top of pages ==

Hey everybody, usually I have the fundraising tab covered using a "Hide this message option on my monobook". This says that 20,326 people have donated, yet when I press the show more button it tells me that 19,306 people have donated. Why? Alo which figure is accurate? Thanks --[[User:Hadseys|Hadseys]] ([[User talk:Hadseys|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hadseys|contribs]]) 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: Now I see 14,000. [[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]] 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

::Hadseys, that is probably a caching issue - they were both correct (I assume) when they were passed to the server, but they might have been passed at different times, or loaded from the server at different times. The greater number is more accurate, but people continue to donate. Tourskin, have you tried [[WP:CACHE|clearing your cache]]? That might update the number, but we're definitely past 20,000 as of this point. [[User:Nihiltres|<font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres</font>]]<sup>'''('''<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:Nihiltres|<font color="#000">t</font>]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Nihiltres <font color="#000">l</font>]</span>''')'''</sup> 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

:: Nice, thank you its worked[[User:Tourskin|Tourskin]] 20:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Weekly Podcast ==

I think we should add this wikipedia podcast to the main page, if not now, than someday at least. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
:It's on the Community Portal. And it isn't that enyclopedic and only of intrest to wikipedians. [[User:The Placebo Effect|The Placebo Effect]] 01:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, it's not the right sort of thing quite yet, but some sort of discussion or vocal news report about what's new, what's featured, and so on. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

== Georgia confusion ==

The current event notice about riots in Georgia is a little confusing because it's not clear that the subject is the country of Georgia rather than the state of Georgia (in the US). Neither the listing nor the article itself clarifies this (although reading the article, it becomes obvious that it couldn't be referring to the state). And no, the world doesn't revolve around the US. Wikipedia is a global thing. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to identify _which_ entity is being referred to. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.207.134.67|98.207.134.67]] ([[User talk:98.207.134.67|talk]]) 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 19:23, 11 November 2007

Redirect to:

172.163.228.109 19:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=170801186"