Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TodorBozhinov (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 30 November 2006 (Abbey bias!111one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Main Page: please read the information below to find the best place for your comment or question. For error reports, go here. Thank you.

Today's featured picture

  • Today's featured picture is taken from the list of successful featured pictures, If you would like to nominate a picture to be featured see Picture of the Day.
  • To report an error with "Today's featured picture...", add a note at the Error Report.

Main Page and beyond

Otherwise; please read through this page to see if your comment has already been made by someone else before adding a new section by clicking the little + sign at the top of the page.

Main page discussion

  • This page is for the discussion of technical issues with the main page's operations. See the help boxes above for possible better places for your post.
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. If you press the plus sign to the right of the edit this page button it will automatically add a new section for your post.
  • Please sign your post with --~~~~. It will add the time and your name automatically.

Template:Main Page discussion footer

German Wiki

The German Wiki reached 500.000 articles two days ago. Shouldnt on the Main Page the chapter Wikipedia languages changed to reflect that?--Tresckow 03:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see German Wikipedia 500,000th entry. The bottom line is that it would be illogical to create a new tier for one Wikipedia. —David Levy 04:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a new tier? i was more thinkinking of 500.000 german. its ahuge gap between more than 100.000 and 500.000 one would think--85.180.60.152 13:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is exactly what ass David Levy said. While 500k is a major achievement, until we have at least three others that have reached this level, it's fruitless to devote two whole lines of the main page to one project. End of story. -- Zanimum 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC) your gay and wrong the other dude is right.[reply]
When there was "50.000 or more articles", this statement was true. "100.000 or more articles" just seems to be like a logarithmic system. The start with at least 20.000 articles is only to keep a proper size since there are a lot Wikipediae with about 10.000 - 20.000 articles. Since the French Wikipedia will very soon reach the 400.000th article. That should be reflected as well. At the moment, the 100.000 is well enough. It would make more sense mentioning at the start page that the largest 3 Wikipediae have reached new limits wihtin a few days. (And that from a guy who's mainly active at the German Wikipedia.) --32X 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia put our 1,500,000 achievement on their main page, maybe we should put thier achievement on our main page??-- Coasttocoast 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. --Jan.Smolik 12:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1,500,000

What was this article? Was there a reason it wasn't included, as Jordanhill Railway Station was?Freakin Duh.

See above. Noone happened to catch it at the right time, so it's a case of rounding to the nearest one that remains fairly stable at that figure. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 06:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone please remove the 1,500,000 tag. While I am very pleased that we have reached 1,500,000 articles do you realize how many are stubs? I doubt half of these qulaify as articles yet. But great work just remove the tag asapErnst Stavro Blofeld 12:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down your tone. The banner's only been up for a little over a day, and it will be coming down shortly. In the mean time, you can try reading one or two of our other great articles besides the main page :P. AmiDaniel (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

first item

The Socialist Party gains in Dutch elections, while Jan Peter Balkenende's (pictured) Christian Democrats retain their plurality

is it plurality or popularity ?--Pixel ;-) 12:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+plurality Rafy 13:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok--Pixel ;-) 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, doctored pictures

A new low I guess, an obviously Photoshopped image on the front page - a picture that's supposed to represent a real place. In an encyclopedia. Very nice. 68.231.49.252

Which one? — ceejayoz talk 04:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user is most likely referring to Image:Hills_south_west_of_Sanandaj_near_the_village_of_Kilaneh.jpg which at a glance might look photoshopped. JoshuaZ 04:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Picture

This might be the wrong place for this, and I apologize if it is, but on the Featured Article I think it would be a lot better to have the Duke Chapel or at the very least the Emblem featured as the picture to go with the Featured Article for today rather than those science buildings.angie stevens 'shirley ' They're much more interesting to look at and represent Duke a lot better.

Suggestions: Image:Duke shield.PNG

Mientkiewicz5508 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The third wouldn't work, as fair use images are prohibited while there's another option. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, Mientkiewicz5508, but it's too late now. Next time, you may want leave a message on the talkpage of the FA template in question, or on The TFA director's usertalkpage. You may get a quicker response. --PFHLai 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Penguin

Why does the Emperor Penguin travel such distances as part of the mating instinct? Why don't they stay near the sea so they can obtain food instead of starving themselves and remain with their mates? 69.40.184.248 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)RKimb@aol.com[reply]

This page is for discussion of the Main Page only; you can make your question at the Reference Desk. Good luck!--cloviz 04:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Picture

Is it just me or did the Duke picture get messed up?

This is what it looks like for me:

File:DukeFA.PNG

Nishkid64 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. --Majorly (Talk) 17:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...strange. What's even weirder is that this is only happening in Firefox. It appears perfectly normal in Internet Explorer. Also, the picture was normal yesterday when I last went on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It works in my Firefox. Have you tried cleared your cache? --Majorly (Talk) 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I cleared my cache multiple times to no avail. I also went to the exact page for the FA, and the image looks the same (disfigured and all). Nishkid64 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is weird. Have you checked the exact picture file? Otherwise, I'm all out of ideas :S --Majorly (Talk) 17:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did. What's even stranger is that when I click that disfigured image, I'm linked to the proper LevineScienceResearchCtr.jpg image, and it looks all normal. I have no clue what happened. Nishkid64 17:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, this is crazy. It has now changed to the Wikipedia black "W" (except it's 10x as huge and is distorted). Nishkid64 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Insert Twilight Zone Music] Looks perfectly fine to me in my Firefox as well. -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks normal to me.--TomI edit my userpage too much, 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pixelized in my Firefox window. Oh well. Could we please change the picture to something slightly more interesting? Like the Chapel perhaps? I mentioned this yesterday, but it hasn't been addressed yet. Boring science buildings aren't very representative of the University.

Mientkiewicz5508 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see it fine in Firefox. Try clearing all your temporary Internet files, clearing your cache, and reloading. Prodego talk 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This frequently happens to me on various websites - the images "replace" one another. Most of the time, a hard refresh (CTRL+F5) works for me, as well as clearing the cache. Kalani [talk] 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IGN.COM's message board is among the most popular? If that's the case then...

If IGN.COM's message boards are among one of the most popular on the internet, then what IS the most popular? Do we even know? And if so, will we need to start up an article about it? Or the website that hosts it? Zabrak 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to internet forum the largest forum is 2channel (which as you can see we have a quite substantial article on). http://www.big-boards.com/ is a site that ranks internet forums by size, but it doesn't seem to include Japanese sites so 2channel is not listed. the wub "?!" 18:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be reminded that this talkpage is intended for discussions on topics related to MainPage only. --PFHLai 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia languages

The above 20 000 article group is not under alphabetical order. Could someone fix that? Thanks, --Vanka5 00:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm not sure how Danish and Czech got to the wrong place. —Cuiviénen 00:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the current selection of language links, both in the bottom section and the sidebar (+ the "complete list" link in sidebar). Good work, whoever all is responsible for the current incarnation of this much-discussed segment.. :) -Quiddity 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that Quiddity-statement. --Monotonehell 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language links at the bottom of the main page

When you mouse over the links, it gives the two letter prefix that the link goes to (e.g. Français shows "fr:"). However, there are two problems with this:

  1. It is not user friendly--mousing over a name in a foreign language does not give the English language equivalent for someone who is curious as to what the language is (especially important for Arabic, etc). Instead, it gives a useless two letter abbreviation.
  2. Telugu bucks the trend, and instead of the two-letter abbreviation, gives the full name.

Either Telugu should be fixed, or all the mouseover texts should be changed. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Just wrap the language name in span tags, as I did here for French. That should get the English word for the language and the interwiki prefix on mouseover. —Mets501 (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, 'tis not difficult to do at all. Lemme give it a shot .. will be up in a minute. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Let me know if I screwed any up. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You screwed up. LOL ... Shouldn't Catala be Catalan? Would you consider using non-breaking spaces on the two word languages so they don't break over a line?   Just a thought. Great job by the way. --Monotonehell 06:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And done again :). AmiDaniel (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exxxxcelent... :) --Monotonehell 07:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, good job =) — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 11:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Quality/Quantity FA

As of late we have recognized that as a community, we need to focus more on quality than on quantity. Yet we continue to prominantly list the number of articles on EN (at the top, left-hand corner of the main page) while hiding the less-impressive total of Featured Articles. At the very least, we should list the two figures side by side. We're doing just fine in terms of numbers of articles but badly in terms of F.A.'s Let's stop patting ourselves on the back and start listing the number of F.A.'s on the front page. --Zantastik talk 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before. See Talk:Main Page/Archive 79. Hope these help. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign in) 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I won't push it; community consensus is important, and furthermore, the main page really *is* for readers, not wikipedians. The former won't know anything about featured articles, but they will be impressed with how many articles we have. Still, of course, our focus as wikipedians needs to well-written articles (FA or not), not quantity. --Zantastik talk 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborations on front page

Ten articles of high importance and unspectacular quality should be placed onto the front page each week. Maybe replace DYK, lawl. OK that was mean Rampart 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AID. There are also lots of collaborative projects for specific WikiProjects. DYK rocks! (I think) Nishkid64 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're both right. Articles on DYK are typically around a Start class on the Article grading scheme - they're "solid", but not necessarily the best we have to offer. DYK rocks in that articles featured in the section seem to attract a lot of good contributions without the crapstorm that hits every Featured Article on the Main Page. It also works to greatly boost the enthusiasm of new editors who've had their work picked out of Special:Newpages (which is happening a lot more often recently). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I'd just like to mention not all articles in DYK are start class. List of South America tropical cyclones was a list that I found in DYK that I nominated at WP:FLC. It ended up becoming featured unanimously. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign in) 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News Picture

Any chance of a picture of Correa going up, someone who's just won an election, instead of Balkenende, who may well have lost his premiership in an election days ago?--Nema Fakei 12:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but it'll help if you suggest this in a better place. As the info at the top suggests, you should start of here Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page before you end up here Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates Nil Einne 13:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the...

Eh, what happened to the Wiki logo? Who is that?

Note that this occurred around 1:25-1:30 AM EST. Wiki logo returned around 1:35 AM EST.

Link to Mediawiki among sister projects?

Any particular reason there isn't a link to (Wait! see below -- this isn't the link I meant) MediaWiki from the English Wikipedia Main Page, for example among Sister Projects? Is it because they don't want people going there unless they've been around long enough to find it somehow? --Coppertwig 12:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) OK, I'm confused. That link wasn't what I meant. That was wikimedia/Meta-wiki. I meant MediaWiki -- the pages with a sunflower as the logo: MediaWiki. Wikipedia has Meta listed under Sister Projects, but not MediaWiki. How are people supposed to find MediaWiki? Or bugzilla? Maybe a link should be added. --Coppertwig 12:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link "...a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:" gets you to the list of projects which then mentions Mediawiki at the end. Is that enough? --Monotonehell 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction of links on the Main Page

I propose to reduce the number of links on the main page to put more emphasis on the important topics, and to make the text easier to read. So only the links that are bold at the moment should stay (as plain links). At the moment, the page is really a mess. --Nina 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little torn on this proposal. On one hand this is hypertext, on the other hand I agree it currently looks a little over linked. How do we decide what is "important" or not. I often click on links to get context for the main subject. --Monotonehell 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, things are over-linked compared to the rest of the Internet, but this shows how we cover every aspect of important topics. -- Zanimum 17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the other links besides the bolded ones are relevant to the main links, they should remain. For example in taoday's FA (Jaws) 'Steven Spielberg' and 'Great White Shark' should remian linked, but perhaps 'Amity Island' should not be, as it is linked in the article itself as well. Only the most relevant parts deserve links. At least that's my two cents. Antimatter 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what if someone wants to learn about Amity Island, but thinks we don't have a seperate article on it, and gets discouraged, because they don't want to fish (no pun intended) through the article for little bits and pieces about the locale? -- Zanimum 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is looking for something, he/she will find it in wikipedia. If you show a featured article on the front page and want to show every relevant topic as well, you just spoil the message. Then you don't need the text- you could simply display a list of links. --Nina 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. When it is linked on the main page, that reduces data entry into the search box and makes it easier to browse for first time users, who are the ones you want to start reading the encyclopedia. Have you tried setting your options not to underline the links, and to merely leave them blue, but not underlined? Ancheta Wis 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please correct

The entry about the Japan Diet refers to the Reichstag as an institution, which is wrong here, it should point to the Reichstag building article. See "On this day"-box November29 1890

Next time, post any Main Page errors at WP:ERRORS. Nishkid64 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the Japanese Diet is a legislature and so was the Reichstag. There is no mistake. Nishkid64 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words

When someone types in words related to and then the word it should come up with a list of at least 10 words.

Can you please elaborate? I don't really understand what you are saying. Nishkid64 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic picture/article

NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.89.146 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Is someone asleep at the switch, or just tone-deaf?? While we don't want to bowlderize the encyclopedia, we need to keep the front page clean and above reproach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.207.128 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. --Madchester 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it our responsibility to decide for people what they should see? We're not forcing anyone to click on the thumbnail, and at its resolution, the thumbnail is illegible. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 03:12Z

I predict this featured article will see a record number of vandalisms. Carcharoth 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As featured article go, it's actually receiving shockingly little vandalism. I think Bulbasaur was one of the most vandalized FAs of all time, and it got *WAY* more than this one has. Raul654 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously all the vandals are looking at the pictures instead! :-) Carcharoth 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What can vandals do, add "penis" to the article? --Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you guys thinking?! User:Madchester, apparently you are used to having to say that. So bluntly put. Wikipedia has become a very public site. User:Brian0918, thats what porn is. Kids don't have to click the link, but apparently they are. The thumbnail should either be smaller, or not there at all. And if your right, that its too small to see, what stops them from just clicking to see what the picture is? The link to this article shouldn't be here. Sure, this is an encyclopedia, right? The article should stay, they have this in the encyclopedia books. But to put it on the front page, kids WILL see this. This maybe put on the news. Little extreme, right? But parents do go that far, good parents. This is indeed promoting it. Saying erotic art is ok. If that's ok, what about pornography? Kids might think that's a minor step, so they look at pornsites. Maybe that's not real enough, they'll try this with their friends. STDS, early pregnancy, etc. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degredation in our country. -69.67.230.47 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What stops kids from clicking on links that their parents might find inappropriate for them to be viewing? Hopefully, their own parents are stopping them. It's not our responsibility to decide for parents how their children should be raised. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 06:03Z
I think it is opposition to the general philosophy behind Wikipedia to intentionally hide behind ignorance in the context of controversial material. The FA is fine and should stay. Topher0128 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is one thing for Wikipedia to contain articles on erotic art and another thing to actually parade them on the front page. There are certainly enough qualified articles that we don't need to use pornographic or expletives-laden ones where any visitor is subjected to them. Is there any reason to showcase this particular article?? Madman 05:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a featured article, in the cycle of featured articles shown on the main page. Do you have objections to the factual accuracy or comprehensiveness of the article? These are the only valid objections. See WP:NOT for more details. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 06:05Z

Please understand the difference between a wall painting in ancient pompei and a DVD of Debbie Does Dallas. --Monotonehell 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Does Dallas is porn, if a sex scene was drawn on a wall would it still be porn or art? Would there be a difference then? -69.67.230.47 05:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BOTH are porn. Please understand the differnece between an ANCIENT artifact and a lame porn flick made in the 70's. --Monotonehell 12:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Come on! You're stressing me out! I've been told that I would have gray hair at 20 at this rate. The war in the middle east, the politics in this country, porn being called art, I'm going to die at 20. Please, gain common sense! This is porn. It was 2000 years ago, but its porn. They considered it art, but they promoted sex with whoever. It's porn, it's porn, it's porn, no matter what. -69.67.230.47 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claim it's porn. Ok? Is there a copyright issue with the image? Is the article not comprehensive, or factually inaccurate? Do you have any valid objections? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 06:07Z
I think everyone who objects understands the difference. What we are concerned about is this appearing on the Main Page. There are some articles and images which should never appear on the front page. Madman 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YES! This is one of them! Thank you! -69.67.230.47 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia policy/guideline is your statement based on? Why didn't you complain about this article any time in the last week, when it has been waiting in the queue? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 06:07Z
I am not referring to any policy, but rather to a sense of proportion and decorum based on societal standards. For example, I would not include explicit images of:
  • Certain body parts,
  • Any sexual act, or
  • Detailed violent acts (e.g. a photo of a lynching).
Are there any images or any words that you would not place on the Main Page?? I would be interested in knowing. Madman 06:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that societal standards are different everywhere. As for my personal view, I'll examine each situation as it presents itself. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 07:22Z
In my society we call it art, place it is museums, and arrange school field trips to those same museums. You think it is bad for children to be exposed to this? Well, thank you for your opinion, but I think that most Wikipedians disagree with you. And yes, there are plenty of things that won't appear on the front page, because they lack serious educational/artistic value and wouldn't be in Wikipedia to begin with. Dragons flight 07:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:TFA, there is a list of Featured Articles which won't appear on the Main Page. Also, this article has been set up to be on the Main Page for about a week, providing plenty of time to present opposion before it ever made it here. Timrem 05:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind any FAs appearing on the Main Page, but this does make me curious about what articles are on the list of FAs that won't. I'd have bet dollars to donuts that this would have been one of them. --Maxamegalon2000 06:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is one of them, if it ever gets featured. I'm willing to bet the list is very short (on the order of just a couple), but I don't know why it isn't public. It should be. zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask Raul654 - I'm fairly sure it's not a secret even if it isn't on Wikipedia. I know there's one article which is too technical for the front page - though it meets all the critieria, understanding it requires too much background knowledge for it to be front-page, or something like that. Unfortunately I can't remember which. There certainly aren't any featured articles disallowed because a political grouping objects to them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The unacceptable FAs for the Main Page were Wikipedia-referencing ones. Wikipedia was once an FA (it is no longer), and it was on that list. There was considerable controversy about Bulbasaur going on the Main Page because it was known from the beginning that it would be vandalised constantly, but it went up.
The point that must be understood is that, if we refuse to have History of erotic depictions on the Main Page, then we also have to reopen all of the related debates such as at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, which would be absurd. We do not censor Wikipedia for anyone's sensibilities, period, end of story. —Cuiviénen 13:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you would put the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy on the front page, along with an image of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban? Madman 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not in that case, since the image is copyrighted and copyrighted images are only put on the Main Page alongside featured articles if there is no other option. However, if the images were free and the article was featured, yes. In fact, I think we had them on the Main Page for a few days in ITN when it was big news. —Cuiviénen 17:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War picture/article

NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at guys holding guns, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Homicide, suicide, are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal guns, shoot each other while quail hunting, and then finally start leading armies of moral destruction. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How dare you pose that argument! Clearly, murder and violence are preferable to pleasure and reproduction. ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 06:10Z
"Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." WP:DISRUPT --Haizum 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments made on a talk page are not disruption (and are the reason why talk pages exist), and are neither intrusive nor change the content of articles or state of Wikipedia's content system WP:DISRUPT falsedef 09:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary repetition is disruption - I guess I'm guilty too. It's either that or simple vandalism via spamming. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic picture/article

NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at mountains, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Erosion, diagenesis, earthquakes , are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal rocks and survey equipment, dig holes, and then finally start leading armies of moral destruction. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." WP:DISRUPT --Haizum 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educational picture/article

NOT appropriate for the first page, please change it. Some kid might take a look at guys learning, and might think it's a minor step. Then tell their friends about it. Learning, free thought, empowerment, are all inexplicably linked to awful front page Wikipedia articles. Those kids might start to buy or steal books, and visit even more free thought websites. Take this article from the featured list, the front page. You'll slow the moral degradation in our country. falsedef 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." WP:DISRUPT --Haizum 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of common sense

OK, people here on Wikipedia have evidently completely lost the plot, and put ideology before rationality and common sense. What alternate Universe are you people living in to think that it will be acceptable in this world to have such an article as the main page FA? You may be diametrically opposed to excluding such articles from selection there, but who are you to not take account of your audience? It is not a matter of being asked to exclude content from the encyclopaedia. zoney ♣ talk 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please translate the above comment into English? Andrew Levine 09:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Ew, naked people!" --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zoney's point, and IMO a very valid one, is that even though these topics should be covered in an encyclopedia, there is really no need to have it on our welcome mat. We are used by schools and small children, and this just puts people off. --Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 11:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is also that it is arrogant and disconnected from the real world to just ignore the large numbers of readers who are what many here would call "prudes". It's not just a matter of "think of the children", or "this is porn", or such. It's a matter of social responsibility, *particularly* where the bias of the project is against those who would object to such content (i.e. I'm reasonably sure that most people contributing to Wikipedia, myself included, are "liberals"). It is childish and irresponsible to put such content on the front page when the likely objections are known in advance. This is not self-censorship (you are not deleting the article), it is merely exerting tolerance and respect for the views of a substantial section of society.
zoney ♣ talk 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Zoney. Most folks here seem to be so proud that they are so "mature" that they can place such an article and image on the Main Page (not to mention make snide and sarcastic comments at those who would urge some restraint). I would instead suggest that it is more mature to have the ability to place such articles and images on the Main Page, but to take into account the sensibilities of the entire user population of Wikipedia and decide not to. Madman 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an analogy, would you ask a museum to move all nude figures into a storeroom whenever a class of children were due for a tour? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of Muppets

What muppets! FA on erotic art, how very bold of you! How risque! Thumb your nose up at the prudes!

I don't mean in any way to argue that "erotic art" cough*porn*cough shouldn't be in wikipedia - it certainly should. However the front page it not like other pages. Many schools have it set up as the home page on all their computers. Kids are major users of wikipedia, and many parents (right or wrong) wish to shield the kids from "erotic art".

You see, all other pages you only get to because you choose to. The main page is a default page that takes 5% of all wikipedia traffic.

This act has simply caused a small amount of needless damage to the popularity of wikipedia. Never mind. User:Juicifer

Do you want to cite your sources for that last item? If people are put off by a well-written, comprehensive article on a legitimate academic topic, I'm not sure they'd be the type to benefit from Wikipedia in the first place. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What arrogance. zoney ♣ talk 10:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a remarkably fine and scholarly article on the history of erotic depictions. If the Venus of Willendorf, black figure pottery, wall paintings from Pompeii, Japanese shunga and 17th and 18th century prints cause you offence, look away and avoid museums and art galleries.
The thumbnail on the Main Page is stunningly effective at making it clear what is going on while showing nothing. An ancient example of the Hays Code - it would not be too difficult for one to even have her feet on the floor. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. There are children's encyclopaedias available which deliberately limit their subject areas which parents and teachers can use instead. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have had main page featured articles illustrated with Nazi film posters and KKK activities, both of which I find far more disturbing than a 2000-year-old painting of two people doing what comes naturally. If we're going to make sure the main page is always totally inoffensive to everyone, we need to start getting fluffy bunny rabbits up to featured quality. -- AJR | Talk 14:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. To be honest, IMHO Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 16, 2006, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2006, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 22, 2006 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2006 are more disturbing concepts and pictures for kids, or should be. Also, while Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 5, 2006 is a medical concept and so shouldn't be disturbing to anyone really, the picture is likely to cause a greater amount of distress then the painting. Nil Einne 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of Mr McGregor and all cultivators of vegetable gardens everywhere, I find your suggestion of featuring an article on those promiscuous carrot-eating pests you call "fluffy bunny rabbits" extremely offensive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The End of Western Civilization

Wikipedia, through their promotion of filth and depraved pornographic smut, should be ashamed of itself. Kids have no idea what sex is, and if they happen to come to Wikipedia (because coming to wikipedia to learn things is the hip, cool thing every teen is doing to shock their parents these days) then upon seeing sexual depictions their eyes will fall out and they will be scarred for life. Kids should stay on wholesome things, like movies that involve an action hero killing Arabs, or eating at Taco Bell.

Now I'm not saying we should censor Wikipedia. Gracious no. I merely mean we should impose a strict set of moral standards so unsuitable subjects like faggots or Calvinism so they don't get discussed. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.33.78 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is sex 'dirty'? I never understood why people thought that. Apart from me and 20,000 others (IVF!!!) how d'ya think you were made? *waves arms* Lady BlahDeBlah 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that we should impose your strict moral standards. Sex is a totally natural and beautiful thing. Kids are going to learn about it sometime. You can't protect them anymore.
P.S. I hope you understand my message way back in the forties! codu (t/c) 12:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That post is absurd, abstaining from making a personal attack, I'll say those comments were made by a Troll. Kyle sb 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point where satirists are reviled as 'trolls' really will be the end of Western Civilisation, or at least democracy.
Anyway, even worse than kids' eyes falling out, they might get keratoconus. For those who weren't here in June, the choice of that article for the main page with this as the picture was the occasion for much "Children/teachers/frail womenfolk should not have to look at that" rhetoric. I noted at the time that those who believed that we should be considerate to the sensibility of certain readers seemed oddly unconsiderate of what people with the disease might feel like to have others going "oh my God, that's disgusting" at the sight of them in public. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an inkling that 144.139's post is satirical. "...Kids should stay on wholesome things, like movies that involve an action hero killing Arabs, or eating at Taco Bell." --Monotonehell 12:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also got that impression Rafy 13:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd rather my kids knew about porn than furry conventions, but whatever. Quarma 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for that inviting pink cloud within which stars are conceived and born... -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually running around Midwest FurFest's disco with another fan's 2-year-old daughter the week before thanksgiving. She was having a whale of a time. That picture of the furry games? One of the things you don't see is a 9-year-old boy who was participating, and actually won one of the events. Kids love furry conventions, because they get to dance with wolves! GreenReaper 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously should not be an FA, since it doesn't meet the high quality of FA's we normally use here at Wikipedia. Wasn't there a Gwen Stefani song that could have been featured instead? Or a random performance by a third-rate comedian? ("Carrot Top's 2006 Performance at the Laff Riot Bar in El Guano, California" or something?) Or maybe a Pokemon? 69.175.141.106 14:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a related comment at Wikipedia talk:Pornography#Erotica on main page. — Alan✉ 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would rather have "young adults" lead in pages like this than "many" of the entries Uncyclopedia (and see my comments on this talk page a while back about "medical images" and the front page).

Perhaps there should be a "WikiYoungPersons front page" to deal with such matters - or "click here for non-vanilla version front page" (covering the more exotic articles).

There will always be some front pages which cause controversy.

(Anyone care to establish the "save the cyber trees - do not argue too much about such articles" group?) Jackiespeel 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just remind to users,that wikipedia is not just in sweden or denmark,but also in pakistan and saudi arabia.So ignore the prudes,porn is good and children have a sexe too.We will not get hostage by medieval mentalities.--Pixel ;-) 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite obvious the remark was satirical. It appears to come from an Australia, so you do have to wonder :-P But given that Australian's don't have Taco Bell, it's fair to say it's satirical. Besides that, please don't like to articles like furry conventions, you just invite vandalism which has already occured... Nil Einne 17:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalism and cutesieness

Today's DYK has "...was destroyed no fewer than four times between ..." . Is there any reason why this verbose phrasing is used instead of simply saying "...was destroyed four times between ..."? Or is Wikipedia trying to take a position on the significance of this event? MrVoluntarist 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's possible that they meant "no fewer, but perhaps more", though "at least" would have been more appropriate in that case. GreenReaper 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Please consider using WP:ERRORS for fixes like this in future. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did consider posting it in WP:ERRORS, but figured it wasn't appropriate for there since it's not so much an error, as a stylistic issue. MrVoluntarist 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how 2 send a message

how do you send messages on your account?

Abbey bias!111one

This can't be a coincidence!! We've got two abbey artilces in DYK, Corcomroe Abbey and Marmoutier Abbey. Also, we

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=91201936"