Jump to content

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
removed random chit-chat with ChatBot v2.37
Picture on the main about Amsterdam
Line 147: Line 147:
::::Try living in one, it's a pain in the proverbial. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Try living in one, it's a pain in the proverbial. --[[User:Monotonehell|Monotonehell]] 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
tell me how to free download this encyclopedia
tell me how to free download this encyclopedia

== Picture on the main about Amsterdam ==

The capital of The Netherlands is not AMsterdam but De Hague!

Revision as of 08:37, 25 January 2007

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

Requested move

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. As a bipartisan wikipedian (I'm willing to be swayed either way) I offer my summary of how I've seen this discussion so far. Firstly I'll cover any technical reasons for the move, then ideological reasons, then cost verses benefit...

On technical reasons
Actual arguments (points with some merit)...
  • Main Page is included in database dumps of articles, which means that various software features (such as Special:Contributions and 'cite this article') and external websites (such as Wikiseek and the top-100-articles list) consider it to be an article when it isn't.
Granted. I can't argue with that.
  • In the event we ever need Main Page for an article (who knows?) we will either need a disambig in the Main Page or need to rush through a sudden reasonably major and will not be able to redirect Main Page to Portal:Main Page for long unless we continue to disambig
I suppose it is possible that the next big Youtube type project, political newspaper or similar thing that has wide reaching influence may be named "Main page" and would require an article. Right now it's not that case, but this is a slightly compelling argument to be forward looking. Even though a different solution could be found in the current paradigm, eg "Main Page (newspaper)" but this would require a diamb on the top of the main page.
Points with no point (arguments that offer no proof)...
  • Many link to and have bookmarked the main page.
  • No evidence many people link to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Neither argument offers evidence. They just contradict each other (That's not an argument).
  • The number of links and redirects that will need to be fixed 'won't' be too high, and bots can carry out that sort of fixing anyway.
  • The number of links and redirects that will need to be fixed 'will' be too high.
Neither of these arguments are quantified. Neither side has offered any proof.
Supporting arguments (Not actual arguments in themselves but support the above)
  • There is no technical reason why the move cannot be made.
    • Other Wikimedia wikis already have their Main Page outside the article namespace: [1] [2].
The second point seems to support the first, but perhaps the en.wikipedia experience will be different? I need more evidence.
This contradicts the previous argument that the article is needed for another topic. But okay if it's temporary.
  • Most of the large number of incoming links to the Main Page are templates, and so can be easily changed to the new location (and redirects would take care of them, anyway).
  • Moving the main page won't create any lasting extra load on the servers.
Not quantified, I need evidence on how the proposed redirects would affect server load.


On ideological reasons:
Actual arguments...
  • De facto, it's a portal. The Main Page is a contents page, and therefore not in the body of the encyclopedia. WP:PORTAL uses the Main Page as an example of a portal.
Granted.
  • Having a portal in article space contradicts policy.
    • It is a historical artifact and one of a kind.
      • WP:CCC says that tradition is not necessarily binding.
  • Having the Main Page outside the article namespace would help people find out about the logic of how Wikipedia works earlier.
  • "Portal:Main Page" and similar would seem overly complicated to the visitors.
No supporting evidence of how this would affect visitors. Since the main page's title is hidden by server voodoo both points seem to be moot anyway.
  • Most other Wikimedia wikis have their main pages at Main Page.
Not sure if what everyone else is doing matters that much. What matters is the cost verses benefit of such a move.
  • Why fix something that isn't broken?
    • Even if something isn't broken, fixing it can be a good idea.
(That's not an argument)


No one has really focused on the actual costs verses the actual benefits as yet. Some have been offered, but they haven't been quantified.

People have offered the following on cost verses benefit reasons;
  • What difference will it make to the common Wikipedian?
  • It will be a lot of work for no real benefit for the readers. (How much work? How much benefit?)
  • Time could be better spent on doing something else.
Well yes those are questions that need to be answered.
  • The only problems that this might cause would be short-term, whereas the benefits would be long-term.


So that's where we are at the moment. None of the arguments from either side are particularly compelling in themselves. There is not a weight of argument for one case or the other in total. The only thing left is to quantify the costs of the move verses the benefits and apply some kind of utilitarian judgement after all the evidence is collected.

So what are the benefits? What are the costs? Please don't just throw an unquantified opinion in here, we need hard numbers and facts if we are to weigh them against each other... --Monotonehell 06:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot that giant uncyclopedia:Nobody cares I put up a few days ago. That must count for something – Qxz 08:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits

Costs

  • ?

Captions for photos

Can I suggest photos and images on the main page be given a clear caption. particularly in relation to the people in the news section. Today I read the top story about the EU president and saw the photo next to it and thought okay that's him, but when I click the link for more info I see an entirely different photo. The guy on the front page is actually Saddam Hussein's brother. Conceivably both could argue you've tarnished their image and sue ;-) but the lack of clarity is the bigger problem, especially for the first page readers come to. Just a name under the photo would help, a reference burried in a second or third paragraph is not enough. Alternatively you could ensure the photo is always positioned next to the relevant caption but this may be more difficult to ensure.

a good news service though, thanks Pugsworth 01:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the "(pictured)" isn't good enough, you can also mouse over the image to get the person's name. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-19 02:40Z
This has been brought up many times but no one can agree on any of the fixes suggested for it. --Monotonehell 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: "a good news service though, thanks" ahem. --Monotonehell 04:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news service. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point, for all those cool kids who are in on the joke. Rename ITN! ;) --Monotonehell 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small categories

Would it be a good idea to make a new counter "Categories with only one article" in the special pages? --195.197.175.20 (Alphaios) 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well since categories with only one article are not categories at all then those categories should be deleted. So no. That's totaly not what I read yesterday lol --Monotonehell 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the idea. If you can find them, you can delete them. However, I'm asking what people think about it here, because in finnish Wikipedia many seems to think, that those are acceptable categories. --195.197.175.20 (Alphaios) 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not bug the devs for more special pages until we can fix the really necessary broken ones (like Special:DoubleRedirects). —Mets501 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have a to-do list? --Nelson Ricardo 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Here's example: There is only one article about greenlandic people, and he is the prime minister. Now categories are: greenlandic people -> greenlandic politicians -> Prime ministers of Greenland. So, three categories and only one article: Hans Enoksen. Many think it's ok to keep this person alone on the category, because there is a chance that somebody makes another article there during next five years. --Alphaios 00:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the News:

It says: "Parliamentary elections are taking place in Serbia, the first elections since Serbian independence in 2006."

Serbian independence?--Steven X 11:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independence from their union with Montenegro. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--Steven X 13:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best for our readers if we link to an article about Serbian Independence. I was taught this year in my Geography class that the country is Serbia and Montenegro, and I wasn't aware of independence until I saw your comments today. Can we change the Main Page to reflect that?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just goes to show that you can't trust anything you learn in school. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

featured

"India Standard Time"???? Is that the best featured article we can use for the main page? There must be some better choice for the main page featured article. I can't say the same for the pics, though---they are good. Seldon1 18:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem, almost every FA eventually appears on the Main Page — people have worked hard to bring this to FA standard, and I personally found it interesting, we don't often see such FAs after all. Todor→Bozhinov 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the Battle of Cannae tomorrow. Is that better? – Qxz 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And history of saffron is on the horizon. -- Zanimum 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We try to get a diverse selection of articles on the main page. Not everybody agrees with what's good for the main page, pop culture? science? humanities? -- Zanimum 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose thats true. I always assumed the purpose was to have a featured article that is also important or interesting--but opinions on whay is interesting do vary. I withdraw my complaint. Seldon1 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I commented before that the function of the entries on the main page is to make people aware of topics they might not otherwise have thought of looking at. There will always be some topics that readers will think "why did they bother" - and the odd one which causes a few squawks of protest (g). Jackiespeel 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I would argue the time 1 billion people follow must have at least some interest and importance. And I suspect other people like me still find half hour time zones a bit strange 203.109.240.93 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try living in one, it's a pain in the proverbial. --Monotonehell 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tell me how to free download this encyclopedia

Picture on the main about Amsterdam

The capital of The Netherlands is not AMsterdam but De Hague!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=103104706"