Talk:Main Page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 This page is for discussing improvements to the Main Page only. This is not a place to ask general questions or submit content. If your question is not directly related to the Main Page, consider the following locations:
If in doubt, please see the Questions Help page before posting a question unrelated to the Main Page.
|
| ↓ | Skip to table of contents | ↓ |
[edit] Main Page error reports
To report an error you have noticed on the current Main Page or tomorrow's Main Page please add it to the appropriate section below. Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered, so please be specific. You can do this by pressing the [edit] button to the right of the appropriate section's heading. Also, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~)
Note that the current date and time are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which may not coincide with your local time zone. The next day's featured article of the day, picture of the day, and anniversaries update at midnight (00:00) according to UTC. The current time is 18:38 on October 1, 2008 (UTC). (Update)
Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made. Lengthy discussions should not take place here, and should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error, and a suggested rewording is helpful with a stylistic complaint. The main page usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
[edit] Errors in the summary of Today's featured article on the Main Page
[edit] Errors in In the news
[edit] Next update
 |
A new item should be added to Template:In the news by Thursday, 2 October 2008 07:09 Wikipedia time (UTC).
Today is Wednesday, October 1, 2008; it is now 18:38 (UTC) Time since last update: 11 hours. (verify) To update this updateclock to the current time use: {{ITN-Update|2008|10|01|18|38|15}} |
| Reset Clock | Purge | |
[edit] Errors in Selected anniversaries/On this day
[edit] Errors in Picture of the Day/Today's featured picture
Reporters: please first correct the regular version.
[edit] Errors in Did you know?
|
Earliest time for next update is Wednesday, 1 October 2008 15:32 Wikipedia time (UTC).
Today is Wednesday, October 1, 2008; it is now 18:38 (UTC) Time since last update: 9 hours. (verify) |
| Reset Clock | Purge | |
[edit] General discussion
Contents |
[edit] Good feature articles
I was critical here last month about commercial feature articles, so I thought I should just take a moment to say that somehow, someone has brought about a tremendous improvement. Where last month I'd estimated 11 "commercial" articles, there are maybe 4, less flagrant, this month. Meanwhile, articles like Zhang Heng and at least half a dozen others are most desirable - Wikipedia Main Page articles that are not only well written and comprehensive, but teach things that ought to be schoolroom basics but probably aren't. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there has actually been a big change. I suspect it's more of a case of observer bias here combined with the fact that over a short space of time (1 month) there is always going to be a variance in the number of 'commercial' (or any other type) of features articles we have unless you go to extremes to avoid it, which we don't (why does a period of 1 month matter such much anyway?). For starters, I don't know where you get the figure of 11 for last month from. Even with a fairly loose definition of commercial Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2008 I only count 6. [Bioshock, Holden, PowerBook 100 (given that this is something that is approach 20 years old, as I said, a rather loose definition), Flea, Diary of a Camper and The Penelopiad]. Even if I go to an insanely loose definition of commercial and include Anna May Wong (one of the first Chinese American movie stars and someone who died in 1961), Yao Ming (one of the most popular athletes in China), Madman Muntz (a person who was one of the pioneers in the early days of electronics and died in 1987) I only get 9. You'd have to go to extreme lengths, e.g. calling Dartmouth College and say Ryan White 'commercial' to get 11. So yes, seems to be a clear case of observer bias. And while we did have less this month (Jackie Chan, David Lovering and Biman Bangladesh Airlines and perhaps throwing in Chinua Achebe + Calgary Flames are the only ones you could likely call commercial this month) it's not unexpected as I said. Zhang Heng is a bit of an oddity, sadly our coverage of non-European, non-anglophone anything is piss poor and while I'm sure many of us would like to see more of it, it's not going to happen unless people start working on such articles (hint hint). Of course each month we do have some FAs which many will feel cover rather important stuff. E.g. in the derided month of August you mentioned, we had History of timekeeping devices, Parapsychology, Campaign history of the Roman military, Noble gases, Poliomyelitis, Rongorongo and Planet. And Kaziranga National Park, Donald Bradman, Borobudur, Pygmy Hippopotamus, William Wilberforce and Roy Welensky may have been fairly specific, they do seem relatively important to me and definitely something educational for many readers. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- You know, I really can't wait for October, when we actually *might have* a "commercial" Featured Article on the Main Page. I can hear the whining on this page already :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have been more precise. I posted early last month,[1] using July's statistics. I hadn't meant to reopen that issue again, only to congratulate people for providing great feature articles this month. I agree with your figure for August, setting a trend of improvement. Wnt (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think you've just proven my point. Yes we did have an unusually high number of FAs (can't be bothered looking at the precise number) which could be described as commercial in July. But why pick on July? Such peaks would definitely occur in a truly random system and while the TFA is not chosen at random, it's silly to expect Raul to try slavish each month to ensure there aren't 'too many' commercial FAs, it's far better if he takes a more well rounded view. If you look at June, there was Ran (film), Sertraline, Wilco, Jurassic Park, The World Without Us and Age of Empires. Perhaps you could thrown in Bradley Joseph although I'm somewhat doubtful anyway would be greatly influence to buy music connection with him by his FA (actually I'm doubtful for the other examples as well but not quite as much). Meanwhile we had Formation and evolution of the Solar System, Durian and a bunch of other surely important FAs. In other words we had a decent balance as we do in most months and as we do overall. There was no 'trend' to TFA becoming 'commercial' in July nor is there any 'trend' to use completely ignoring commercial stuff from now on. You're simply seeing what you want to see, which isn't uncommon mind you. It's just the way things work. BTW, even in the deried month of July, we had Puerto Ricans in World War II, Genetics, To Kill a Mockingbird (perhaps you included this in 'commercial' FAs but I would say it's an extremely important literate work, particularly in the US), atom and a bunch of other stuff, surely of importance and interest to our readers that couldn't be called 'commercial'. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- P.P.S. I only counted 9 FAs that could be described as commercial in July even with a fairly lose definition. You'd have to throw stuff like T206 Honus Wagner (a rare card who's value is not likely to change at all by appearance on the main page) and FairTax or perhaps TKAM into the mix to get 11. P.P.P.S. You may want to know that by and large, the vast majority of people writing FAs don't check out the main page talk page nor do many of the people involved in selecting TFA (although Raul does seem to) Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think you've just proven my point. Yes we did have an unusually high number of FAs (can't be bothered looking at the precise number) which could be described as commercial in July. But why pick on July? Such peaks would definitely occur in a truly random system and while the TFA is not chosen at random, it's silly to expect Raul to try slavish each month to ensure there aren't 'too many' commercial FAs, it's far better if he takes a more well rounded view. If you look at June, there was Ran (film), Sertraline, Wilco, Jurassic Park, The World Without Us and Age of Empires. Perhaps you could thrown in Bradley Joseph although I'm somewhat doubtful anyway would be greatly influence to buy music connection with him by his FA (actually I'm doubtful for the other examples as well but not quite as much). Meanwhile we had Formation and evolution of the Solar System, Durian and a bunch of other surely important FAs. In other words we had a decent balance as we do in most months and as we do overall. There was no 'trend' to TFA becoming 'commercial' in July nor is there any 'trend' to use completely ignoring commercial stuff from now on. You're simply seeing what you want to see, which isn't uncommon mind you. It's just the way things work. BTW, even in the deried month of July, we had Puerto Ricans in World War II, Genetics, To Kill a Mockingbird (perhaps you included this in 'commercial' FAs but I would say it's an extremely important literate work, particularly in the US), atom and a bunch of other stuff, surely of importance and interest to our readers that couldn't be called 'commercial'. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Today in History (forgotten anniversary)
Hello everyone,
How come the 250th anniversary of Lord Nelson's birth isn't mentioned at all on the English-speeking wikipedia? Amhantar (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Look at DYK. --74.13.126.219 (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It wasn't forgotten. Here it is. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Missing commas
Hello there.
I often see this (example from 29 Sept):
- A bomb blast in Delhi, India kills 3 and injures 23.
- A car bombing in Damascus, Syria kills 17 and injures 14.
Do you see the missing commas -- after "India" and "Syria", respectively.
Regards,
LarRan (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- If they are missing, no one can see them. Pls report this at WP:ERRORS above. --74.13.126.219 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not sure if the commas are grammatically required or not, but any decent style manual usually requires them, as for that matter the Wikipedia's own. 86.68.248.76 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Erm, no. Writing "A car bombing in Damascus, Syria, kills 17 and injures 14" would be the same as "A car bombing in Damascus, kills 17 and injures 14." It is clearer if you imagine parentheses used instead of a comma—you wouldn't write "A car bombing in Damascus (Syria), kills 17 and injures 14", would you? :) See for instance [2]. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your example with parenthesis is good, but you made the mistake of putting both a comma and a parenthesis after "Syria". Try: "A car bombing in Damascus (Syria) kills 17 and injures 14" -- the parentheses replace the commas; so the sentence reads the same with or without the parenthetical "(Syria)". The commas in constructions of that kind act like parentheses, and you wouldn't open a parenthesis without subsequently closing it, would you? Comma (punctuation) has something to say on the matter. Aille (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- How about the other item, "Three bombs detonate in Maharashtra and Gujarat, India killing 8 and injuring 80"? Try the stripped-down form: "Three bombs detonate in India killing 8 and injuring 80." Reads wrong to me; surely that one needs a comma before the gerund modifiers, regardless of whether or not you buy into the "city, country," doctrine. Aille (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your example with parenthesis is good, but you made the mistake of putting both a comma and a parenthesis after "Syria". Try: "A car bombing in Damascus (Syria) kills 17 and injures 14" -- the parentheses replace the commas; so the sentence reads the same with or without the parenthetical "(Syria)". The commas in constructions of that kind act like parentheses, and you wouldn't open a parenthesis without subsequently closing it, would you? Comma (punctuation) has something to say on the matter. Aille (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Erm, no. Writing "A car bombing in Damascus, Syria, kills 17 and injures 14" would be the same as "A car bombing in Damascus, kills 17 and injures 14." It is clearer if you imagine parentheses used instead of a comma—you wouldn't write "A car bombing in Damascus (Syria), kills 17 and injures 14", would you? :) See for instance [2]. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the commas are grammatically required or not, but any decent style manual usually requires them, as for that matter the Wikipedia's own. 86.68.248.76 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] writing new article
The main page should clearly indicate where and how to start a new article. This is one of Wiki's main functions, and it has now been obscured by a lot of less relevant things.77.162.130.139 (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but you should know that you first must create an account and log in before creating a new article will be possible. Best of luck, Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would say nowadays were much more interested in editors improving our existing articles then starting new ones. Not that we don't need new articles but we have a lot of articles already that need work. Also, the main page is primarily directed at our readers, not our editors, as they are the majority of our visitors by far. There are a lot of other places where someone wanting to be an edit can go to Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Indeed. The Community portal, for example, is arguably the community-directed version of the Main Page. Waltham, The Duke of 20:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, right at the top of the page it says " . . . anyone can edit.". There's also a link to WP:TUTORIAL just below that. I think these links are more than adequate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Search Bar
I have noticed that the search bar has a new feature: when you type a letter/phrase in the search bar, a drop box appears that narrows down your search. (ex: if I type in "Hurricane I" into the search bar, a little box drops down displaying Hurricane Ignacio and Hurricane Ike.) So, I was wondering, is there a MediaWiki page that contains the coding to this new search feature? Several users on the Super Mario Wiki, (of which I am a Sysop), were wondering if the site could get this new feature. Thanks. Stooben 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.194.93 (talk)
- This should be what you're looking for. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! =) 75.70.194.93 (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Getting Started
Wow, I have another question...
Okay, I've downloaded MediaWiki and all software necessary to get a MediaWiki wiki started. I have two problems: 1) How do I actually create the site on this link? And 2) What is a good free domain to host the site? 75.70.194.93 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with Main Page. Try http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Help Not here, please. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tulip Mania
What absolute genius to have this as today's featured article as the world financial markets sputter and fail after the collapse of the housing bubble. Great stuff, any idea when this was scheduled? Lisiate (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you have to remember that we're an encyclopedia and not a news service. Front-page articles generally tend to have nothing to do with the news (except, obviously, the news section). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is an interesting similarity in the subject of both matters though (tulip prices violently crashing and the such)... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I'm aware that the featured article is selected some time before it shows up on the main page. I'm just curious as to when Raul (if Raul still does this) put tulip mania down for today. Lisiate (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, Raul still does it. I'm not sure when Tulip Mania was chosen, though looking at the featured articles for October it seems he's doing it on very short notice... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Raul was late in scheduling it today, so another user (the first time in Wikipedia's history I believe) scheduled it for him. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, Raul still does it. I'm not sure when Tulip Mania was chosen, though looking at the featured articles for October it seems he's doing it on very short notice... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I'm aware that the featured article is selected some time before it shows up on the main page. I'm just curious as to when Raul (if Raul still does this) put tulip mania down for today. Lisiate (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is an interesting similarity in the subject of both matters though (tulip prices violently crashing and the such)... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Answer: It was picked on the 29th by User:Ryan Postlethwaite (see here). Check out his talk page too. Brilliant work IMO. -Oreo Priest talk 02:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers Oreo, so it's not such a surprising coincidence after all. (Although now you've got me worried about Raul being missing...) Lisiate (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not to worry, he later showed up. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DYK not showing up?
I just updated DYK to the one with the Sgt. York but it hasn't shown up yet. Is this problem local to me or global? Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I can see the Sgt. York hook. It must be your browser's cache. Dr.K. (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's updated now. (Although I had checked it out in IE and didn't see a change there, either. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Biggest drop in stock market history?
Despite the popular press's fascination (or is it something else) with the numerical value of the US stock market drop, the number of points of the drop is meaningless for purposes of comparison with other drops. The only meaningful comparison is the percentage change. A seven percent drop is a big one, and worth plenty of notice, but to call it the biggest in history is a gross misstatement: it is the 18th biggest drop, and not even a third of the biggest percentage drop. To suggest it is the biggest causes an unwarranted sense of panic -- but the erroneous reports calling it the biggest might in themselves, by confusing the casual investor and consumer during a frankly very confusing time, bring about a herd mentality that might give us reason to truly panic.
Please correct the error. --Itsgeneb (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- What error? The blurb says the Dow Jones suffered the largest one-day point drop in its history, which is true. Whether or not people misinterpret the significance of this fact and panic is irrelevant to our concerns. Nufy8 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. The fact that people constantly misinterpret such reports is not irrelevant. It is thus an error to emphasize that it is the biggest drop in history. It borders on purposefully misleading the reader. The fact that it is the biggest drop in points is of no value. The DJIA is a statistical measure for which the absolute number of points is completely meaningless. Why would Wikipedia emphasize a meaningless number in a lead blurb? My suggestion is to say it is a 7 point drop, the 18th largest drop in Dow history, and the biggest since September 2001.--Itsgeneb (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Claiming that the biggest point drop is meaningless seems like a value judgment to me. If we have to decide which news stories and facts from those stories are most important, then we should refer to what reliable news sources are saying instead of personal misgivings. Nufy8 (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's a value judgment in that it is valuable to be meaningful. Itsgeneb is correct; the number of points of any stock market drop is far, far less meaningful than the percentage drop. Tempshill (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Again, qualifying it as meaningless is a point of view. Both the percentage and the point drop are mentioned, and because the latter set a record that is being widely reported on, that record is mentioned; neither is presented as more meaningful. Nufy8 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- You repeatedly dismiss the statement as a mere point of view. You are incorrect; it is not a point of view, it is a fact. It is mathematically factual that a 777 point decline in the Dow to 10,365 (Monday's decline) is not directly comparable to a 508 point decline to 1,738 (October 19, 1987), but the statement that it is the largest point-value decline is a direct comparison, which is invalid. Those are facts. Only someone who does not understand facts, or has an axe to grind, would claim otherwise. --Itsgeneb (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Even if it's not the biggest percentage drop, the fact that it's the biggest point drop is indeed significant and newsworthy because of the nature of the financial markets. Remember that even the false rumor of a bank's failing can cause a run that causes the bank to fail. In the same way, a record point drop affects the market psychologically, and is therefore quite relevant. Lovelac7 01:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, I understand basic facts and don't have any particular axe to grind, so with that condescension aside, I'd like to point out that the "meaning" of the record point drop is not merely restricted to a statistical comparison; Lovelac7 pointed out one possible consequence that could give the drop meaning, and I'm sure there are more. Point is, this is a newsworthy fact with a meaning that is quite subjective, unless you're looking at it from nothing more than a statistically comparitive angle. The issue is much more complex than that, though, so there's no reason to ignore a prominent news topic. Nufy8 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- To summarize: It is significant because people misinterpret it to be significant. That's an interesting piece of reasoning. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Forgive me, I have not been able to explain my point. The number of points of the drop is much less relevant than the percentage decline, and it isn't comparable to other point drops when the market was at different levels, thus saying it is the biggest drop in points is meaningless, despite the fact that the popular press focuses on that aspect. Now, having said that, the blurb has been edited (it is now stated this way: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is rejected by the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Dow Jones stock market index records a one-day point drop of 777.68 points, or seven percent.) I can't figure out how to compare it to what it said before (sorry, can't make sense of the History section, maybe you can point me to how to do that), but it mentioned that it was a record drop in terms of points -- and that was my main objection. Ideally it would say the Dow dropped 7% (though it recovered 4% the next day) or 778 points -- the most illuminating fact is the percentage. As to Lovelac7's comment, she is making my point -- that people incorrectly respond to the point drop and it creates panic where it may not be justified. My objective was to avoid Wikipedia being yet another source of this misleading information. (Coffeeshivers, well put, thank you). Respectfully, --Itsgeneb (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- As ridiculous as it may sound, Coffeeshivers, it is a reality of the market, even if Wikipedia doesn't report on it (and if it does, whether or not it exacerbates the issue seems rather moot), but I digress; this debate is going in circles now, so I won't belabor the point any further. Anyway, it's not that big of a deal for me to revert the admin who changed the blurb and potentially start a wheel war. Also, Itsgeneb, ITN's edit history can be found here. Nufy8 (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- You repeatedly dismiss the statement as a mere point of view. You are incorrect; it is not a point of view, it is a fact. It is mathematically factual that a 777 point decline in the Dow to 10,365 (Monday's decline) is not directly comparable to a 508 point decline to 1,738 (October 19, 1987), but the statement that it is the largest point-value decline is a direct comparison, which is invalid. Those are facts. Only someone who does not understand facts, or has an axe to grind, would claim otherwise. --Itsgeneb (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Again, qualifying it as meaningless is a point of view. Both the percentage and the point drop are mentioned, and because the latter set a record that is being widely reported on, that record is mentioned; neither is presented as more meaningful. Nufy8 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's a value judgment in that it is valuable to be meaningful. Itsgeneb is correct; the number of points of any stock market drop is far, far less meaningful than the percentage drop. Tempshill (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Claiming that the biggest point drop is meaningless seems like a value judgment to me. If we have to decide which news stories and facts from those stories are most important, then we should refer to what reliable news sources are saying instead of personal misgivings. Nufy8 (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. The fact that people constantly misinterpret such reports is not irrelevant. It is thus an error to emphasize that it is the biggest drop in history. It borders on purposefully misleading the reader. The fact that it is the biggest drop in points is of no value. The DJIA is a statistical measure for which the absolute number of points is completely meaningless. Why would Wikipedia emphasize a meaningless number in a lead blurb? My suggestion is to say it is a 7 point drop, the 18th largest drop in Dow history, and the biggest since September 2001.--Itsgeneb (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
