Jump to content

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 Jellypuzzle (talk | contribs) at 08:12, 18 October 2006 (→‎What is the Point???). 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

Google purchases YouTube

It says that Google . one please add the much-needed "billion" in there? 141.213.175.100 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conscious just fixed it. That would be a deal, wouldn't it? -- Zanimum 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have paid $1.65 for YouTube. $1.65 billion, not so much. —Cuiviénen 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL out of those two prices I'd say its actual worth would be closer to the $1.65 mark. Itelectual Property accounting has gone wild again. Wasn't that what caused the 1999 dot-com crash? --Monotonehell 06:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the current buzzword again? Internet V2.0 or something. At least now we know how the next crash will be named....--SidiLemine 10:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's called Web 2.0 --Mini-Geek 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google clearly just extrapolated this Google Trends chart.. looks like wikipedia's in trouble! Mlm42 17:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If YouTube takes vandals away from Wikipedia, it's not a bad thing. -- 199.71.174.100 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
here here!!!Jmlk17 19:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't think that people are going to use YouTube for encyclopedic material. I don't think we have to worry just yet. Valley2city 22:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not whether or not this is an error (in which case move to WP:ERRORS), but shouldn't "Google purchases YouTube" just be "Google purchases YouTube", since there is no article specifically about the takeover? Laïka 06:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's been fixed. 1.65 billions? I thought that was millions, and I was already thinking it was weird for a non-material object. --SidiLemine 11:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-materialness doesn't mean something is worthless. Wikimedia is probably worth a good few hundred million by now – Gurch 11:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the contract stipulated no advertising (as we have now), Wikimedia would be worth zilch. That's how most online corporations, like Google, make their money (with a few exceptions, e.g. Amazon.com). —Cuiviénen 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia is a non-profit organisation and I don't think they could be sold. For that matter, it's questionable why anyone would want to buy them. Would someone buy the Red Cross? Nil Einne 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect some folks might have an interest in purchasing that particular organization. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-13 15:14Z
I never implied that only material has value, but.... 1.65 billion? Come on! I bet it's more than the empire state building. An about byuing the Red Cross, or Wiki for that matter, there are certainly many people who could find a use to it... Say, as trivial examples, arms dealers, and lobby/propaganda professionnals... Or, in both cases, global advertisment agencies!! But still, 1.65... Does anyone have an idea of the quantity of video (in Go, To, or whatever) stocked in there?--SidiLemine 15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA League article misses the point

I think the front page summary of the FA Premier League article concerntrates on small details while ignoring far more important ones. A big deal is made over the specifics of who has won it, when and how many times, yet no mention is even made of the fact that it "is the world's most watched sporting league and most lucrative football league, followed by over a billion people". Canderra 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The front page summary is always primarily based on the lead intro section of the article. The "followed by over a billion people" fact was not included on the lead intro section until several hours after the summary was already posted on the front page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Champion

I have seen some pretty significant events pulled off the "In The News" section, why is a chess champion mentioned??

Anything of significance around the world, in any subject whatsoever is put into the In the News section. We're just used to normal news that focuses mostly on politics, the economy, and world events. Also, remember to sign your Talk edits with four tildes (~~~~). —Captain538[talk] 01:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that In the News is not Wikinews. In the News exists to point out when articles have been created or significantly altered due to current events. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, trivial events with articles significantly updated have often been pulled out of ITN (such as sports events, though I understand this isn't the case anymore), while significant events have been added to ITN even though their articles only have one or two new sentences.—Abraham Lure 18:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is not just any chess championship, but is the world championship. And the article was created and updated recently. Once a low bar of notablity and significance has been met, the main requirement is an updated article, not how newsworthy something is. If only one chess-related event ever made it on to ITN, this would be it. Carcharoth 10:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a low bar of notablity and significance"? Huh? --64.229.225.30 13:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian national croquet championship, if it exists, would never make the Main Page in ITN, for example. (Barring some freak event, of course.) —Cuiviénen 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, apparently the South African rugby union championship is more important than the Nobel Prize for Literature, in case you didn't know. Bruxism 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My "a low bar of notablity and significance" comment, which the IP address above is questioning, was meant to refer to the fact that a story being newsworthy across the world is not the primary consideration, though it is one of the considerations. The primary consideration is whether there is a reasonably good article about the topic, and whether the article has been updated with the latest news. It is also meant to point out that there is a bar, as the comments about the Australian national croquet championship illustrates. For what it is worth, I think the chess bit is OK (though I would say that, as I proposed it), because it is the biggest event for that sport. The South African rugby thing is not the biggest thing in rugby. That would properly be the Rugby World Cup. Carcharoth 09:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was agreeing with you about that "low bar." Although, I think the fact that the Blue Bulls have a more extensive article than Orhan Pamuk (let alone Sinclair Lewis) is a pretty worthless criterion for deciding whether it's more of a headline-worthy entry. I have nothing against the importance of sports, but sports aficionados can devote serious attention to their articles. In a way Wikipedia's function as an almanac in that sense is one of its strengths, because it's so hard to find accurate reference material on this elsewhere. But to confuse that with newsworthiness or broader implications is another matter. Why not separate out "In the News" from a new section on "the World of Sports," say? Bruxism 22:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would seem kind of ridiculous to have a separate section devoted entirely to a particular form of diversion, while not having separate sections for any other diversion or subject. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-16 11:35Z
Also, Portal:Current events/Sports exists. - BanyanTree 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bar of notablity and significance should be reasonably high, but admins at ITN should also be flexible when ITN is unchanged for days and full of old news. At least, this is my expectation as a wikireader. --64.229.204.84 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title page gap

Hi I have noticed a gap between the main title Welcome and Wikipedia today and I think it looks better. However I strongly suggest that whilst the content of the main page is 95% always very good, I suggest you seriously tart up the design of the main page. I suggest a bolder title. Look at the logo, Wikipedia is capitalized. Also weak colours are used which do not make the page stand out. As the main page of the biggest website in the world I think it needs work on by a computer graphics designer- what can be done is amazing. I feel that a stronger colour, bolder page will attract people. mean the title of the project is barely larger than the writing. I would like to see Wikipedia in a MUCH larger bolder font. Whilst you should never judge a book by its cover people are responsive to visual stimuli. Please let me know your thoughts Ernst Stavro Blofeld 07:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Is there some way to make the Main Page look better? --64.229.225.30 13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favorites

In the German language WP, there are 3 pages, where the users can name their favorite books, songs or movies (as subpages of user pages):

Is there an equivalent in the English language WP? --Abe Lincoln 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:VP. --64.229.204.84 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 64.229.204.84 is suggesting that you to pose your question at the Village Pump. --hydnjo talk 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I already got it, ;-) Thanks... --Abe Lincoln 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These pages can be found at User:Phaedriel/Soundtrack_of_Wikipedians and the many pages that link from there. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Point???

What I want to know is...what is the point of having the editing symbol as in option??? I mean anyone could just delete the page and decided to type 'blah blah blah' across the entire page!!! Why don't the people who made this website have an email address that people can email information or mistakes to so that the founders of this website can change it??? I mean I could just delete the entire knowledge of Wikipedia and it won't be "The Free Encyclopedia" anymore!!! 151.200.31.58 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]

It's very easy to revert your blanking (or other acts of vandalism) while allowing other people to improve the content. -- 199.71.174.100 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 151.200.31.58 is pulling our leg (which is better I suppose than pulling our finger). --hydnjo talk 21:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming that it wasn't trolling. --199.71.174.100 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to blank 1.5 million articles before one of the thousand plus admins can block you? --172.193.83.216 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's how it works. You spread around a worm or virus or something that nobody notices because it does nothing harmful to their computer -- it just spreads itself. However, the virus is actually a web browser on a timer that would automatically go straight to wikipedia, go to random page, go to edit, then blank it, and that's it, and have it so that each copy does it at exactly the same time, and have the date set for a year or so in the future, so that a zillion people all have it. That's how!.... oh... wait... every single bit would still be reverted after... an hour or so. Also it'd probably ddos the server, forgot about that...--Anaraug 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the main defence is that all history is preserved. So if somebody deletes Wikipedia it can be restored. Jeltz talk 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if you delete Wikipedia, all the history will be deleted with Wikipedia, and there won't be a Wikipedia to restore, unless Wikipedia restores itself which is impossible because if the history is deleted, Wikipdia can't restore itself, because there wasn't a Wikipedia to restore in the first place! LL Tennis Dynamite 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it's mirrored on so many other pages to make deleting only Wikipedia itself not enough to get rid of all the contributions. You'd have to target Answers.com and all the others as well. Still, The "Biggest Blog In History" thing yesterday did make me wonder how much of the current stuff on the internet will survive the next 50 years or so. Anything can happen really I suppose, the whole of MySpace may be deleted(!), everyone's webmail cleared, Wikipedia could go. It's not like anyone's going to break the internet in one swoop but individual sites could quite easily go. Let's just hope there are enough back ups and whatnot to stop this from happening. Jellypuzzle | Talk 08:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

build the one Wiki Syntax

build the one Wiki Syntax Page

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=82169893"