Wiki.RIP

Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main Page error reports

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

The blurb states "Her beneficent side represented music, dance, joy, love, sexuality and maternal care. These two aspects of the goddess exemplified the Egyptian conception of femininity." - which two aspects are these, of the six that are listed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Her vengeful aspect and her beneficent aspect, I gather. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with In the news

Errors in On this day

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in Did you know ...

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(April 3, today)

Monday's FL

(April 6)


General discussion

Did you know… section

I noticed that most of the facts in today's Did you know… section seem to rely on intentionally misleading names in order to be surprising, which I think is a bad idea. This is a significant deviation from Did you know… sections of past days. Was this an agreed-upon change?

And I realized that it's already April Fools Day in most of the world just before I was about to submit this. Never mind about what's above. Congratulations on fooling me. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Was a little disappointed that the whole main page wasn't all tongue in cheek like preceding years. :( -dashiellx (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's misleading, despite the holiday, and damages trust in what people see here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
April Fools Day is over, please correct. --Bernardoni (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2020

Main PageMain page – In general, Wikipedia pages (even the ones in the Wikipedia: namespace) should be in the sentence case. I'm not sure if the Main page should be exempt from this rule, but I think it should follow it. Even the left pane has it sentence case. Interstellarity (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose, as this would lower-case the words 'main page' when used in the middle of a sentence, as in the opening banner above. So even your nom is incorrect as you've capitalized 'Main'. This title is used "mainly" on pages such as this, and not in article text, so leaving it as is does not violate site guidelines. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Randy Kryn: You probably know this already, but Wikipedia automatically capitalizes the first letter of every page and this page is no exception so it would be technically impossible to title it main page. It would either have to be Main Page or Main page. Interstellarity (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I meant in mid-sentence, where sentence case takes over in titled links. So in your nom the sentence would read "...if the main page should" and not as you've instinctively cased it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I assumed this was an April Fool :) but oppose, per Randy Kryn; Main Page, in its internal-WP usage is effectively a proper noun (i.e., it is used as a proper noun, not that it actually is). ——SN54129 13:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Portal:Main (maybe Portal:Welcome) - as the original "portal" and inspiration for that namespace. -- Netoholic @ 13:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (assuming it's not an April Fool Smiley.png). The main page isn't a typical article, and doesn't have to conform to the same rules and naming conventions as anything else. Changing the name would cause technical work and headaches, for no real benefit.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: Most moves require some work, and some require a lot of work, so argument from inertia is rarely a valid response. What we gain is WP:CONSISTENT application of namespace scope and article titling guidelines. This benefits repackagers of Wikipedia content who don't need to manually strip out this page. If we follow my recommendation of moving it to Portal: space, could revitalize usage of that namespace by showing a strong, working example. I hope other benefits can be identified in this process, and that we recognize that the sooner we shrug the remnants of old Wikipedia software limitations, the easier it will be overall. -- Netoholic @ 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    No, the point stands. Changing the most viewed page on the entire project is a waste of time and effort, and crucially it has no benefit, only downsides. This is not an article, and in particular it is not a discussion of main pages in general, it is a specific landing page. Others may have different views, but mine is firmly that this should be rejected.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: This nomination is a serious nom and has nothing to do with April Fool's. Interstellarity (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I too assumed this was an April Fools joke, but as it's not... This is the Main Page, not an article about a specific main page or home pages in general. It's a proper noun. If anything, we should adjust the sidebar to match, not move the page. The idea of moving the page to Portal: namespace has been discussed and rejected on numerous occasions, see this FAQ. Modest Genius talk 14:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a very good April Fools joke. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this was a joke, and I think it was made in good faith, but (a) I won't go digging thru the archives but I have a vague memory of this being a perennial proposal, which died off maybe 10(?) years ago (b) the benefit/cost ratio on this change is very, very, very close to zero. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no particular reason to make the move as there's no particular reason general rules should apply to unique cases like the main page, beyond that the proposal didn't even suggest any advantages the move might have. Moving, even with a redirect, such a long-standing and heavily linked-to page should only be considered if there are strong advantages to the move. ApLundell (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a specific main page, not a main page in general, namely Wikipedia's main page. See Extremely large telescope (a type of telescope) and Extremely Large Telescope (an individual telescope with that name). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BROKE. --Jayron32 17:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:Solution looking for a problem, +1 to those thinking it was an April Fools joke too. –Davey2010Talk 22:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to remove profanity from the "Did you know section"

off the main page. --Jayron32 12:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The April Fools jokes were pretty clever in this section, but it is a little bit unsettling seeing "fuck off" in the main page of the site. Seeing how the main page is usually a safe for work site, is it possible to remove this fact or at least be able to censor the vulgarity itself? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomGuy666 (talkcontribs) 15:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. Thank you. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for referring me to this section, it was a great resource for examining Wikipedia's policy on censorship and I will retract my statement about censoring the vulgarity itself. However, after reading the policy itself as well as WP:PROFANE I believe that having this statement on the main page violates the principle of least astonishment. If readers were to examine the 17 Million Fuck Offs page itself, the censorship policy would not apply as it is assumed they would have a general expectation to see profanity in the article itself. However, Wikipedia's main page itself rarely (albeit almost never) contains profanity so it cannot be anticipated for a user to have this expectation when viewing the main page. It is not necessary to include "fuck off," in the "did you know" because there are other facts that can be used to achieve comedic value. I apologize for the earlier formatting issues and I look forward to hearing back. --RandomGuy666 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The thing is that that is the title of the song. There is no other way not to have it as PROFANE even says: "a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all" and you cannot avoid it if it is the name of the song. I'm guessing you missed the day when "Fuck" was once The Featured Article? Indeed we have run several articles with rude names on DYK before like Fucking Hell, Shit Brook, Wan King Path, Shitterton and John le Fucker to name but a few. This is no different The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Removing a common word like "fuck", even when it appears in the title of a work, would set a very low bar for "profanity". ApLundell (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Chiming on to add that I also recall seeing an image with nudity on the main page a while back. While WP:NOTCENSORED has a lot of good rationale behind it, IAR it doesn't seem like a great idea to do that — the idea that children should be shielded from nudity, as profanity, is widespread across the English-speaking world, and that sort of action has the potential to scare off readers, especially when there are non-offensive alternatives. That said, I'm sure it was discussed somewhere and that smarter minds prevailed. Sdkb (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe that WP:CENSORMAIN makes points that fall in line similar to this. While it is just an essay and not written policy, it details points similar to this that there are better alternatives you can use without having to offend people. --RandomGuy666 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Idea for a addition to the main page

I think they should add a quotes section that would focus on notable quotes by famous, or not so famous people - one each day. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Scaledish, quotes are found at Wikiquotes and they have a "Quote of the day" section, having quotes on the main page isn't really in the scope of this project. BrandonXLF (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools#Revoke the Main Page's exemption from the disclosure requirement

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools#Revoke the Main Page's exemption from the disclosure requirement. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

What is Wiki.RIP There is a free information resource on the Internet. It is open to any user. Wiki is a library that is public and multilingual.

The basis of this page is on Wikipedia. Text licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License..

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. wiki.rip is an independent company that is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation).

E-mail: wiki@wiki.rip
WIKI OPPORTUNITIES
Privacy Policy      Terms of Use      Disclaimer