Talk:Main Page/Archive 24

Missing an important item

I am disappointed to see that the Google refusal to continue censoring Chinese results has not been featured on the Wikipedia main page. It, together with the implied Chinese spying incident, is a very important development in the ongoing relationship between the democratic bloc and the communist Chinese. Haiduc (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First, this isn't Wikipedia, this is Wikinews. Second, this story is in the process of being written up at Google's "New Approach to China" and Google may shut down Chinese operations due to censorship and cyber attacks, and hopefully will be published soon. You're very welcome to help! the wub "?!" 13:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

{{main popular}} is back

{{main popular}} is back. (Good work Wub). To make room, I removed {{main around}}, as its really least useful (links are elsewhere). Originally it was a nothing else fits here type of thing anyways (I believe, could be wrong). The other alternative is kill {{main historical}} (Which was originally introduced to replace {{main popular}} when it died). I kind of like {{main historical}} though. A third alternative is to make {{main historical}} and {{main popular}} swap in and out with each other randomly. Thoughts? Bawolff ☺☻ 23:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave {{main around}} out completely, it really didn't serve any useful function (all the links are present in the sidebar, so it's kinda redundant). I like the "This day in..." template, i'd rather we kept that. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I like {{main historical}} too, and think we can live without {{main around}}. the wub "?!" 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Review

Somebody should look at Republican leads race to fill Ted Kennedy's vacated Senate seat‎. It's been awaiting review for a long time. --William Saturn (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not mainly due to the fact I'd have to wade through all those sources despite not really knowing the finer points of US politics. Hopefuly someone will get it soon - you might want to ask on #wikinews. One thing I noticed on it, though: the word 'fillibusters' should either be changed or explained, folk outside the States may well not know what you mean by that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if this was an improper venue, but I did not know where to ask. Generally I've noticed that reviews on wikinews are quicker, although it has been awhile since I've been on here.--William Saturn (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not really improper; although I guess the misc. section of WN:WC would be better. If you whine at people in IRC someone tends to do it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Graphic design

If I have a question or suggestion about the graphic design of this page, would I discuss it here?71.224.206.164 (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, presuming this is directly related to the Main Page. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 05:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, about the background graphic on the mainpage header, the one with the links to:

• SECURE ACCESS • Friday, February 12, 2010, 14:35 (UTC) Copy us • Newsroom • Our Mission • Report Breaking News Social Networking • Chat • Best of Wikinews • Donate

...I think it obscures the link text. Standard usability practices caution against any background graphic behind text, especially one that is not solid and especially especially one in a similar color to the text itself. So, while this graphic blends in with the current frontpage design quite nicely, so does the text! I think more people would see these links, and click on them, if they were less camoflaged. Thoughts? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• As I look at it, only the already-visited links are remotely near obscured. But, yes, once a link has been clicked on you've light blue on an even lighter blue - it's aesthetically pleasing, but not 100% kosher in terms of usability. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

typo - ilustration images align to right

it's much better to aling images to the right. The legibility is improved if the main content starts without interuption at left (where we start reading) ... and the decoration/ilustration is often cute. But if it breaks the reading flow, it is disturbing.

Also you prevent so a lot of problems with widows and orphans ...

Order of templates

Shouldn't we have the original reporting, recent interviews and popular articles templates on the top three of the six templates and the other three at the bottom? I would've thought that it would be better to draw attention to the first-hand journalism, exclusive interviews and popular articles that many people are reading at the moment. Any comments? Suggestions? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a point; however, I feel the "Write an article!" box should also be placed prominently to encourage people to write articles. Perhaps move interviews and original reporting up a row, but leave the "Write an article" on the top row as well, keeping "This day in ..." below since it's not so important. Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 01:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sometimes there's no OR, particularly of the interview variety, for several weeks. Placing this more prominently would, I think, be a bad idea because it makes it look like the site just isn't particularly up to date or relevant. Right now the top of the list in OR is from February 2, the interview from yesterday - but the second interview listed from February 4. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Error

Regarding the lead blurb for the article Plane crashes into office block in Austin, Texas, the final sentence contains an error that reads: "He is though to have crashed the plane intentionally." Just bringing it the the attention of whoever is in charge of that. Thanks. PSD27 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I was able to rectify this error myself (I just need someone to sight it is all). The only reason I posted the above comment was that I thought one had to be an editor or an admin in order to edit the front page. Turns out I was incorrect. Sorry for any inconvenience. PSD27 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. FlaggedRevs has allowed us to largely unprotect the templates. Blood Red Sandman ^{卐 ☭} 00:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to be an admin to edit the front page itself. The lead templates are semi-protected with flagged rev. So if you don't have editor permission, you can still edit them - but changes don't show till approved. Our front page is spammer safe. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I edited the the lead template, and Cocoaguy just sighted it. So all is well. PSD27 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New layout

I find the new layout hard to navigate. Too much going on. What's happened to the recent deaths link?

I don't even remember a recent deaths link. :p Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP may mean the link to Portal:Obituaries, which has been moved—along with the other portal links—below the lead articles. Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 12:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Main page portals

I don't like the fact that the Education, Environment and Health portals are missing from this template. Why aren't three topics considered as important as the rest? Can you please do something about this? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 13:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd never noticed that. They are top-level categories, and so should be on the main page. I have been bold and added them to the template. Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 14:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WN:PRINT

Perhaps under the dateline at the top, Print edition could be added. I do plan on reviving that dead project. I have made the last three days. --Mikemoral♪♫ 03:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

can't edit it but...

Design issue yes.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.117.3 (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"tsunami" misspelled on the frontmost article 213.123.192.77 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Thank you for the heads up. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 17:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheese rolling cancelled

Not sure if this is the right place to put this - but the 2010 Gloucestershire cheese rolling event has been cancelled. [1] Oh noes! (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper%27s_Hill_Cheese-Rolling_and_Wake) 86.133.215.217 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

More Simplified Layout

I hope wikinews can adopt a more simplified 2 column layout of the main page instead of making it look like most cluttered news websites which is full of all kinds of links all over the page or allow each user to easily customize how content ought to rendered to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.232.11 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not add "News Sections" to top left corner of the main page?

Why can't we add news sections to top left corners of the page like Yahoo news or Google news. I want Wikinews to become my source of news but navigation on this site I find pretty hard. My main source of news are Google news and Yahoo news and first thing I click on is Sci/Tech. I really like how it works with Yahoo because I am able to narrow it down even further such as by news relating to "internet".

I see there are so many links here and I wonder what percentage of wikinews users actually click on them. Let's just show what is commonly used and required and tack away everything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.232.11 (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Main Page doesn't work well in HTML only mode in Safari Browser

When Javascript and Images are disabled in Safari 4.0.5 the main page doesn't look right. Center column content is entirely scattered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.232.11 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Outage

Could some one help with a news page about the global wikipedia outage, THANKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.122.180 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Moscow Train Bombing

Impressed this is not on the main page, why shouldn't it? 190.226.50.130 (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please add Tamil Wikinews link

Can some one add Tamil Wikinews in other languages list. http://ta.wikinews.org/ Mahir78 (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Australopithecus sediba

I think a news article should be written about the recent discovery of Australopithecus sediba. Thoughts? Azcolvin429 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to start writing. Check out the Newsroom to get started. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 05:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Make lead

The make lead tool went nuts and made a article lead 1 instead of lead 3 so I played a little bit of mix and match with the headlines, just letting you guys know so you don't think I like playing with the leads. Irunongames•play 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

btw, if anyone is curious, the issue was that two users were trying to put the same article to different leads at the same time and confusing each other. See [2] for details. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

POTD-NPOTD

Any chance of making room on the main page for a picture of the day, or because this is a news wiki, a news picture of a day. Photo journalism is a respected branch of journalism, and it shouldn't be too hard to have a quick trawl of Flickr and other sites every couple of days for free use images of a topical issue. Something that has happenened in the last couple of days, and good enough that the picture tells its own story. The page could be organise dthe to allow the inclusion of such a picture if one can be found and decided on and revert to the current layout if not. It'll become a bit boring and US centric after a while but the US White House photo gallery would be a good source of daily, quality, free use images.KTo288 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We used to have that, but it went out of date too often as free news-related images are not often available within a reasonable timescale, and we have too few volunteers to make it work. Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 17:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea in general to have this, but I share Dendodge's concern that it would be difficult to update on a regular basis (i.e., two or so days) and we don't have a lot of users who would be willing to trawl through flickr for free-use stuff that frequently. But, if our userbase increases sometime, we should readd it. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I say no, simply because we get so few news images submitted to us. We are so few people users in total, scattered about the globe - we're rarely going to get any images of our own of big news events. So that means we're going to be trawling flickr every day for images, or borrowing from other misc sources. Now, I'm not opposed to the idea in concept, just not right now. When we had POTD type thing previously, I submitted some of my pictures... even still. Lets stick to do what we've already got to do, writing articles, and try not to add any more work. We do have a hard time keeping up an even small number of new articles each day, let alone trying to pour on new work to do. This is why things like AudioWikinews and WikinewsTV and Wikienws Print Edition have gone by the wayside. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"...We used to have that" hmmm okay so that's why the idea seems familiar, I guess those that are here everyday know the siuation best.KTo288 (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea of just swapping the picture template in and out when we have content for it. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably be best. I do miss the "News in pictures" section, but it really wasn't updated enough. While we're on photos, this is a good link for finding recent Flickr pics with a given keyword that are free enough for us, saves digging through a load of search options. I have it as a quick search in Firefox, I'm sure you can do similar with your browser of choice. the wub "?!" 15:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrator assistance requested

Would an administrator please populate Category:2012 United States presidential election with the following articles which are currently protected:

• Wikinews interviews Kent Mesplay, Green Party presidential candidate
• Former US Vice President Dick Cheney: 'Barack Obama is a one-term President'
• Former U.S. governor Palin signs TV deal with Fox News

Thank you. --William Saturn (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, except the first one. --Mikemoral♪♫ 01:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. What needs to happen for them to appear on this template: Template:2012 US Presidential Election? --William Saturn (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be reviewed. --Mikemoral♪♫ 01:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Developing stories on the front page

I'd like to propose that we remove the "Stories in development" from the front page. IMO, it's rather unprofessional to have copyvios, very badly written articles, and potentially vandalism show up there. Sure, I understand the idea is to emphasise that the project is a collaborative effort that can be written by anyone, but nonetheless, it just looks bad, especially when stuff like this promotional piece or copyvios show up - and we do get them quite frequently. Also, there's a possibility for abuse - a vandal could create WIKINEWS SUCKS!!!, slap {{develop}} on it and it'd show up there - and given our small userbase, no guarantee that it would be deleted in a timely fashion. There are plenty of other ways we can advertise that anyone can edit Wikinews. Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 16:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I realize that very few people ever look down there, but it's just insane to have such poor quality stuff down there; some of it's really quite embarrassing. If you have a look through the deletion log, there's some pretty bad stuff in there. A selection: Sexy pohtos of boys, Assssssss, Lyssa maul, WHO CRATES THE OLYMPIC LOGOS, All about ashleys, etc. I don't know whether any of that appeared on the main page, but it's certainly not implausible to think it could. Cheers, C628 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't have an extremely large user base, and hence it might take some time to delete/remove the develop template from such articles. Removing it from the MP altogether is a better idea. Pmlineditor ^discuss 16:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Putting unvetted stuff on the main page undermines the purpose of having flaggedrevs. --Pi zero (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Per above comments, I've replaced {{Main devel}} with {{Main around}}. Please discuss here before reverting. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - we had it on the main page for ages (it was only removed for technical reasons afaik), and nothing bad happened. As long as its very clearly marked as developing, I think its a good idea. User sees article, User says thats interesting, user fixes said article, we then have both a new user and a new article. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I also like having it on the main page. It gives us a nice sense of openness, in that everyone can see what we are working on, and these articles get more eyes on them. --Cspurrier (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point, but still have to respectfully disagree, it's unprofessional - we'll frequently feature blatant copyvios, vandalism, and adverts up there (and because of our small admin userbase, they won't get blanked or deleted in a timely fashion most of the time). If there was some way we could filter out bad stuff and only have constructive, legitimate articles up there, I'd probably support - but otherwise, this just defeats the whole purpose of flagged revisions. Maybe just have a prominent link to the newsroom somewhere, like in the sitenotice or banner. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you post the articles with failed reviews instead? They would at least have been checked for blatant vandalism. FWIW... Benny the mascot (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, that might not be a bad idea. Although we'd have to have a separate category for articles that specifically failed review, otherwise DPL would not be able to distinguish them from non-reviewed articles. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, need a new cat for that and changes to the review system. Not hard, but adds complexity, prone to failure and still can easily be abused. All someone needs to do is add that Category:Review Failed cat to their article to get it to show on the front page. Yes, patent bot spam would be filtered out, but vandals would not. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't really need to change review system. Just add cat to appropriate part of {{Tasks/TaskParse}}. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. The devel section should be removed. Instead but the main lead of a random portal, I suggest. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Diego, a random portal would be good. Unless what appeared there was checked by someone before it got posted there, sort of like another layer of flagged revisions, but that'd just make it complicated. Easier to just remove it entirely. Cheers, C628 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We already have 4 leads on the main page. I don't think we need another. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Bawolff, you can't count. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A portal wouldn't really be a lead; besides, very few people scroll down there anyway. On further thought, though, a portal might not be brilliant either; imagine the Bulgaria portal being there, latest news from October of last year. C628 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why I think we should post the failed articles instead. Benny the mascot (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't really know what do the failed articles say... a main lead of a random portal would be great. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Any article that was lead of a random portal, should have been a main lead too, so that seems just like duplication. (/me likes Benny's idea) Bawolff ☺☻ 22:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think having a random portal is a great idea. What if something like Nauru pops up, which hasn't had an article in years? I'm of the opinion that it's best to just leave everything as it is currently, this seems to be the most useful arrangement of things. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that developing and recently failed articles be listed under "write an article", since if you were to improve an article, it would also be the place to look, not just "recently created" listing. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo associated with main page story

The photo of Concorde is not appropriate to the story as that aircraft stopped flying in 2003! Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, probably right. I took the first image of a modern airplane i could find, wasn't thinking about that. :b Will fix, thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, replaced with an image of an Air France 747, should be more appropriate ... Tempodivalse [talk]

Audio Wikinews

Could we perhaps get a link to Audio Wikinews up on the main page header? Benny the mascot (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Bawolff ☺☻ 00:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Story showing twice on main page...

Just thought I should point out that the news article "Chilean actor Oscar Garcés accused of sexual abuse" is showing up in two places with two images on the main page and has been for at least a few minutes. Don't really know why... Sorafune (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You must have caught the page just as we were rotating some stories around. Please do a refresh and see if it's ok now. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine now, thank you :). Out of curiosity, are stories manually or automatically rotated? Sorafune (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We do it manually, it's not automatically rotated if that's what you mean (although, in a way, we can semi-automate the process by using a special script called WN:Make lead). Tempodivalse [talk] 22:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I expected as much. Sorafune (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

the date?

anyone think adding the date to the heading of the page might help the reader... um. yeah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.226.50.130 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 30 March 2010

Seconded. 71.125.83.103 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where you both mean. The date and time is on the main page (next to Secure access), and the date each article is published is on the very top of the article itself. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Error on Trubridge

There's an error on the front page.

It says to a depth of 116min - minutes is not a measure of depth.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

It should be "m" as in the article. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Tempodivalse [talk] 01:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"This page was last modified on 29 April 2010, at 22:15"

this is written at the bottom of the main page. it's misleading to readers who aren't aware of 'templates', who might think the page is outdated or something else. Yonidebest (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Stupid readers :P. On a serious note, I can hide it if people want (for main page only). Thoughts? Bawolff ☺☻ 16:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It does contradict the up-to-date date and time on the top right (see my comment above) --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done removed. Bawolff ☺☻ 16:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, fix the problem of the letter size. Wikipedia is excellent but since a little time ago I can't read the information because of the change of the letter size. Thank you!!!

What do you mean? --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate news

The subject "Eleven alleged Russian spies arrested in US" appears twice on the page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Should be fixed, thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WTGAGA!?

how can a smelly old post office getting demolished get a mention on the front page but a new cancer treatment does not...What The GaGa!? H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 00:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Write an article and then, we will think about changing it. Seriously, an article from your part would really help! :-) Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

People get treated for cancer all the time. Its not everyday a smelly old post office is demolished. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You might as well change it yourself. This is, after all, the news source that anyone can edit. —fetch·comms 00:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientists_develop_%27Smart_Bomb%27_treatment,_could_kill_cancer <<<<< IT WAS UP YESTERDAY LADS! oops sorry about the caps lock =P H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 00:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bawolff, I like your style H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 00:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we try to act a bit more mature? Thanks, —fetch·comms 00:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• In a serious voice with a frown* I am unsure how to change the front page, so if someone could do it that would be great H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)