Un article de Vev.

Modèle:Notice Utilisateur:MiszaBot/config Modèle:Main Page discussion footer Modèle:Skiptotoctalk Discuter:Main Page/Archives

Modèle:Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

General discussion

Sommaire 1 General discussion 1.1 News picture 1.2 Dayton Agreement 1.3 Jamie Lynn Spears? 1.4 Energy elasticity page in DYK ?? 1.5 "One side Admin" 1.6 Featured Article Image 1.7 FA Error

News picture

Is there anyway to have the picture in the news section related to the first item in the box? As it is, an initial glance looks as though Hugo Chávez was the gunman that killed nine people in Omaha. --Bob (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The usual goal is to have an image for the first item with an available free picture. It usually works out relatively decently, but every once in a while we end up with a long-ish run of stories with none, such as now. Nothing really to be done about it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Barring someone who knew Hawkins personally and has a photograph that they're willing to release under a free licence, the only real alternative would be for someone living in Omaha, Nebraska to head down to Westroads Mall and take a picture of the site (the one we have currently is *very* dodgy, copyright-wise). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If we just want a new image, a photo of the PM of Togo would be good Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could the Chávez story be placed top? Or are there other criteria for story order? 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stories are always placed in chronological order Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This "policy" does need to change. It makes us look quite stupid on people's very first visit to Wikipedia. The photo usually does not match the first news item, and the problem is fixable. Make the story with the photo first. Tempshill (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been several suggestions for change previously, so far none of them have gotten much support IIRC. In any case, I'm not sure if everyone is convinced it's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

An image of the flag of Omaha or an image of an AK47 (the weapon believed to be used) could both be used, or something like this - just be creative, but make it look better, please. --Bob (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Several admins are against the use of flags since it's argued they don't add much. Maps have similar problems to flags (it's been argued they don't mean much if you don't already know the geography of the area and if you do, you don't really need a map). As for the gun, I don't think you'd find much support for that for numerous reasons. For example I suspect you'll have similar opposition as with a flag or map (it's a generic image which doesn't tell you much about the specific story). As well as the fact it may be seen as either POV pushing or perhaps morbid. Finally it AFAIK remains unconfirmed that the gun was an AK-47 with some conflicting info (Plus AK-47s can vary quite a lot in how they look). Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And a generic old image of Chavez is better because... --Bob (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the feeling is that as the item is about Chavez it's specific to the item and shows something which is meaningful (not everyone knows what Chavez looks like but many might be interested in seeing him and for those that do, it will tell them the item has something to do with Chavez, some people may recognise Chavez but may not know his name). On the other hand with a flag, most people don't know or care what the flag of Omaha looks like. And if you do, you'd probably recognise the word Omaha just as much as you will the flag, and it doesn't really tell you anything about the item which only losely has to do with Omaha (it occured in Omaha but it has nothing to do with Omaha). Similarly with a map, if you already know what Omaha looks like then showing it probably doesn't provide more info or is more easily recognisable then saying Omaha especially at the size we're talking about I don't think many people will recognise the flag or the map but will not recognise Omaha. And if you don't recognise the map, you probably don't really care to learn where Omaha is and again as with the flag, the story doesn't really have anything to do with Omaha. In this case, the Chavez connection is perhaps a bit loose as well since it was a constitutional referedum supported by Chavez not an election which Chavez won but it's arguably still a lot stronger then Omaha to the story. Or to put it simply, the flag or map are more decorative then functional whereas the picture of Chavez is more functional. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

even though it is out of date and badly positioned? I gave examples of some things to use, I also said be creative, as it currently looks shockingly bad and amateurish. Your arguments against using a map are also applicable to that precise image of Chavez. Also, please drop the geek-speak, not everyone understands computer initialisms (I certainly don't) --[[User:Grcampbel

You could use Wikipedia to look them up. LOL. Really, though, Nil Einne is right that the photo of Chavez is more relevant to the Chavez news item than a gun or map would be relevant to the mall shooting news item. It sounds like "relevance to some item in the news section" is Nil Einne's criterion for what picture should be in the news section. I'm not sure if that's the best approach, but let's say it is. We at a minimum need to have the story associated with the picture right at the top. No news website in the world puts a lead next to a photo that does not match. And, yes, "Wikipedia is not a news website", but this area of the main page is a news website. Tempshill (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The same ITN template looks great at Portal: Current events. --74.14.19.109 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see how there is any problem with this template on Portal: Current events. This illustrates one of the problems which a lot of people fail to realise. The template works fine in many cases and changing it simply for one version of the main page is not considered good practice or acceptable (there are versions of the main page when it's not a problem as well e.g. Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (PDA version)) Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually ITN is implicitly NOT a news website. This is a common misconception and is one reason why people have suggested it be renamed. Also, I'm somewhat doubtful the suggestion for changing placement of the story will get much support. We already get sufficient complaints when a image stays for too long. Yet if we were to effectively selective highlight one story at the top of a page for a long time because we don't have any new images, we're liable to get many more complaints. Even worse, since very often we only have images for US items, you can just hear the screams of US bias that will result when we selectively highlight US stories. Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

IIRC is hardly geek speak... Whatever the case, you say to be creative. But so far, no one has come up with a suitable suggestion for an image which is sufficiently relevant to a more recent story in the eyes of admins (hint, this is NOT me). Until and unless someone does, things are not going to change. Telling people to be creative is somewhat pointless since obviously the people involved are not 'creative' enough or the problem would be resolved. If you're so sure it can be done, why don't you come up with something that is sufficiently relevant to a more recent story? Remember wikipedia is made by unpaid editors which can include you, not by a paid workforce. There's little point telling people to 'fix' something if you don't have an acceptable solution and one is not obvious to the people doing the 'fixing'. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I just butt in and say here that it's probably the first (and last) time that I show off the addition I made on Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ back in April?[1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So the photo should not match the lead in that box because it screws up formatting on another page. This is a lazy and half-assed reason to make Wikipedia look stupid on the main page. Tempshill (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL... People are complaining because they think the picture of Chavez makes it look like he killed nine people in Ohama and then waved to the crowd? Never would have crossed my mind. And no, Tempshill, it's because we don't have a good free image about the shooting, and anything we did have about it (a picture of the mall, for instance) wouldn't fit the item very well. Chavez is just fine where he is. Grandmasterka 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try again without being Mr. Inflammatory. This is the main page of Wikipedia. When people look at the ITN box, and they see a photo that is mismatched with the lead, they say, "Haw, haw, Wikipedia is stupid," the same way that occasionally occurs with the algorithmically generated photo matching on Google News. We need to make the main page of Wikipedia look good. A mismatched photo looks like amateurville. Any reason given to justify a mismatched photo is misplaced, IMO, because it needs to look good, and a mismatched photo looks terrible. Fears about increased complaints because the Chavez story would be the highest story for longer - then move the photo down to sit next to that bullet point. Tempshill (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty simple, and Fyre2387, Tempshill, and others are right. The ITN picture should match the lead ITN blurb. If the the lead has no picture, fine - no picture. This is pretty elementary. --Elliskev 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree DmitryChestnykh

I wrote a proposal for this at Template talk:In the news#ITN photo proposal if people would care to weigh in, support, or denounce it. Tempshill (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Um did you bother to read the FAQ answer at all? It didn't occur to me to link to it so it was good for Zyxx to point it out. It specifically address why we cannot move the photo down. Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Tempshill, Elliskev and DmitryChestnykh for demonstrating that this concern stems entirely from the mistaken belief that ITN contains a "lead" item. Obviously, this confusion is something that should be addressed, probably by removing "news" from the name (as had been discussed on several occasions). —David Levy 18:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead, lede, first story, whatever. Semantics. The first item in the list. Sheesh. The point still stands. --Elliskev 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not nitpicking. Your expectation that the image will pertain to the first item listed appears to stem from the mistaken impression that ITN operates (or could reasonably be expected to operate) like a newspaper or news website (placing the story designated the most important at the top). —David Levy 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No... My expectation that the image will pertain to the first item listed is based on two things - how people read (top to bottom) and the proximity of the picture to the bulleted item at the top. I don't really care how ITN operates. I care about the layout being less than ideal. --Elliskev 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And your idea of an "ideal" layout has nothing to do with what you're accustomed to seeing in newspapers and on news websites?

We label the relevant item with the word "pictured." For people capable of reading English text, I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. Yes, the image might appear incongruous at first glance, but people are supposed to actually read the section. —David Levy 21:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, we're not going to agree. You're assuming a lot about my sense of "ideal". This is a disagreement about style. I think the style we have now sucks. Categorize my opinion all you want. It won't change my mind. --Elliskev 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Elliskev is right and David Levy is wrong. People read top to bottom, and expect the tightest possible proximity between a picture and the associated text. That's because, as David Levy haughtily puts it, those of us who can read English text have been raised to expect this in roughly 100% of the printed material we read. People have not, on the other hand, spent their lives carefully reading through many bullets of information in order to figure out what a nearby picture is about. Tempshill (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is wrong? Okay then. Thank you for saving me the time that I would have wasted by attempting to discuss this with you. —David Levy 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm simply disagreeing with you. —David Levy 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to point something out to a few of you, David Levy is providing a valid service in this discussion. If we implemented every change that was suggested here on the Main Page without these kinds of discussions the thing would more then likely be totally illegible at this point. David (as a user who seems to be fairly anti-main-page-change) provides a counter point to whatever the suggestion is (normally), and if you can prove his points wrong, youre usually well on the way to getting your suggestion implemented. I myself made a suggestion about page balance a while back (not to do with the pictures, but instead to do with the layout in general), and the whole discussion was pretty much me and him arguing about it. I still don't agree with the points he was making at the time, and I still don't like his style of debate, but the service he provides here on the main page is one that has to exist... he shows that there is another side to the argument. Just my two cents. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just line the picture up with its appropriate news item? 87.244.93.97 (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Like so! Easy enough to change, and makes a damn sight more sense than the current setup. 87.244.93.97 (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Will the template layout still work on Portal: Current events or Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (PDA version) with a picture that goes with the 4th or 5th bulleted item? You might get quite a bit of unsightly blank space there. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that guy was Hugo Chavez so I assumed he was the gunman. I agree that it's a bit weird when the first picture doesn't line up. It's nothing to do with news stories and everything to do with how people read. 81.153.124.23 (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So go read the word "pictured" further down. --74.13.128.88 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it contradicts the expected format and readers will naturally assume that the first picture is the relevant one. There's nothing wrong with that, it's an almost universal thing unless you're used to Wikipedia's silly quirks. I do agree that it makes the main page look amateur. But then most of the photos used here do, as they're usually low quality and of limited relevance. 81.153.124.23 (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be or might not be universal on the internet, but it's extremely familiar in the context of non-fiction books, reference works, etc. This style may strike some as old-fashioned, but there's nothing amateurish about it. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this page has a comperable context. In such books it can reasonably be assumed that the reader will actually read most of the page or section where the picture appears. Whereas we can reasonably assume most people just scan the content on this page, which changes daily. Also most such books will include a caption to provide context for the image to the reader that picks it out visually rather than reading the text.-doradiia (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

81 has a point, so the pic must correspond to an item or not to have a picture at all.

Or, how about adding a border around the pic so the reader may think that it is not related to the top item? Or having colored rows (might look ugly though) --Howard the Duck 13:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This applies equally to the Did you know... and On this day... sections doesn't it? It is confusing to people not aware of the policy who may never see the inconspicuous (pictured) tag. Even for someone like myself who is aware it this is still inconvenient. We should keep in mind that most people will not read the entire section. Most people will merely scan the page. The pictures tend to draw the eye, however. Forcing wikipedia users to play where's waldo with the (pictured) tag just to figure out what the picture is about strikes me a slightly hostile towards the users... particularly new users who may very well read the first bullet, assume it's connected, and move on. I understand that technical and style issues under discussion have thus far prevented the suggested remedies. May I suggest at least making the (pictured) tag more prominent so that it stands out when scanned? I also feel that a border around the pic would help seperate it conceptually from the top bullet, even if there is no accompanying highlighted bullet background. And finally, (though I personally feel it would be ugly) a caption under the pic could greatly ease confusion and facilitate the page's utility. -doradiia (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a problem on DYK, since the admins can easily choose the hook that has a pic. For OTD, most of the time, the first entry (the event that happened the earliest) doesn't have a photo so the pic will come from the next entries. --Howard the Duck 15:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Under such a proposal to have the image always be associated with the first item, either the listings on "On this day" would have to appear out of chronological order (which is not an option if you want this section to maintain some credibility) or the pictures would have to be removed completely because there is usually no associated image for the first item on each and every day. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking of adding a border to the photo will "physically separate" it from the first item so it'll not appear as part of it. --Howard the Duck 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

yes its very funny, but a bit offensive to the guy. david levy and ferdia o brian have alot of opionins about this maybe they are bored with life outside wika. also wika is a form of witchcraft which i dislike alot. pinktoes and nose.−—

There's a huge difference between "wiki" and "wicca". The former is a type of collaborative website, while the latter is a form of neo-paganism. They have nothing to do with each other, except for beginning with the same two letters. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dayton Agreement

Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks!

Jamie Lynn Spears?

Do you think we should include a news entry for the annoucment that she is pregnant? Cryo921 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Way. ITN is not a tabloid.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, when a 16 year old star of a nickleodeon show gets pregnant it is pretty newsworthy. Although your point is a good one. Cryo921 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be featured. "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest." It does not have international importance and is common for 16 year olds to be pregnant.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It was featured in our local early evening newscast, the last place you'd see Hollywood gossip. Try WP:ITN/C though. --Howard the Duck 04:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Local news has to sell, just like anything else, so I wouldn't say gossip is beneath a local newscast, only a huge amount of it. MMetro (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Earl of Wessex had a baby (well his wife did). Thats much more significant. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not news. --Howard the Duck 07:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't say it was, just trying to show how irrelevant spears is. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevancy doesn't appear in the ITN criteria, if I may add. It has to be posted on Portal:Current events, an update on an article and must be "of an international importance, or at least interest". The JLS case seems to have met all of the criteria I've mentioned, except for the portal one. I've heard about Keisha Castle-Hughes pregnancy a year(?) ago but not on our local newscast, while the Earl's new baby wasn't even mentioned, heck I didn't even see it on the major news channels. As for 16 year olds getting pregnant, they're like elections, they happen everyday. --Howard the Duck 12:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard more about it then the Jamie Lynn case tho. I only heard about Jamie Lynn on some tabloid link whereas the Earl case may have been one of the headline items in my local evening news IIRC. (I'm not in the UK) BTW there are many similarities to when the virgin Mary's pregnancy was annouced last year. And no, I don't think that should have been on ITN either. Edit although if (big if) tabloid rumours are to be believed, Jamie is going to be a single mum unlike Keisha.. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, neither is newsworthy enough to be on the Main Page. Sorry. As for Ms. Spears—like Richard said, it is not unusual for 16 year olds to be pregnant (has been since, let's see, forever). The fact she is a notable 16-year-old does not make her being pregnant particularly notable, and this is certainly not a world-altering event. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The only times pregnancies (or births) are notable enough to appear on the main page are when they have a wider effect on society - ie, it's not the pregnancy that is notable, but the events surrounding it, eg: a) The child belongs to a high ranking member of royalty and is directly in line to the throne (eg, when Princess Akishino was pregnant with Hisahito, or if Kate Middleton had become pregnant by Prince William). b) the pregnancy marks a massive scientific discovery (eg a radical new fertility treatment, proven human cloning etc.). Laïka —Preceding comment was added at 15:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What? Absolutely not. The day a junk tabloid story like that appears on the Main Page is the day that hell freezes over and I hang up my tools in shame. GlassCobra 08:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in ITN, but FYI it's on the front page of the NY Times today. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

By comparison, I haven't even seen it in the British broadsheets. Not that it means much- the elections which are (rightly) on ITN are often barely mentioned by the British press. At the end of the day, this pregnancy just isn't important to the world as a whole. J Milburn (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Energy elasticity page in DYK ??

I guess the page has only 247 characters and i wonder how it got itself nominated under the DYK criteria ?

According to the ever reliable Microsoft Word, it has 1,548 characters (1,305 if you exclude spaces), excluding references, surpassing the 1,500-mark standard for DYKs. --Howard the Duck 14:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You got a result of 247 because you accidentally did a word count instead of a character count. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops..I mistook characters as a criteria to be words. Anyway, what is the rationale behind 1500 characters as the threshold ? sriks8 (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So that it is considered large enough to be put on the main page, and so that someone looking at it, would have a decent amount of information to go by. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"One side Admin"

Where I can report "one side" (not neutral) Admin ? The guy gave me warning for "personal attack" while other user called me "antisemitic" ! I didn't do anything to get a ban.

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do if you think a specific admin has acted badly would be to politely raise the issue with them on their user talk page. I see you've already posted there, though. You can post at WP:AN/I if there truly is a problem, but if you do so, be prepared to make a very clear case for what you're saying, backed up by diffs. You can also ask at WP:Help desk if you have further questions about Wikipedia process and so forth, this isn't really the proper place for such things.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nvm, I don't wanna make troubles to anyone. I have another question, I made a couple of good "userboxes" how can I make them to be like "Userbox/Krzyzowiec/(Something here) ?! How you do like that ?! And where I can find the site on Wikipedia where I can place my self-made userboxes (like a User:Krzoyzowiec/Userboxes) ?

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

'F you're looking for how to do those userboxes, go to, for example, User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/Something, insert your code, and save. Then put {{usbk|User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/Something}} onto User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes. If you want to put one of those boxes onto your page, you put {{User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/Something}} onto your page. 68.101.123.219 (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Image

Can an admin please change the image to Image:Tikse monastery.jpg because this image is clearer, less blurry, more bright and shows the same thing. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

FA Error

I'm the editor who nominated Ladakh for FA. The version featured today has an error in the first line. Ladakh is a region but not a province. I've made the change in the main article, but it needs to be reflected on the front page as well. deeptrivia (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)