Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 133

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Main Page

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 05:28, 14 August 2009 (Archiving 1 thread(s) from Talk:Main Page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135→Archive 140

Wikipedia languages

This Wikipedia is written in English. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.

The WIkipedia language section in the Main page does not mention about the language telugu though it features more than 46 000 articles, the highest in Indian languages. Please add this language in the main page under the category "More than 20 000" articles.

To add to the above, the section "languages" on the left side of the main page (Vertical section)does not feature "Telugu" though it has the larget number of featured articles in any Indian Language.

06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)PVK Vijaykumarpvk (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)PVK

Request belongs at template Talk: page {{Wikipedialang}} (talk). I do agree though, they had 38,125 at the end of 2007. §hepTalk 06:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Per the FAQ linked at the top of this page, "The Wikipedia languages section and standard interwiki list on the main page only include Wikipedias that have more than 20,000 articles and a minimum depth of 5" Telugu currently has a depth of 4, so it is excluded at this time. --24.19.39.134 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to check the depth when I replied. For the requester, that is listed here for convenience. §hepTalk 07:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What does "depth" mean in this context? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

meta:Depth ((Edits/Articles) × (Non-Articles/Articles) × (Stub-ratio)), being a rough indicator of activity on a Wikipedia. Created after complaints that several Wikipedias with a small number of active editors were being populated largely by bot-created stubs and were being pushed up the Wikipedia size rankings despite being of lower quality than many expected. - BanyanTree 10:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - one of those occasions when the meaning is 'not the obvious one' Jackiespeel (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say British Isles?

Really you got to be callin folks idiots? I thought this was a professional forum. Cork is what you put in a bottle(or your kisser to stop it from yammering) well known to the English as any school kid can tell you it.

It happened near Ireland but it says British Isles. Explain! Cork is not in Britain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.240 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Because some idiots like you can't look about five centimetres up the page from here. 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.34.226 (talk)
Ireland is one of the British isles. It is not part of Britain. Similarly, Pakistan is part of the Indian subcontinent, but it is not part of India. —Verrai 18:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Further, you seem to not understand the difference between the British Isles and Britain. Cork is part of the British Isles. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not use the word "idiot" to describe another user be they IP address or not. It is very discouraging. I happen to actually think this is a problematic term. We discussed this during the recent snowfall event and I have to say that if we are to remain neutral (which is presumably one of our aims) it should never be used on the Main Page, especially in prominent positions on ITN. Take a look at what our own article says on the term. There are actually three sources after the line which states the Irish government's long-standing opposition to the term. This line is in a very prominent position in the opening, thus indicating its importance. It would therefore be fair to say that it is considered a backwards term in some quarters. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that there was any controversy regarding the term. I think it's a little strong to suggest that it should never be used on the main page- there are plenty of governments that would reject the use of "Israel" on the main page, too. What would you suggest as an alternative? J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah see, that's the problem. Nobody is aware of these difficulties so that when complaints are made they are brushed aside... I don't see what was wrong with the original wording which worked well enough for the recent snowfall. It was far more inclusive, a lot less controversial and led to no complaints from disenchanted Irish readers, some of whom must be scratching their heads in disbelief at how it is currently phrased. Also I have to say that Israel is used a lot more often in everyday speech than British Isles... I rarely hear of "British Isles" outside Wikipedia where its use seems to be excused in an effort to make space or for other reasons relating to design. However, I have a feeling that this would offend quite a few people in Cork in the same way as it would in, say, Dublin or Galway... I don't think any of the Irish news sources would use the term either, which makes its use here seem a bit strange from my point of view. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The old wording did raise complaints- someone wasn't happy at the idea that it affected "Great Britain and Ireland" when, in fact, it was more concerning Ireland. Further, I do hear (and use) the phrase "British Isles" a lot- where are you from, out of interest? J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ireland. You? What I'm saying is that in my experience I have never heard the Irish media use the term. If it's only affecting Ireland then why is the term "British Isles" necessary at all? Surely its use in that case makes it sound more extravagant than it actually is? I was unaware of this as I was led to believe that it would affect others too. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, someone has also raised the "British Isles" issue on the article's talk page. What irks me the most is that I carefully phrased it to avoid this controversy and now I find myself still trying to defend the original phrasing when I could be doing something more constructive elsewhere... speaking of which, if anyone who is bored is reading this, ITN is always in need of volunteers! :D --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm in England- that may explain the language difference. I'm in the same boat as you- I changed it as I believe my term would be less controversial. If you believe your wording was better, you're more than welcome to revert me. (Feel free to mark it as vandalism too, then protect it, I'm sure we can make this even more exciting). I don't know anything about the spill itself- changing it to the most severe in Ireland in # years would probably work. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The article doesn't use biggest spill in Ireland for xx years as the only sources I have found have used biggest spillage in the British Isles since Sea Empress at Milford Haven in 1996 (although some say 1999 with Sea Empress which is clearly wrong). If someone can find a reliable source with the years since the last big Irish spill then that would be fine. However the Irish Coast Guard has said that the spill is likely to wash up in Wales as well so that makes it international. I have no real opinion on which wording is better although "Great Britain and Ireland" made the tagline feel overly cumbersome (at least to me) - Dumelow (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How about something like: The largest oil spill to affect Great Britain and Ireland in 13 years occurs in the Celtic Sea. Does that solve the problem, or is it more important to mention that it occurred off County Cork? - Dumelow (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted it back to the original wording. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  Well as the spill occured off the coast of Ireland I think Ireland sould be first. Why should Britain come first?
  It does not make sense--SWOO (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If everyone is going to kick up a fuss to the point we use inaccurate and clumsy terms, can we not just find a better story to go in there? What happens if a bit of the oil hits the Isle of Mann? Or somehow the Channel Islands? The story would get a increasingly long just to avoid using the term wikipedia itself uses for the island chain. No, if people really find it so offensive, we are best off removing the news piece and just not having any stories that affect UK and Ireland in future. If they can't play nice with the toys, they go back in the box. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just the names of 2 countries - how on Earth can it be considered offensive? The Americans wouldn't kick up a fuss if we put "the US and Canada" or "North America", so why do we? I know the Irish want their independence, but that doesn't mean they can't be mentioned in the same sentence as Britain! Dendodge TalkContribs 11:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why the country most affected by the incident is again listed after the country second-most affected. Qqqqqq (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Because "Great Britain and Ireland" is a widely-used term and sounds more natural than "Ireland and Great Britain", which sounds clumsy. Why should we not make our prose sound good just because of overreacting nationalists? (No offence meant to anyone). Dendodge TalkContribs 12:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the names of two countries joined by a conjunction sounds unnatural. It seems misleading to me to list the more distant and less affected country first. Qqqqqq (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Great Britain is not a country. It is an island. Do you think it should say 'Ireland and the United Kingdom', or perhaps 'the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom'? Algebraist 12:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, the names of two islands. But yes, either of those two phrases would be more accurate Qqqqqq (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The simple solution is to say Ireland (or Eire) as the coast off Cork is too far away from GB to justify a mention. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support that. It doesn't sound clumsy, and should please everyone. Dendodge TalkContribs 12:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If that were done, then the figure of 13 years would become silly, since the Sea Empress spill didn't affect Ireland. Algebraist 12:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Then when was the last oil spill to affect Eire? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why not just say "A large oil spill occurs off the coast of County Cork, Ireland"? Dendodge TalkContribs 12:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I would be fine with that, but the current phrasing seems to be wanting to give its magnitude by comparing to oil spills past. But I don't think that's so important, so drop the year. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) That seems reasonable. A problem with saying 'to affect Ireland' is that the spill hasn't affected anywhere yet, and when it does reach land, it is expected to hit Ireland and Britain at about the same time. Algebraist 12:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, then is it news? Is every oil spill an ITN event? I think the one think for certain is that at the moment it is off the coast of Eire and as such the item should be rewritten to reflect that, once it hits Cornwall then amend away. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why we shouldn't include it - we just don't need to compare it to any others. Dendodge TalkContribs 12:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the article, the oil has not yet entered the UK's territorial waters. The statement that the spill is affecting "Great Britain and Ireland" or "Ireland and Great Britain" is thus misleading no matter how you phrase it. I agree with a few previous editors that the news hook should only mention Ireland (at present, anyway). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Great Britain and Ireland" is right. 2 Reasons.

1. They put the name according to alphabetical order.
2.Great Britain is bigger than Ireland.

Minor Problem

The top story, about the stimulus package being signed, should say "pictured" after Barack Obama, and not after "into law", because it's not the stimulus package that's pictured, but the President.—GodhevalT C W 18:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Report here 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.34.226 (talk)
It's the story as a whole- it is the report package being signed that is pictured. If it was to say "pictured" after Obama, it would just be a generic portrait of him. It's correct where it is. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my good ol' antagonist, Mr. Milburn. Actually, it's not correct, because it doesn't make any sense. Thanks to the other fellow for pointing me towards the report page. —GodhevalT C W 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The act of him signing it is what's "Pictured". The signing is pictured. That Obama is present is incidental. APL (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC)"U.S. President Barack Obama signs a US$787 billion stimulus package into law" is what is pictured- that headline would serve doubly well as a caption to the image. Placing "pictured" after "Barack Obama" would be ridiculous, as that image has not been chosen to illustrate Obama, but to illustrate that story. (Also, where the hell has "my good ol' antagonist" come from? This isn't a battleground- I disagree with you, I'm not some kind of archvillain.) J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
May I interject and humbly suggest that in such circumstances as these the (pictured) be placed after the full stop? When it comes directly after a word or phrase on the Main Page, we expect that specific thing to be pictured. When the content of the whole sentence is pictured, perhaps we should finish the sentence (put a full stop) before writing (pictured). 129.67.127.65 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the picture is of him signing it, can't (pictured) go after the word signs? Dark verdant (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just a picture of someone signing something, it's a picture of Barack Obama signing a US$787 billion stimulus package into law. It's picturing everything. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured article image nominated for deletion

File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG, currently used on the main page, has been nominated for deletion on Commons. I leave this to someone else to deal with, if anything needs doing, as I am going to sleep. J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Wikipedia?

What is this mobile wikipedia banner, how does it work, and what is mobile wikipedia?--Ipatrol (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the banner (?), does WP:MOBILE help? §hepTalk 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The banner shows up for people on mobile browsers. See http://leuksman.com/log/2009/02/18/mobile-browser-links/ for more info. howcheng {chat} 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Whole Lotta Darwin?

Just a query. Is the appearance of Charles Darwin in every section of today's Main Page except "In The News" intentional? -- saberwyn 00:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly. As you'll have noticed, it's his 200th birthday. Algebraist 00:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the discussion on the timing of today's featured article. Algebraist 00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Shiny. Thanks :) -- saberwyn 00:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's also Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday and he gets shafted. Redsox00002 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
He's mentioned once in OTD and twice in DYK. If you had a relevant TFA choice, you should've posted it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests at the appropriate time (weeks ago). Algebraist 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected, but it is still 5:3 in favor of Darwin.Redsox00002 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is your suggestion to put licoln's name twice randomly on main page to make it even? The way i see it both were given importance and there is no reason for them to appear exactly the same number of times. there were featured items available for Darwin, hence they were used. if u have suggestion to improve current items then please provide them rather than complaining about ratio. Ashishg55 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Insert picture of Wikipe-tan huggling Darwin and lonely Lincoln off in the corner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
He needs the love; over at the ever understated and equitable Conservapedia, he appears on the main page in a split-image alongside Adolf Hitler. Joe 08:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I love the way Conservapedia manages to give the impression that racism from the likes of Hitler and (allegedly) Darwin is a bad thing... but as I recall some of the things they said about Obama during last year's campaign... "understated and equitable," indeed. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey - this'll start a bunfight. It could be argued that in the grand scheme of things, Darwin is way more important - his discoveries have a worldwide importance and effect, while ol Abe really only affected the US. 86.155.202.152 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. Darwin is far more significant in the longrun and worldwide. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? I think Darwin was weird, but everyone always thinks he believed in macro-evolution when he believed in micro-evolution, in fact he tried to disprove macro-evolution toward the end of his life! BennyK95

Abraham Lincoln was known worldwide. Count Tolstoy described how peasants in remote regions of the Russian Empire had heard of him. Lincoln's influence has never waned.[1] The problem is that his article is not a Featured Article, and therefore was not eligible to appear on the main page. Kablammo (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Darwin's discoveries affected the world, and the way we see the world. Abe Lincoln's actions didn't have a worlwide effect - sure, he was heard of by the Russian peasants but his actions didn't affect them. That's the big difference between Abe and Chazza. 86.155.202.152 (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Read the link. The acknowledgment of the importance of one in no way diminishes the importance of the other. I originally suggested the 12 February TFA and believe it was a good choice for Darwin's birthday, but we should not denigrate the influence of Lincoln. Marx and Nehru didn't. Kablammo (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
No one denies Abraham Lincoln is an important figure. However it's true his actions didn't have that great a direct worldwide effect, particularly outside the Western world. Many would even question whether concern for the slaves was really the primary reason for the civil war and Lincoln's involvement thereof and from a current POV, his expressed views are hardly what many would call fair (and they were hardly revolutionary either, it's just that he had the power to do something about them). P.S. To be frank, my POV, I'm quite sure shared by quite a lot of people is that Lincoln was a decent American politician for his time, but hardly someone worth looking up to. He may have been part of righting a horrible wrong, but only a small part and it's questionable if it was his primary reason for doing it and it's also hard to get worked up when there was still so much to achieve which Lincoln didn't seem to care about (indeed some of his expressed views are a bit disgusting) and which others did long before Lincoln. Other people achieved far more then him, e.g. Gandhi, Martin Luther King... The fact that some other people (of greater significance) were influenced by him doesn't change my view much. P.P.S. If it isn't obvious, what I'm saying is that while Abraham Lincoln was undoutedly important, in a comparison between him and Darwin, there's just no comparison. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)



As a suggestion to this Lincoln vs. Darwin fight, a seperate Wikipedia for the United States should be created. I mean, I think it's just the opinions of two seperate hemispheres in which fight over who should've been the star of the main page.
Darwin is probably unknown to half the American population, but a star in the UK, and he contributed much in a world-wide sense. Lincoln, on the other hand, is probably known by almost all the American population, but by only 3% of the British population, yet he was a major factor in which helped America to come out of its turtleshell, thus to burst out onto the international scene; then, who actually truly did contribute more? Why couldn't multiple anniversaries be featured? Just wondering ... IlStudioso 07:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha you believe that only 3% of the British population know who Abe Lincoln was? We have also heard of George Washington as well (though he is probably more famous). Anyway wasn't the reason Abe not being featured because his article isn't featured article status? I dont like the idea of a separate wiki for America as I quite like reading articles that are about other countries. It's always nice to learn new things about the rest of the world instead of only thinking that the UK is the be all and end all.
Sorry, I'm only talking hypothetically. Didn't mean any offense, as I truly favor Britain over my America. Though I do believe that the English have caused quite some problems for the other three British nations (Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland), thus the English are those who I favor the least, no offense against any one individual in particular. I don't literally mean a separate wiki for the article on America. I mean a separate wiki for America, and the other for the UK. People always argue here about the spelling of words, like organise vs. organize, or colour vs. color. In fact, though, wikimedia should start deciding over a standard of English suited specially towards wikis. Like, we can have the word favourite (in British variant), while we have organize (in American variant). Do you see what I'm talking about now? IlStudioso 00:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
No offense was taken, I just thought the 3% was funny. Yes I can see what you mean as we wouldn't have the whole USA vs UK etc bias week in week out. However I think it would be a ball ache having a separate wiki for USA. Spelling in articles doesn't bother me that much, though I think a standard spelling throughout might make this more "neat" possibly. Having a separate USA wiki may be bad as certian articles that may be interesting to people would be missed as they wouldn't appear on the main page. Dark verdant (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a terrible idea. You would be effectively splitting English Wikipedia in half, over a few minor spelling differences. Further, I would suspect the vast majority of Americans and British would have heard of both Darwin and Lincoln, and, in any case, unless the new projects decided to throw NPOV out of the window, the Lincoln vs. Darwin debate would not be any closer to being solved. If you're looking for an encyclopedia geared towards the U.S., try Conservapedia. Further, such a split would not solve everything- see the debate about Irish and British terminology below. And where would Australians find themselves? Which one would this Wikipedia be, and which would have to split? The list of issues goes on and on and on. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

FA; Devon

Could someone change 'Devon' to help non-natives of England? 82.24.160.83 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Change it to what? Majorly talk 02:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Pls suggest changes at WP:ERRORS. --76.64.76.46 (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
To "Devon, England", I imagine. Joe 08:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Devon, United Kingdom would be more correct - England is not a sovereign nation Modest Genius talk 18:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion (2)

I have a suggestion for tommorows featured article, it should be the pirate bay trial, after all it is an important current event.

Me three--76.126.99.143 (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay trial is not currently a featured article- it would first have to be nomianted and promoted at featured article candidates. However, as a current event that will be changing rapidly, it would not pass. Further, suggestions for TFA should be made at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article auto semi-protect

Since the featured article is on a highly visible area of Wikipedia, I suggest that all future featured articles should be automatically semi-protected to combat IP vandalism on these highly informative articles. If one would look at the history tab of the current featured article, there is a massive amount of IP vandalism. This should reduce vandalism on future featured articles. --Vinni3 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. We rarely protect the main page article except in the case of extreme levels of vandalism. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up for me. :) --Vinni3 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Communist Theorists?

The title page claims Marx and Engels were "theorists". In what sense? Communism isn't a scientific theory in any sense of the word since any specific predictions it makes have been largely falsified and any predictions it makes that haven't been falisfied are vague and ambiguous. Among economists not controlled by communist governments it has been a dead model of economic behavior for several decades now, so shouldn't it read more like proponents or philosophers of communism? 24.8.102.238 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

They were theorists not in the sense of making predictions, but in the sense of laying out something (communism as a economic framework). The main page is correct as-is. Raul654 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A question on languages

I am somewhat puzzled as to why some Greek-Americans have their names written in Greek. Is this what wikipedia does with German-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Russian Americans, etc? Kostantino888Z (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Page is not a Greek-American and its name is not written in Greek here. You may want to ask your question on the talk page associated with the biography of the Greek-American whose name is written in Greek. Not here. --74.13.131.236 (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Meshuggah

Wow, one of my favorite bands is today's FA. Way to go Wikipedia! :) AmiDaniel (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to drop a note on user talk:Lykantrop. He's the one who did the heavy lifting. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hah, Meshuggah on Wikipedia's main page? Awesome. Bloodbath/Naglfar tomorrow please! 141.163.102.62 (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Bloodbath nor Naglfar (band) are currently featured articles. Feel free to work on them so they meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, nominate them, and if the nomination passes they'll have their day of spotlight :) Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Share wiki articles on social networks

Hey guys lets right a code to enable sharing wiki pages easily in social networks. Encyclopedia , youtube and newspapers do it.

Why shouldn't the Wiki do it ??! It will implement it eventually . Let's do it know. Please bare my ignorance , if this is not the place to discuss this issue, tell me where to go. (Borhan0 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

You want WP:Village pump (proposals). Ottre 09:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to possibly biased article on main page

In the news

Tamil Tigers launch a kamikaze-style suicide attack on Colombo, Sri Lanka, killing two people and injuring over 50 more.

2009_suicide_air_raid_on_Colombo

Might it be a good idea to make sure there are no links to possibly non-neutral articles on the main page? It could seem like someone with permission to edit the main page has a definite bias here. 213.48.46.141 (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, articles that are tagged with {{POV}} do not get posted on the main page. But of course, it doesn't really help when you were the actual one who tagged the article as {{POV}} a few minutes earlier.[2] Luckily it was the oldest event listed as thus the next one to be removed. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

3 "Kills" in a row in the news

Is it by chance or someone's playing too much Quake? --AaThinker (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN is much more open than it used to be- now we get these comparatively minor news stories that, if they had happened ten years ago, we wouldn't be covering. It's a good example of recentism, if you ask me. However, all things considered, it's possibly more interesting than the rather common phenomenon of three elections in a row, which used to happen very frequently. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
But we're overloaded with death right now - could we have a happy story about a skiing budgerigar to balance it out? Dendodge TalkContribs 17:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.242.206 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Even John Atta Mills wouldn't smile at those headlines. Joe 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Everybody happy now? The next one (if it is approved) is related to Antarctica... --Candlewicke ST # :) 03:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FA + GA +FL

The total number of FAs, GAs, and FLs recently passed 10,000! See WP:GA. Should this accomplishment be listed on the main page? If not, the number of WP:FAs is getting close to 2,500, which is a good milestone to celebrate! Reywas92Talk 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Where and how? Meta-accomplishments are not usually mentioned on the main page, but it may be worth getting it in The Signpost. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
They have been many times in the past: at 2,500,000 articles, at 2,000 FAs, at 10 million articles project-wide, and more, but it hasn't been used recently. These notices can be made for the main page at Template:Main Page banner. Reywas92Talk 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think the FA cabal would approve of this? –Howard the Duck 00:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Display problems on mobile Main Page

There are a few obvious display problems on the mobile version of the Main Page. I just fixed one of them in the "Other areas" section, but I'm not sure what's going on with the bar in between the left and right columns. Any ideas? --- RockMFR 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

An obvious bias complaint

There is a mention of early 20th-century battleships in ITN, DYK, and the featured article is about an early 20th-century battleship! The wikipedia community exhibits a clear pro-early-20th-century-battleship bias which gives a visitor to the main page the idea that early 20th-century battleships had a disproportionate influence on human knowledge. Please try to think of other things more important to humanity to put on a pedestal on the main page. Antimatter--talk-- 01:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CSB, and start typing up articles that interest you. --74.13.131.236 (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
For example, why not get one or more of the Animal Crossing articles to featured status? These are clearly more important to humanity (after all, a pro-early-20th-century-battleship bias is obviously an anti-late-20th-century-Nintendo-video-game bias in disguise). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead. When should we expect the Animal Crossing articles to appear in Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8 or Special:Contributions/DMeyering? --74.13.125.46 (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There are reasons for this. A) WP:TFA, WP:DYK and WP:ITN are all separate entities. B) The 22nd was the anniversary of the return of the Great White Fleet, of which Connecticut was the flagship. C) Minas Gerais was nominated at DYK eight days ago; blame coincidence. Same with Haruna. D) A wreck of a somewhat important ship was found; blame the discoverers, not ITN. :) Last reason: E) above all, blame pure coincidence. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictured Item Indicator for ITN, OTD, DYK

as per Talk:Main_Page/Archive_132#More_ITN_picture_silliness

are we implementing an indicator ? if so which one ? i think (P) or something similar

Machete97 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK would not need it because the top item is always pictured. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
no one from the previous discussion ? come on we basically had consensus Machete97 (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The consensus? That would be maintaining status quo with "(pictured)". Bolding would be too distracting. --74.13.130.165 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN HELP SOUGHT ASAP

Assistance requested at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. A President just has been assassinated and there is an ongoing coup d'etat... --Candlewicke ST # :) 10:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

More pictures

Put more pictures on the first page please. -Jeremy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.144.167 (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How many would you like to see? --Candlewicke ST # :) 11:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
15 isn't enough? §hepTalk 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We're thinking of a tabloid version. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you like a Page Three as well? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please, thank you. Give me something to compensate for my ADHD. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Simple English on the Top?

Why, on main page's language list, the Simple English Wikipedia is on the top? --FixmanPraise me 00:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

See Template talk:MainPageInterwikis#Why is Simple English first? - BanyanTree 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
My guess would be, "for simplicity."173.49.91.134 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel ashamed I found that so funny. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"more" link for FA links to DAB page not article

{{editprotected}}

Per headline; "more..." at the bottom of the FA should link to Hurricane Linda (1997) not Hurricane Linda.

substitute:

'''[[Hurricane Linda (1997)|Hurricane Linda]]''' was the strongest [[Pacific hurricane]] on record. Forming from a [[tropical wave]] on September 9, 1997, Linda steadily intensified and reached hurricane status within 36 hours of developing. Subsequently, it [[rapid deepening|rapidly intensified]], reaching winds of 185 [[miles per hour|mph]] (295 [[kilometres per hour|km/h]]) and an estimated central pressure of 902 [[bar (unit)|millibars]] (26.65 [[Inch of mercury|inches of mercury]]). The hurricane was briefly forecast to move toward southern California, but instead, it turned out to sea and dissipated on September 17. It was the fifteenth [[tropical cyclone]], thirteenth named storm, seventh hurricane, and fifth [[tropical cyclone scales|major hurricane]] of the [[1997 Pacific hurricane season]]. While near peak intensity, Hurricane Linda passed near [[Socorro Island]], where it damaged meteorological instruments. The hurricane produced high waves along the southwestern Mexican coastline, forcing the closure of five ports. When Linda was predicted to make [[landfall (meteorology)|landfall]] on California, it would have been the first to do so since a [[1939 California tropical storm|storm in 1939]]. Although it did not hit the state, the hurricane produced light to moderate rainfall across the region, causing mudslides and flooding in the [[San Gorgonio Wilderness]]; two houses were destroyed and 77 others were damaged, and damage totaled $3.2 million (1997 [[United States Dollar|USD]], $4.3 million 2008 USD). Despite the intensity, the name was not [[list of retired Pacific hurricane names|retired]]. ('''[[Hurricane Linda|more...]]''')

with

'''[[Hurricane Linda (1997)|Hurricane Linda]]''' was the strongest [[Pacific hurricane]] on record. Forming from a [[tropical wave]] on September 9, 1997, Linda steadily intensified and reached hurricane status within 36 hours of developing. Subsequently, it [[rapid deepening|rapidly intensified]], reaching winds of 185 [[miles per hour|mph]] (295 [[kilometres per hour|km/h]]) and an estimated central pressure of 902 [[bar (unit)|millibars]] (26.65 [[Inch of mercury|inches of mercury]]). The hurricane was briefly forecast to move toward southern California, but instead, it turned out to sea and dissipated on September 17. It was the fifteenth [[tropical cyclone]], thirteenth named storm, seventh hurricane, and fifth [[tropical cyclone scales|major hurricane]] of the [[1997 Pacific hurricane season]]. While near peak intensity, Hurricane Linda passed near [[Socorro Island]], where it damaged meteorological instruments. The hurricane produced high waves along the southwestern Mexican coastline, forcing the closure of five ports. When Linda was predicted to make [[landfall (meteorology)|landfall]] on California, it would have been the first to do so since a [[1939 California tropical storm|storm in 1939]]. Although it did not hit the state, the hurricane produced light to moderate rainfall across the region, causing mudslides and flooding in the [[San Gorgonio Wilderness]]; two houses were destroyed and 77 others were damaged, and damage totaled $3.2 million (1997 [[United States Dollar|USD]], $4.3 million 2008 USD). Despite the intensity, the name was not [[list of retired Pacific hurricane names|retired]]. ('''[[Hurricane Linda (1997)|more...]]''')

--Rogerb67 (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Well spotted. Martinmsgj 13:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Next time, pls use WP:ERRORS. Thx. --74.13.128.21 (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deposit Pricing

Suppose a bank expects to raise ￥250 million in new deposits by offering it depositors an interest rate of 7% (including demand deposits from firms total 75%, and demand deposits from individuals total 25%, and the following estimates have the same proportions). Management estimates that if the bank offers a 7.5% interest rate, it can raise ￥500 million in new deposit money. At 8%, ￥750 million is expected to flow in, while a posted deposit rate of 8.5 percent will bring in a projected ￥1 billion. Finally, if the bank promises an estimated 9%, management projects that ￥1.25 billion in new funds will appear. Meanwhile, assume that new deposit money will bring a yield of 10%. Suppose that interest and non-interest costs spent to attract the demand deposits from firms total 5% of the amount of these deposits, while demand deposits from individuals cost the bank 10% of funds raised in interest and non-interest expenses. Suppose reserve requirements and uncollected balances reduce the amount of money actually available to the bank for investing in interest-bearing assets by 30% for demand deposits from firms, 20% for demand deposit from individuals. Given these facts, what deposit interest rate should the bank offer its customers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.166.50.40 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you'd like us to do your homework for you, please visit our reference desks, where you can ask your question in a more appropriate forum. Although they'll tell you that they don't do homework for you, they may be kind and point you to resources that will help you work out the answer for yourself. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing

I had no idea, until I looked at In the News Feb. 25, that Emporer Hadrian wore glasses! Sca (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the mistake be to think it is Antoninus Pius not Emperor Hadrian? Anyway: Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? 128.227.195.114 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Either way, it's pretty stupid. Anyone with an IQ less than that required to look down to see (pictured) shouldn't be on Wikipedia. It's damn obvious that the woman pictured isn't either of the above. 79.71.95.209 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised the above comment is not from a registered user? Sca (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Because you are biased against anons? I hope not. But I must say I suspect some users would log off before posting comments less polite than what they usually post. Maybe I am biased too. --74.13.130.165 (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In my view, anonymity reflects irresponsibility, or perhaps shame. Newspapers do not print anonymous letters. If you have a view, fine, say so, but have the courage to take responsibility for it — and for the manner in which you express it.
In this case, although my comment was sardonic, the issue is a serious one, and one that has been raised by various Wikipedians over the past few years. By posting a humorous comment, I sought to reiterate in a light-hearted way that faulty juxtapositioning of a photo and text looks silly. I've made this point in straightforward terms before, and in a humorous comment before.
All my comments on Wikipedia are signed with my user name, and my email address is available on my user page. I stand by what I write.
Sca (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I stand by what I write as well, but who I am in the real world is not really of any importance. --74.13.130.165 (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, Sca, but having an account doesn't necessarily mean the person is somehow more responsible, does it? You can create a bogus account anytime. On the other hand, those who do not have accounts expose their IP addresses (well, usually). --BorgQueen (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily -- anyone can be irresponsible. But at least if you have a user page there's a place for others to dialogue with you, and to know a little about your background. I enjoy reading about the lives of other Wikipedians -- it's interesting.
Sca (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You believe everything you read in the internet? --74.13.128.166 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised the above comment is not from a registered user? Sca (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised the above comment comes from a registered user? Seriously, leave anonymous users alone. People can tell us as much or as little as they like. I'll tell you all you want to know about myself, but it's your choice as to whether you believe it. At least the anonymous users aren't lying. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the diff? Would Sca answer the question "You believe everything you read in the internet?" if I create an account just to pose this question? I doubt it. --74.13.128.21 (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My point is, it was a snide comment. I see there's a discussion of civility on your talk page. I am objecting to lack of civility.Sca (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First video on Main Page?

I wonder - is the video of the Gold-whiskered Barbet (today in DYK) the first one we've ever featured on the Main Page (outside the featured media section)?--Eloquence* 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that it's not. I'm sure the DYK regulars know, though, and I think you'd have better luck at WT:DYK. 68.76.159.202 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
We had a video of a bird a few days ago. And, as you said, we've had videos in the TFP section. I'll see if I can find a link... J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I see we are talking about the same video. I'm not personally aware of any others, but there may well have been. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't found other videos by prefix-searching .ogg in Wikipedia:Recent additions, [3] (just three songs). Though searches through page history, for other MP sections or other file types may give more results. Cenarium (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
.ogg is the only video/sound filetype that can be uploaded, unless you count .gifs. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There was a video of a flight of warplanes some months ago. And I think we've had the video of the Spruce Goose as well. Modest Genius talk 19:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(←) Nope. We also have .ogv §hepTalk 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

.ogg and .ogv are the same format just different extentsions. Oh and for previous videos see Template:POTD protected/2008-03-07.Geni 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
So we had at least 12 videos as POTD. Cenarium (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The picture of the day is stunning, but the article itself has in no way been developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That is true. The picture of the day was chosen because it was stunning. The article(s) in which the PotD appears do not influence that choice. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Omar al-Bashir

Props to whoever chose and thumbnailed the photo of Omar al-Bashir in the ITN section. The tiny thumbnail makes him look like he has glowing devil eyes. This made my day! 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

...Er, thanks? SpencerT♦C 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are we giving credence to North Korean "democracy"?

I am a bit disturbed by having that item about North Korea's so-called elections on the Main Page in ITN. It is well and good that that section should have news about elections in various countries in the world besides the major English-speaking nations and Russia, France, Germany etc.; however in most of those cases there was some real difference of opinion being contested, even if there were questions about vote-rigging and political intimidation like in Zimbabwe. Those are newsworthy regardless of outcome.

However, when the entire population of a totalitarian state with one-party rule is dragooned to the polls to give a veneer of popular legitimacy to 687 uncontested names, who then join a body whose role is to rubber stamp decisions taken a long time ago, Wikipedia should not dignify it with the term "election". It was newsworthy for being postponed; nothing more. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I also notice that most major news outlets explicitly call it a rubber stamp parliament to avoid exactly what Daniel is concerned about. Raul654 (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The place for discussion about ITN is WP:ITN/C. The rationale of inclusion was that we generally include every top-level election regardless of the country or political system. --Tone 10:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I would however note the very article you link to doesn't call it a rubber stamp parliament in the headline and although a number do, a number don't, e.g. [4] [5] [6]. While a news headline is a bad analogy to an ITN entry, it does illustrate it's not necessary to go in to excessive detail. Problems with the article are of course best addressed in the article talk page. Also reading a number of articles, it appears to me the election and the people elected is generally consideredd significant, even if the parliament itself simply rubber stamps decisions. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic themes

Has anyone thought of having at the bottom of the link to the featured article a link to the category saying something like "Other topics in this field include XYZ" etc. Just a thought. Maybe we could try it. --84.45.219.185 (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words, a see-also on the main page? Yuck. See-also's are supposed to be avoided in articles (if something is important enough to link, it should be linked from the body of the article). Why would we put one on the main page? Raul654 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. More like a topic tree. --84.45.219.185 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a distinction without a difference. Raul654 (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

On this day...

The part on "on this day" about a battle between the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian Empire there is a wikilink to Carthage, which is the city. you want to link to the Carthaginian Empire for the country.--SelfQ (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, fixing now. In future, you may want to make reports like this to WP:ERRORS. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ITN picture

Can someone delete the white background for file:Kepler Space Telescope.jpg ? --DFS454 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it now, if someone wants to add it then go right ahead. — neuro(talk) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. — neuro(talk) 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, sorted, ugly jpeg replaced. — neuro(talk) 20:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers --DFS454 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

TFP

I know it's only going to be up for another hour, but can I say - mainly for future reference - that the layout of today's TFP section is horrible. The big bold link at the top gives undue precedence to itself, and the blue link in the corner of the picture is distracting (and not overly visually attractive). I would rathe ruse the {{Panorama}} template, thumbnail the image to a small size, or simply show the detail with an attractive link to the main panorama. Just my 2p. Dendodge TalkContribs 22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tend to concur, needs to be better done next time. — neuro(talk) 23:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you didn't like the layout, but that layout's not going away as it's the standard course of action for animated GIFs (their size being problematic for users with slow connections). This POTD was an unusual situation; it was too wide to do as a standard panorama. I suppose {{panorama simple}} would have worked, but I didn't know we had that. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Shoot, shot, shooting, etc.

Why are the top four stories about shootings, see [7]? Is this just a reflection of the times, that we highlight violence that exists, or are we downplaying financial, entertainment, and political news?

It has something to do with ITN policies, that require an updated article. For economic stories, it is hard to pinpoint the event since it is all in progress. Personally, I would prefer much more science stories but can't help with that... --Tone 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it is just the timing of the events. I'm surprised the other shooting in the news today isn't also up: "Gunman kills 9 in Alabam rampage" on Yahoo UK. Dark verdant (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It is... as a secondary mention in the Irish German shooting hook. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ahh didn't notice that, thanks! Dark verdant (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Shootings

Why are Winnenden school shooting and 2009 Alabama spree killing listed under the same bullet in the news section of the Main Page? There doesn't appear to be any relation between the two incidents. --64.180.12.97 (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Matty (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
If it was, it wasn't funny. --74.13.127.174 (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it 79.79.41.142 (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a fair point. If, say, we have two elections on the same day they're put into separate news items, despite being the same "class" of news. It almost seems like combining the shootings into one just due to, erm, thematic similarities implies that they're not "important enough" for their own bullet points (...no pun intended, seriously) -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunblane Massacre

Why is there no direct link to the Dunblane Massacre wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is, the link is in the word killed (also bold for this purpose). --Tone 13:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
That is a bit obscure! Surely, it would have been far more logical, and consistent with the other On this day events chosen to be listed, to start with "The Dunblane Massacre:" and then link that to the relevant wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
For a visitor reading the entire "On This Day" section, the bold links are visual indicators of where the main article resides. For someone scanning the page specifically to find information about the Dunblane Massacre, they might miss it, but they will probably go ahead and do a search for the topic anyway... leading them to the article.
Prefacing each entry in OTD with the topic name (as you suggest) could be impractical for a few reasons (requires additional space on the page, could spark controversy when a particular event is known by multiple names, etc). I'm not saying the system is perfect; if you have a good case for an alternate format, bring it to someone's attention. I'm no expert, but I'd probably start at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Video on Main Page

DUCK AND COVER - of people can't access this movie, without downloading something first. I thought it was just me, but from talking to my colleagues it's clear that none of us can run these movies on Wikipedia - although we use Wikipedia every day. Most of us access Wikipedia from work, where we are barred from downloading new applications onto our PCs. You are only annoying us by including video pieces that we can't run.Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC) comments moved from Errors page --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dweller - to avoid timewasting dispute, I will accept your edit in moving my comment down here. However, with respect, I was drawing attention to a fundamental error in the mode of production of the picture, not commenting on its content. In effect, you have applied subjective judgment to what I said by denying that it is an error.Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues you raise are worthy of more general discussion, not just pertaining to that particular video. So this is the more appropriate venue. Furthermore, it's not a correctable "error", making placing it there less relevant as well. I accept I made a judgement call, but I stand by it. Meanwhile, let's see what people think of the issues you raise. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Michael of Lucan, Wikipedia never makes the guarantee that all people will be able to access all of its knowledge and resources from all Internet-capable devices. For example, for containing information about China that may be seen as detrimental to that nation's reputation, most users in China cannot access certain portions of the encyclopedia.
Wikipedia does make the guarantee that its knowledge and resources will, where possible, remain free to use for any purpose by anyone who can access it. The non-proprietary file format being used for our videos helps to preserve that guarantee. A universally-accessible encyclopedia is a fine ideal, but Wikipedia has placed its priorities on near-universal utility.
Now for a useful answer... try YouTube, it has the video in its entirety (and it can easily be resized to full-screen, which is nice). Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand your points, but let me give you an analogy. Suppose I create an article in the English language part of Wikipedia, but I write a large chunk of it in Russian, without translation. Suppose that I refer to the Russian part frequently, and the information in it is key to understanding the article. In theory, that information is freely available to any English language speaker who wants it - by getting a translation. In reality, the article becomes frustrating and loses value for most readers. It would be promptly edited to remove the Russian text, and make its information available in some other way.
That is parallel with the video format used by Wikipedia. It would be better not to use these items on the Main page, and no article should assume the video is seen by the reader. I believe it's not seen by most readers.Michael of Lucan (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If I could download a Firefox plugin that would allow me to read Russian flawlessly, then your analogy would work. (That would be a pretty cool plug-in.) However, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the current solution is ideal.
Since embedded off-site links are obviously unacceptable, perhaps you could find us, or help the developers to create, a free way of embedding OGM files that is more universal?
Then you would have a proposal for change that could be acted on instead of just a complaint. APL (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
The comparison doesn't hold up. You are unable to unable to view the video format due to the technical restrictions of the machine you are using... not because you lack the education or cultural background to understand it.
Any format chosen would present software compatibility issues. QuickTime? Can't view it without software support. Windows Media? Can't view it without software support. FLV? Your browser must support Flash video. (Insert file format here)? You still need software support.
To quote from WP:Creation and usage of media files, "Wikipedia uses Ogg Theora for video because it is open and royalty-free." Most of the formats supported by your machine probably do not offer these advantages. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 15:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Get your IT department to install a codec on your machines that supports playing OGGs. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Firefox 3.1 will have Ogg Theora support built in. (Signpost article) At that point, the other browsers will have to decide whether they need to jump on board or if they can continue to marginalize Ogg Theora in favor of their proprietary formats. Wikipedia has never allowed those proprietary formats, so the ball has been in Internet Explorer et al's court for years. - BanyanTree 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
For my part, I enjoyed seeing Duck and Cover, I remember those drills in grade school, at 1 p.m. on the first Wednesday of every month, when the air-raied sirens would wail.
Years later I heard a different version of the instructions: "...go to the basement, kneel against an outside wall, place your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye." Sca (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Michael of Lucan's point isn't that everybody should be able to see the video, but rather that it shouldn't be showcased on the main page because many can not see it. I think the solution is to get your own computer that you can configure how you choose. People with slow connections sometimes set their browser to not show images, but they wouldn't complain to everybody to stop refering to images in the articles.
173.49.91.134 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you can argue IE is marginalising Ogg Theora in favour of proprietary formats. IE doesn't support any video format by default. Also there is no video format that is a required part of the web standards. P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not supporting Michael Lucas or arguing we should use proprietary formats, just pointing out there's not specific reason why you can argue IE, or for that matter Safari, Chrome etc are at fault for not supporting something which isn't a part of any web standard anyway and was only 1.0 in November 2008 and let's face is barely used by anyone. Now if Theora was part of HTML 5 you might have a point but it's not. P.P.S. This may change if Silverlight is made a default part of IE8 Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
In jumping on the technical bandwagon, many of the purist commentators above have missed the point being made: the videos can't been seen by most people because most people do not have the software to view them. Moreover, most people would not know how to get the software, let alone install it confidently; most people will balk at the Wikipedia instructions about what to do to get the software. Note that the above includes almost all schools and libraries in the UK (and probably other countries as well) which, like it or not, remain glued to Windows and its accompanying software because they are told to, and it works. The remaining minority - technicians like me - either are not allowed to install the software (like me) or have done so and are happy. To summarise: including videos on the main page is, for most people, a waste of screen space. Bazza (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Privyet, Russian speakers. I dropped out of this discussion because I felt it had become a discussion between people reinforcing each other's prejudices. To follow my earlier analogy, a group of Russian speakers were reassuring each other that the Russian text was perfectly clear to anyone who took time to learn Russian or just get a translation. Nekulturny, I'm afraid.

Bazza and an earlier anonymous writer understand the real issue. The issue is NOT about whether there is a technical solution to see the videos. The issue is NOT how to teach people to get that technical solution. The issue is certainly NOT about blaming users who fail to get that solution.

The issue IS reality. The reality is that the majority of Wikipedia users do not have that technical solution available to them. The Duck and Cover piece on the Main Page was irritating to them, since it made no sense without seeing the video. They did not see the Picture of the Day. They did not even see a picture - only a meaningless gray blur.

There is little point in continuing a discussion about how and why they can't see the video. If the vast majority of people can't see a video, it is pointless to refer to it on the Main Page of Wikipedia. As Bazza says, including videos on the main page is, for most people, a waste of screen space.Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority can't see it? Really? Do you have evidence to support this assertion? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that they can? I've made the (reasonable, in my view) assertion that most people in the world use Windows PCs to view web sites; and that means that, unless they are able to install the required software, they are not able to view .ogg media. If you have evidence to contradict this, then enlighten me please. Bazza (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Bazza. Many users are forbidden to download onto their PCs. Even if not blocked, why would they download what is (for them) an obscure application of marginal value on a single site that they use? Many can barely use the package pre-loaded on their Windows PC, let alone taking the strain of downloading something new. These are the real users of Wikipedia, not the trained minority in its talk pages. As a test of my sanity, I spoke to twelve people about this in the past couple of days. Nine of them use Wikipedia, and zero can play videos on Wikipedia. STOP! Of course, such a small survey has little scientific value, so don't flame me or produce your survey from your Systems department. This is just a picture of life among real wiki-users. Michael of Lucan (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I am using a Windows PC to view this website, and although I have downloaded no special software to enable this, I am able to view the .ogg file with no problem. It may be that I am in the minority, or it may be that I am not. I have no real evidence either way. Do you? I sometimes visit websites where I am unable to view the content without downloading software support (or upgrading that support) for a font, Flash animation, or proprietary media format (QuickTime, RealAudio, etc.) I would assume that most veteran users of the Internet are accustomed to this aspect of the online world. Am I mistaken? I don't know, since I have no statistics on how many computers come pre-installed with support for non-native formats.
The tone of much of this discussion seems to be that downloading a plugin or codec from a trusted source is the end of the Internet as we know it. In fact, it is quite ordinary, and if a particular machine does not allow its users to do so, how is that a problem with the website? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You have identified the problem, now. Having to confirm that's it's OK to download a "plug-in" or "codec" is the end of the Internet as we know it. "Plugin"? "Codec"? "Trusted source"? Technobabble to most people. It is not quite ordinary: quite ordinary is clicking on something which says "view video" and being able to view a video. The nearest a lot of people have come to this sort of thing in the past is clicking "OK" in response to "You have a virus: do you want to remove it"? and finding their PC unusable and expensive to fix. You still have not got the point that if content is not available, then it is a website's problem: why publish if it can't be viewed? Bazza (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? My gosh... I have never had access to a new, Internet-capable computer that didn't require installing at least a dozen codecs and plugins in order to view the content on major websites. This page requires a particular non-Roman font, that page requires QuickTime, another page requires Flash, and those other pages require Java, RealPlayer, Adobe Reader, Excel Viewer, and a number of other things to function correctly. This has held true from Windows 95 all the way up through Win2000, WinME, WinXP, and Vista, using Internet Explorer versions 4 through 7. Firefox likewise tends to require downloads from time to time in order to stay up-to-date. I'm not sure that you're really talking about the majority of users, here. Anyway, one could argue (and I will, if requested to do so) that surfing the Internet without understanding minimal "technobabble," as you term it, might lead to a number of problems... including ever-increasing familiarity with those virus warnings you mention. Again, not Wikipedia's fault if you attempt to use a tool without understanding it first. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


To more directly answer your last sentence, by the way, the Duck and Cover video is accessible and viewable under the same conditions as any other video in any format on any website: the conditions that software support has been added by you, your system administrator, a previous owner, or the factory worker who installed your operating system and other software. To apply the rule that "a large percentage of computers lack the software to view this file, so it shouldn't be on a particular website" would result, eventually, in the removal of all videos (and most other file types) from all websites. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Outdent & Rant-- Feel free to use an Operating System that includes players that can handle freely available video formats, or download a video player that supports more encoder-decoders (codecs) than just the ones developed and patented by the parent company. I can't see how wikipedia can use patented technology and still remain the free encyclopaedia. Its what's available, whats free and is available in many browsers. If you use a system that is fundamentally broken and doesn't control what goes into it, don't be surprised if it doesn't work with other group's systems. If you get lucky and the push for it to be in HTML 5, and by chance your chosen vendor actually decide to support standards (which by past example is not that great a chance), then your problems may disappear anyway. The only valid comment is the availability of sufficient, or consumption of excess , bandwidth. 129.78.64.102 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be an extreme solution, but a solution nonetheless. I'm thinking that if downloading a simple plugin is a problem (although it shouldn't be seen as unreasonable), switching to a whole new operating system is most likely not a realistic option. 129, I took the liberty of altering one of your wikilinks... I suspect you wanted the visible word "available" to link to "Firefox," rather than the vice-versa. Unless I'm being unusually dense this morning, it's far more readable after my minor edit. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually quite a number of codecs include by default in Windows were not originally developed nor are primarily patented by Microsoft. And this seems to be extending (Windows 7 for example will include H264 support in the Ultimate edition). Also Firefox does not support Ogg Theora or Vorbis by default. Firefox 3.1 will but that hasn't even been released. And actually, the only other browser which has current plans to include Ogg Theora and Vorbis support is Opera. Google stance is unclear but Apple (along with Nokia) was one of the key companies opposed to the inclusion of Ogg in HTML5 so it seems unlikely Ogg will be supported in Safari any time soon. So your comment that Ogg is available in many browsers is highly misleading. Also it's questionable IMHO if DLL hell is still much of a problem in modern versions of Windows (16 bit programs are not even supported in x64 versions) and while I'm not an expert while NTFS's ACL system may be different from traditonal Unix file permissions I think it's highly questionable if you can say Windows is fundamentally broken because it uses ACL (which most OSes nowadays are using to some extent anyway) instead of Unix file permissions. Also I think it's questionable if you can say Vista doesn't have control over what goes in to it. So in conclusion, while I'm fully supporting the use of (believed to be) patent free codecs in wikipedia, most of your rant was extremely misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
168, Thanks. Nil: The rant is not misleading, it is quite correct, but is certainly a rant. Read Dll hell sections entitled "static linking" and "Incompatible versions"; this is and will always be a problem when you have third parties contributing binaries -- there isn't much you can do about it if the ABI changes, without recompiling and re-linking; not readily possible without source. I don't think microsoft has control over symantec cisco, ea games, nokia, apple or other third party vendors application contribution. Secondly Firefox does support ogg in 3.1 as you say, and is available. Thirdly, H264 is patented as are many of these. Finally we will have to wait to see what is in HTML5, and what vendors do ;). Anyway, I am not going to post again, as we really aren't going to achieve much; I leave you the last word. User A1 (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It should say Nicolas Sarkozy in the text, not Nicholas Sarkozy. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, it would seem. — neuro(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has a much better top image now (File:Lazare.JPG), with him and his medals. Would look much better on the main page. I would do it but I am not clear on the temporary uploading and protecting of the local copy of the image, it's normally done by a bot, presume I just manually do it, tag it with {{C-uploaded}} and protect it? Mfield (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I went through it and am confident I got the process right so i was bold and went ahead did it. Mfield (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What just happened to the picture? It had been this: (File:Lazare.JPG), now it's this: (File:LazarePonticelli.jpg). The new one looks terrible, it's low res, and it doesn't have the medals. Worse, it looks like the old one has been deleted even. What's the justification? Licensedlunacy (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC) GAH! the actual page we're linking to used the (File:Lazare.JPG), and so it's broken too. It doesn't look good in the slightest to have the featured article start with a big broken link to a picture.Licensedlunacy (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted for copyright reasons. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The reasoning is here - apparently it's a copyvio from here. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Shame- I thought it looked a little "too good to be true", but assumed it had been thoroughly checked before being put on the main page. Not the kind of article it's easy to illustrate. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If someone here is looking to do their wiki good-deed for the day, track down Fréderic Coune and get his permission to use the pic. Raul654 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like he's a professional photographer. Raul654 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The uploader claims to be the photographer. I have my doubts but I would suggest people wait before trying to get permission. Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I did run a tineye check on it before I switched it in which came back empty. But I should also have looked at and been suspicious of the uploader's lack of contributions. Mfield (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured pic- no way to treat the artist

"The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp" is (first and foremost) a painting by Rembrandt, please!

The artist is mentioned but only in small sized letters like an after-thought.

This is an inappropriate way to cite the author of the work which you at Wiki regard as one of the finest images on Wikipedia. The right way to describe this image is to state its name, then its author, then its date (if known), before any detailed discussion of its subject.

Amandajm (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Check it. They're all like that, nothing different about today. –  LATICS  talk  08:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well it's changed now anyway [8] Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Lactics, the difference is that that image is significant because of the author, rather than because of the subject. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory misalignment complaint

Bernard Madoff was taken away by aliens in a space ship after pleading guilty? Sorry I just had to... Normally the misalignment complaints are so boring but this one was actually funny (at least to me). And incidentally in case it isn't obvious I'm not actually complaining since if anything it's a good thing :-) Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He was sentenced to search for extrasolar planets, apparently... --Tone 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The scam involves a spacecraft? Now I understand why all NASA projects have such big budgets.... They are scams?!?! --74.14.16.147 (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
...What? Macarion (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we suggesting that swallows migrate? Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture's a sparrow, not a swallow --JustWong 17:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustWong (talk • contribs)

Two Column format

I have a widescreen monitor. It is difficult to read text when the sentences are spread so wide. Is it possible for Wikipedia to have a two-column (or multicolumn) text for better readability? 117.199.18.225 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On the main page or in general? Can you elaborate?  GARDEN  10:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As a rough workaround, don't maximise your browser Modest Genius talk 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that. And if it was split two columns, it be weird for people with smaller monitors, so there's not a good solution either way. –  LATICS  talk  22:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, you could register an account and have one of the resident CSS geniuses make you a stylesheet... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

March 15th Events

Of all the important events to occur on March15th, why is the assasination of Julius Caesar not listed? It seems rather odd that one of the few pivotal points that decided the fate of Western civilization isn't even mentioned in the "On this day..." section. Geosultan4 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, this has an interesting answer. The admin who tends selected anniversaries hid it, noting "Date is Roman Calandar". Roman calendar#Converting pre-Julian dates asserts, "For example, it is well known that Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March in 44 BC, and this is usually converted to 15 March 44 BC. While he was indeed assassinated on the 15th day of the Roman month Martius, the equivalent date on the modern Julian calendar is probably 14 March 44 BC." Getting some sort of consensus on how to characterize this at assasination of Julius Caesar, with references, should probably take place before asking SA to choose between the probable actual date of the 14th or the modern assumption of the 15th. - BanyanTree 02:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Then, can we have Ides of March at the top of OTD instead? --74.14.16.147 (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't that have the same issue that Roman calendar#Converting pre-Julian dates says? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No, 'coz ides is always the 15th. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, its the 15th on the Roman Calendar, not the Gregorian Calendar which the section revolves around. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
As long as the calendar has months, there is an ides every month (though no one cares about the other months), whatever calendar it is. Let's let people click and read why the assassination, etc. are not listed. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hadwiger conjecture

... that the Hadwiger conjecture (diagram pictured) implies that the surface of any three-dimensional convex body can be illuminated by only eight light sources, but the best proven bound is that 16 lights are sufficient?

... Huh? Now maybe I fail at english and/or maths, but does this make sense in some manner? I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but this seems to not work. WookMuff (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this meant for WP:ERRORS? Too late now. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks perfectly fine to me, such that I can't see what you're objecting to. Can you explain what the problem is? Algebraist 12:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Pls note that this item has already left the Main Page and gone to the DYK archive. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a perfectly understandable sentence. It means a certain type of surface can probably always be completely illuminated by 8 light sources, but that the lowest number that anyone has managed to find a mathematical proof for is 16 light sources. Modest Genius talk 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I imagine that confusion might follow from the lack of parallelism; the sentence seems to suggest that the latter clause is part of the conjecture (it is, instead, a standalone comparative observation), a deficiency that the insertion of "that" before "but the..." would have remedied. Joe 17:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A closer read suggests two other problems, one syntactic ("bound" is better followed by a quantity than by a phrase or clause) and one substantive ("sufficient" isn't quite the right word, conveying in one construction an understanding opposite that that is intended), that impair meaning and inhibit comprehension. But that's really much more than one should spend on an item that is no longer live. Joe 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The news box

There's something a little off with the In the news section; the text isn't going around the picture like it should.Simplebutpowerful 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be alright now. I had copied some markup from where the image was suggested that I shouldn't have. - BanyanTree 08:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In the future please report problems with the main page at WP:ERRORS (the top section of this page). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
And I thought it was just my computer... :) --Candlewicke ST # :) 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Beginner

i'm a beginner here..can someboady help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthuriztas (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please ask your questions at Wikipedia:Help desk. howcheng {chat} 06:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do how you find go to Hindu Language using your wiki sites?

Name is my Guage Huadin. Need to enter wiki section Hindu. Weather isnt cant be not accessed wiki using America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.73.225 (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

http://hi.wikipedia.org/. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

hello

can you tell me how to use wikipedia onlne dictornairy if you can tell me e-mail me at (e-mail removed) thank you because i do not now how to use the dictornairy.thank you vary much................. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.99.96 (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Wiktionary --DFS454 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar in the First Line.

"Chelsea Football Club are a professional English football club" is completely WRONG.

Chelsea Football Club are a professional English football club = it is a singular club.

Should be: "Chelsea Football Club is a professional English football club..."

207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, read the article itself...I'm correct. Would somebody please fix this GLARING mistake? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
See American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. "Chelsea Football Club are" is correct in British English. As it is a British organization, the article takes British English as a rule. Note that prior to going on the Main Page, the article had "are" as well, but it was changed, most probably by an American unaware that it was valid grammar. No bets on how soon it will take a Brit, infuriated at American presumption, to change it back.
Also, ALL-CAPS has never made any statement more credible. - BanyanTree 06:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least somebody didn't type 'football(soccer)', so we must be grateful for small mercies :-)
BTW, I'm a Brit and the verb really should be 'is', despite the big-time BS you might read elsewhere on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Tell the Chelsea Football Club then? [9] "Chelsea Football Club are delighted to confirm..." Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Doing so would be futile because it would merely result in the blank and uncomprehending gaze of the grammatically challenged ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to stem from a misreading of the grammar rules. The collective noun takes 'is' when it is discussed as a single entity: Chelsea Football Club is an English football club... However, it takes 'are' when the members of the collective noun are acting as one body: Chelsea Football Club are delighted to confirm... For the record, I'm British, using British English. Modest Genius talk 16:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What you say does not concur with the formal grammar lessons I received at an English grammar school. This is what I was told: as far as number is concerned, there is singular and there is plural. Singular nouns, such as 'club' and 'government' must elicit a singular verb. The explanation that I was given regarding the use of, eg, 'are' with 'club', 'government', etc was that some people are confused as to what is actually singular or plural; that is, because a club is made up of more than one person, it is regarded by many as a plural noun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If you were taught that as correct British English, then you were taught wrongly. The situation is as our article (citing the Cambridge Guide to English Usage) states. Algebraist
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage didn't exist when I took grammar lessons LOL. And I wasn't taught wrongly. What I was taught makes perfect sense because it doesn't result in the use of plural verbs with singular nouns. The fact is that the use of plural verbs with collective nouns is a colloquialism that is commonplace within the sporting fraternity in the UK. Common usage does not necessarily validate what would otherwise be considered as a grammatical error. In other strata of UK society this usage is much, much less prevalent, so you will see 'the government is..', 'the BBC is not responsible...', etc, etc. An explanation that is closest to a validation of collective noun + plural verb is that when members of a unit are acting as individuals then it is permissible to use a plural verb, eg 'the class are doing their homework'. (I actually disagree with this because a different and more thoughtful form of subject would remove disagreement between noun and verb, eg 'the class students are doing their homework'.) However, 'Chelsea Football Club are pleased...' does not conform to that attempt at a validation because here we see the members acting as a single unit. So whichever way you look at it 'Chelsea Football Club are pleased...' is incorrect. Maybe we need the equivalent of the Académie française :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 March 2009 [10]
I guess I didn't realize that the home page of wikipedia was supposed to be written in The Queen's English. I thought the goal was to make it more accessible, not less so. Sorry. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Sarcasm is really helpful - BanyanTree 05:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Articles about British entities use British English. Articles about American entities use American English. It doesn't make Wikipedia less accessible-I'm sure the vast majority of people can comprehend a different grammatical standard. It sounds awkward to me as well, but my Murphy grammar textbook agrees. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue discussed by members of the Football WikiProject. Longstanding consensus is that this is acceptable, if not universal usage in British English. For the grammarians among us, pedantically careful usage is to refer to the club as singular and the team as plural, but it is not incorrect for both to be used as plural. It's just a quirk of a quirky language, in usage by quirky people like me. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have raised some important points, the first being that it has been an issue within, significantly, the football fraternity. Indeed, the use of singular nouns with plural verbs is almost totally confined to language relating to sporting issues in the UK. Elsewhere, as I have said earlier, it is much less prevalent. For this reason, once again I would suggest that this usage should be regarded as a colloquialism - something that is perfectly acceptable amongst those who agree to its usage. Compare this issue with the colloquial 'double-negative' such as 'I haven't got no/I don't have no...'. Once again, this is perfectly ok amongst those who commonly use such expressions. However, to extend this form of acceptability to the point of being regarded as good grammar is going too far, in my humble opinion. The bedrock of good grammar must be logic: can it ever be regarded as logical to use plural verbs with singular nouns? The answer must be a resounding 'no'. Maybe we need another class of nouns - the 'singural' - a noun that may be regarded as either singular or plural. Don't forget where you heard this first :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 March 2009 [11]
This is not the place to air your thoughts on correct English grammar. If you can find any reliable authorities that agree with you, post them to Talk:American and British English differences. Algebraist 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet another typically churlish response that is commonplace here. In case you didn't understand what was said, the issue is really about whether colloquial language should be used in articles in an encyclopaedia. That is an issue that can be discussed here because it follows on from the original comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC) [12]
That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the language in question is colloquial. It is not colloquial, as explained in our article, citing a reliable authority. If you disagree with this, find a reliable authority to back you up. Personal opinion on grammar is not appropriate on Wikipedia, and even less appropriate on Talk:Main Page. Algebraist 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it's not colloquial - the usage is common in all sorts of British RS, including ones with rigorous style guides, that abhor casual (non encyclopedic) colloquialisms. --Dweller (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
All you who want it changed should read WP:ENGVAR:
  • "The English Wikipedia has no preference for any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another."
  • "Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. "
  • "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation."
  • "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic."

End of discussion, I hope. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

wow

i was just thinking today: this encyclopedia is so huge and the articles are written so well and they are done by regular people who get not credit and no payment. The fact that so many people can work together to create such a great website amazes me.

Keep up the great work guys! 75.107.254.30 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to join us.  :) -download | sign! 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you know?

I have to say that DYK makes me laugh sometimes: " ... that the three drunken Wierix brothers of Antwerp influenced Ethiopian iconography?" I love it. Keep it up. 141.157.116.116 (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch out on April Fool's Day for some real laughs... ;) --Candlewicke ST # :) 13:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

chess

1e4 and 1d4 is confusing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see a better way to say it without notation.  GARDEN  09:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Could we put 1.e4 (pictured)? Would that help? 79.71.69.220 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Can't we assume that anyone who's read that far into the summary and actually cares about the topic will check the article to find out what it means? Algebraist 13:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably. We could always link 1.e4 to algebraic chess notation too. 98.234.137.254 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Good idea.  Done. howcheng {chat} 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sweet, my idea got used! Somewhat of a moot point now, but still cool :D 198.189.249.13 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That's because it was a great idea! Keep them coming!121.55.196.124 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Urgent!

Fedex plane crashed in Tokyo Airport and another just moments before in Montana, 17 dead so far! ResMar 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C is thataway. Make sure there's a decent article to link to first. Algebraist 23:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see one, yet. ResMar 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Then this can't go in ITN. Algebraist 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm on it. Thanks for the tip-off. ;) --candle•wicke 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Montana: 2009 Montana Pilatus PC-12 crash. --candle•wicke 01:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice job! ResMar 23:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ceres

On the featured article "Ceres" link goes to disamb page not to the Ceres (Roman Mythology) page which is where the link goes in the article itself. Admin fix it please as main page is of course protected. Carlwev (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Tone 10:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

(Ireland wins), not Ireland win —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.11.113 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We just went through this. "Ireland win" is correct in this case. See Talk:Main Page/Archive 133#Grammar in the First Line. howcheng {chat} 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Congrats to Ireland, btw, for having the only non-fatal ITN blurb at the moment. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

we won —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.127.131 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 168.9.120.8, for making me laugh out loud. Having a stressful day here IRL and that cheered me up. --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Funny part is that IP's in texas. 76.111.93.119 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
See Irish American. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#April_1st_guidelines_for_2009

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#April_1st_guidelines_for_2009. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

America?

There's more than one America! 67.160.183.192 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Which section of the main page are you referring to here?  GARDEN  20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hazarding a guess I'd say ITN... yes, for the first time this month, "America" has two ITNs at once... although the thought of two Americas does make me feel a bit queasy... --candle•wicke 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Try not to eat lunch before looking at an atlas. APL (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably this, from DYK:
... that the future of American newspapers is in doubt: as of 2005, an estimated 70 percent of older Americans read a newspaper daily, while fewer than 20 percent of younger Americans did? Dreaded Walrus t c 21:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, that makes a bit more sense. --candle•wicke 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've disambiguated it to the following:
... that the future of newspapers in the United States is in doubt: as of 2005, an estimated 70 percent of older Americans read a newspaper daily, while fewer than 20 percent of younger Americans did?  GARDEN  22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be in the news column on the Main Page eh?

[13] 142.35.236.67 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe indeed. Feel free to nominate the updated article on WP:ITN/C. --Tone 16:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I did, but I'm not sure if I put in in the right place.142.35.236.67 (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks +++ for your heading "On this day"

It learns us a lot ans unfortunately we don't get the same on WP:fr...Too much work , maybe... Truly yours Arapaima (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, you're welcome, I guess.  GARDEN  20:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I assume he is referring to the fact that here on EN.wikipedia, there is always 5-6 new events listed per day on OTD, unlike the version on FR.wikpedia where there is only one new event per day (if you are lucky). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what he did Arapaima (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If you're really happy with SA/OTD, please give Zzyzx11 the SA/OTD manager a barnstar! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
"Barnstar" ? Rather a "castle star", if I could bestow it on ( & knew what it is...). What makes me so admiring of his (their?) work , and of its persistence : I lately tried for some days ( 22,23,24,25, 26 of Marsh) to write in "Le Bistro du Port" ( "The Port Pub", = our "Village Pump" section dedicated to sea affairs) a rubric which I called "Ephemerides at sea (and on the shores)", but was soon put off, for 2 reasons . First : it takes such a long time each day to gather ( and check) the items. Secondly : it doesn't please everybody to be served with news about the first satelite of Saturne being discovered in 1655, or James I being crowned king of 3 realms and the Jacobean era beginning in 1603 , or Ist battle of Gaza in 1915, or IOO 000 people being forcibly removed from the Baltic shores (Priboi Operation in 1949) , since "it's cumbersome and has nothing to do with sea...". So typically french a reaction ...But as goes our saying : "when you are sitting at a table, better not to spit in the soup-tureen" .... So again thanks a lot, and please go on Arapaima (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope this site can provided more to help the learners to study language

I hope this site can provided more to help the learners to study language . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.137.163.107 (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean? Is this a separate topic? --candle•wicke 11:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure it is a separate topic, so I am putting in a new section header. Not sure if this topic belongs to this talkpage, though. --74.13.131.158 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to study English as a second language, the Simple English Wikipedia (simple.wikipedia.org) is a better website to use than the main English Wikipedia, at least when you are starting. -- 76.204.102.79 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Manitoba is Western Canada, not southern

Comments moved to errors, above. Random89 21:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Boat Race

Is this main page news worthy? Also why does the current events page say it is Monday the 29th? Jeff24 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How odd. I was intending to suggest that for a recurring item on ITN and then it actually happens... --candle•wicke 15:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Early AFD? Well done! --candle•wicke 15:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OTD: Selena

Not a problem, just a curiosity. The 14th anniversary of Selena's death doesn't seem to be a significant anniversary; I was wondering why it appears in OTD. I don't really have a problem with it... I just thought it was odd. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably there for variety's sake. WP has loads of pop culture stuffs. --76.64.77.116 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Mmm, I didn't mean that the anniversary of Selena's death is insignificant; I meant that the 14th anniversary specifically isn't really a special anniversary. I had thought that OTD events were supposed to be a little more... landmarkish. (In 2015, for example, we'll feature the 20th anniversary of Selena's death, and that will be a significant anniversary.) 168.9.120.8 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
How is that more significant? If anything, it's less significant, since fewer people will care --NE2 19:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Wait wait wait, I thought the rule was deaths/births are only noted on centennials. What's the deal here? howcheng {chat} 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
So did I... I guess it doesn't matter much now as there are literally hours left of today...  GARDEN  19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the amount of significance or importance is not the only factor in determining what is posted each day. We also have to consider whether the chosen bolded article is a relatively complete and well-formatted article (i.e. not a stub and does not contain cleanup problems like {{POV}} and {{unreferenced}} tags; whether there is a mixed variety of topics; and whether there is a mix of events spanning the centuries. As the cards played out, it just so happened that the Selena article got to be the one of the events posted, especially when it is a current Wikipedia featured article.

Lastly, the rule about "deaths only noted on centennials" is sort of relaxed when dealing with events like assassinations, executions, natural disasters, civil accidents, or some sort genocide/extinction/mass murder. Otherwise, for example, an article about a notable actress murdered by followers of a cult leader, or an article about three notable musicians dying in a fatal plane crash, might never get on there. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April 1

I would like to invite users to help with ITN design for tomorrow. Most material is gathered already, what needs to be done are some fixes of the articles and modifications of wordings so that we get the effect we want. Appreciated. Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/In The News. --Tone 14:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The rough design is here. Due to go live in a few hours. --candle•wicke 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April fools modification

{{editprotected}} In order for the Main Page to transition automatically on April 1st, I propose that the following change be made: 

{{#ifeq:{{CURRENTDAY}}|1|{{Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page}}|(regular contents of the main page)}}

The cascading protection will prevent vandalism. Just say if it won't work. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the components are already set to change automatically. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It's one day a year, we'll cope. Plus what Julian says.  GARDEN  19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant stuff guys! :D Spacehusky (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

People deserve to know how this is done more easily. --AaThinker (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's links to all of the sections above... §hepTalk 23:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April fools day

This day may be April 1 but this is a serious home page and the main page shroud retain its professionalism.--134.225.179.44 (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

While I would've originally agreed with you, everything's pretty accurate, just with slang and humour thrown in. Don't worry, only 23:57 left. –  LATICS  talk  00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The slang is incredibly misleading and highly off putting also the Henry Allingham calimis not sourced adequately.--134.225.179.44 (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It's supposed to be misleading, and somewhat entertaining. As for Henry Allingham, check this. –  LATICS  talk  00:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Main page format

Moved from Village pump (policy) talk.

What the hell is up with this new "trick question" format on the main page articles? It's not cute. It's not funny. Save the jokes for a Wikicomedy (copyright pending) page. This is supposed to be a forum for serious learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.199.121 (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify. To what on the "main page" are you referring? SMP0328. (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I presume it is april tomfoolery, which will disappear very soon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
What is this doing here? This page is for discussing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Talk:Main Page is for discussing Main Page. Algebraist 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
True. But User talk:214.13.199.121 is probably the place for your question. Easy mistake to make. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Poisson D'Avril

Nice job on the April Fools' Day frontpage, guys. :-) --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 00:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Splendid stuff!

Wonderful stuff. Today being my birthday (seriously) I logged into Wikipedia to see what gems would be created, and I must say you've done a grand job! So much so that I look forward to resuming my Wikipedia career. Same time next year! :-) User:Rusty2005

Just plain inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.59 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do lighten up :) User:Rusty2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.252.144 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant. Well done and thanks for taking the mickey. The world is often such a grim place that a little levity, at least once a year is delightful! Gillyweed (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

News Section

Public hanging in Ireland? Turkish Missiles launched at oil giant? Showers of diamonds? Could someone please check the news headlines... They seem suspiciously like an April Fool's day prank.

Thanks Falconusp t c 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:BorgQueen has been having some April Fools day fun with the wording on the WP:ITN template.. Matty (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh wait, this was all planned. Well, hell. Still well done :P, and none of it is false.. Matty (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it is funny now... It didn't occur to me that it was intentional on the part of Wiki; I was thinking some random person managed to change it. I agree the first one needed to be changed, but now it's good. --Falconusp t c 01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April fools

Im loving! Well done to wiki for the great idea! Happy New Assyrian Year too!!!Gabr-el 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff

Awesome work on the main page. Congrats. One of the best I've ever seen, especially the "joined together to become very serious" and "Turkish missiles" parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.93.203 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is so much more funny than last year.  Marlith (Talk)  02:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

bad

the main page is not funny this is horrible wikipedia should mot stoop this low!!!24.109.219.135 (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I get a 404 when trying to find that page on wikipedia. GLaDOS (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK

... that Sandomierz Voivodeship (1939), a proposed administrative unit of the Second Polish Republic, was projected to be 24.5 km² and to incorporate 20 or 21 powiats?

— And all along I thought it was 22. Sca (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Meant for WP:ERRORS? --74.13.126.63 (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think it is; he's saying that the hook taught him something. That's the wonderful fun of DYK. 79.71.44.8 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no — I was saying that no one in the English-speaking world would have any idea how many powiats the Sandomierz Voivodeship (proposed 70 years ago) would have had, and very few would have any idea what a powiat is or even a voivodeship. A few history buffs might have heard of Sandomierz.
Sca (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Or Sandomierzians themselves perhaps? --candle•wicke 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Today's entry on Henryk Rzewuski is, to my mind, in a similar class. None of Rzewuski's works is available in English on Amazon, and I suspect he is virtually unknown among English speakers. It seems to me that DYK entries ought to start off with some person, place or topic of which English speakers will have some idea, however vague, and add some truly surprising or interesting fact about that person, place or topic. Otherwise, the "Did you know" question seems silly.
I don't know if Polish Wikipedia has a DYK feature, but if it does, it wouldn't make sense to ask "Did you know" questions there in relation to something in the English-speaking world that Poles will have no knowledge or inkling of.
Of course, that's not to say that Rzewuski doesn't merit a thorough treatment in an eponymous article on English Wiki, if he is indeed a writer of repute in Poland.
Sca (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Learning things you don't know about is what encyclopedias are for. If you're looking for light entertainment, I suggest a change of venue. Zocky | picture popups 01:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed the whole point of the DYK section is to tell people interesting things that they probably don't know but are covered in a recent article in an attempt to attract them to read the article. There's clearly no point just featuring stuff people already widely know. Now you may argue that the hook wasn't very interesting but that's a quite different argument from the one that started this. Also by the nature of DYK, most things covered would be fairly obscure as these are the most likely to lack any article or to be stubs and therefore have a chance of being DYK. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If DYK is to be a random compendium of intellectual trivia, it shouldn't be called "Did You Know?" The did-you-know question presupposes and implies some basis for further inquiry. In the case of the first example cited above, asking the general English reader if he or she knows how many "powiats" the proposed Sandomierz "Voivodeship" would have had (had it been created 70 years ago) strikes me as absurd.

Of course encyclopedias are about expanding knowledge, but I don't think informing the reader that the Sandomierz Voivodeship would have had 20 or 21 powiats constitutes a contribution to the pool of knowledge, since the topic is from the English-speaker's point of view so obscure as to be meaningless. (I suspect it's largely meaningless from the Polish point of view as well, but at least Poles will know what a powiat is.)

I would much rather hear from our Polish friends about what was in Copernicus's library or how many horses Casimir the Great kept in his stables. In other words, give me something I can understand and on some level relate to.

I will now return to my light reading. Current selection: The Discoverers, by Daniel Boorstin.

Sca (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that hook appeals to me either, but I am sure there are plenty of English speakers who are either Polish or have an interest in Polish history, Polish geography or whatever. As I see it, did you know is not there to provide a fact, it is there to interest you, leading you to the article. For instance (perfectly timed for me...) the top hook is currently "that the hallucinogenic mushroom Psilocybe naematoliformis (pictured) was first discovered in a tropical rain forest in the Uxpanapa Region of Veracruz, in southeastern Mexico?" Very, very few people are going to know anything about that mushroom specifically. More have heard of Psilocybe. More may be interested in hallucinogenic mushrooms, or just mushrooms/fungi in general- any of these people may be drawn to the article, whether or not they had ever heard of the mushroom. I certainly would be, had I not already read it. DYK is not meant as a list of freestanding facts, but as a list of interesting tidbits that make you want to know more. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say. I don't think DYK is a list of facts, not at all. Indeed it's meant to interest the reader in some topic. My point was, the topic should not be so obscure as to be virtually meaningless. In your example, everyone knows what a mushroom is.
I wasn't taking an anti-Polish stance. Polish history and other aspects of the Polish nation and culture can be fascinating — but contributors should find truly interesting and comprehensible topics to write about. I perhaps gave the wrong impression when I cited only a couple of famous Poles as appropriate examples. I'm ready to be interested and intrigued by any topic, so long as it means something to me (or to a significant proprotion of readers).
As an aside: Many of the more technical scientific entries go right past me, a beknighted liberal arts major, but I imagine there are plenty of readers who find them interesting.
Sca (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's a day early?

"Did you know . . . that the cap of the thimble fungus, Verpa conica (pictured), resembles a thimble?" Genius! --AdamSommerton (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of funny fungus around. I've just written coprophilous fungi ("dung-loving" fungi) and we actually have a featured picture of a member of the Phallus genus... We really are fun-guys over at WP:FUNGI... J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
See, is it just me who doesn't see a thimble, but something else... ;)  GARDEN  20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I repeat, you wanna take a look at some of our examples of Phallus... A featured picture, and a not so featured picture... J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This should have been kept on DYK for today. Sigh. Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish Guy Hanged?

You might want to reword the passage on the Taoiseach in "In the News". The way it is phrased right now implies that the man himself was hanged, not the portraits.  Marlith (Talk)  00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that's the point. --BencherliteTalk 00:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
But it's horribly horribly unfunny. Please can it be taken out? The others are funny, but that one needs re-evaluating urgently. qp10qp (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Anything that deals with a living person should be done extremely sensitively. It's been wording really badly, and I agree it needs fixing asap. Majorly talk 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Majorly. This is just inappropriate no matter what day of the year it is and people are already thinking it is serious. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
"unexpected public hanging of Ireland's Taoiseach." Yeah. Vile. Reword. Please. 201.124.80.93 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. This needs to be reworded. Just becasue it is April 1st does not mean that WP:BLP goes out the window. Having fun at another persons expense is just not on. Tiptoety talk 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked for now. Feel free to come up with something better. PeterSymonds :  Chat  01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but your wording stank - so I went back to it being about the fact that the portraits are nude. DS (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware. ;) However, it needed to be changed. PeterSymonds :  Chat  01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It's hilarious, because it's true. Re-read the sentence; the "pictured" part doesn't refer to the image on the right— it refers to the fact that what was hanged was the pictured person. It's an intentionally dangling modifier. That's the entire joke. It's not BLP, because it's clearly not libel nor even remotely intended to be libelous, moreover, it's true. April 1 is supposed to be our official day to boost PR by making fun of ourselves. It's our self-roast: everyone's seen our vandalism, and everyone assumes it's vandalism— but it's shockingly true in this case. We do it with style.
I have to admit, for once I was invigorated with the idea that the community truly had achieved a milestone advancement in progressive thinking by agreeing to create something so genius and put aside the incessant 100% seriousness for just 0.2% (1/365th) of the year. The other 99.726% of the time we're serious, but for that 0.2%—that one day—I thought we had finally been able to truly appreciate the humanity, work, and extraordinary talent that goes into making the encyclopedia—all at once. It was an entire mainpage of stuff that looks like vandalism but is not only factually true but well-crafted to look false? Genius. It outclasses Google's april fools jokes, in my opinion.
That said, words cannot describe how much my enthusiasm for the project subsequently dropped when I saw what just happened directly above this reply. We can't even spend 0.2% of our existence making fun of ourselves? It actually depressed me. That's saying a lot, too; for, through the drama, nonsense, and occasional pain in the ass, it's extraordinarily rare for me to be anything but enthusiastic with love for this project. I can easily say that this was the first time I felt that warm feeling yanked away while on Wikipedia. In the real world, I've found that business, person, and country alike are doomed to failure when they take themselves too seriously. I just... n/m.
--slakr\ talk / 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
From the list of wikipedia policies: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes." I'd assume that "other purposes" includes giving yourself and your buddies a chuckle. By filling the main page with jokes, especially ones in poor taste, we stray from our goal of making a high-quality encyclopedia. People come to wikipedia for information not for laughs. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll see your policy and raise you meta:The Wikipedia Community, WP:COMMUNITY, Category:Wikipedia humor, and naturally WP:IAR. 99.726% of the time it's for the world. 99.726% of the time it's for our readers. 99.726% it's for the future and things we can't even imagine it being for. 0.2% it's for fun. Isn't that worth an WP:IAR? Isn't that worth a day? Will it prevent burnout? I'm not sure, but I do know that if our Gentle Readers and Gentle Community expects me to deal with the mean, uncivil, war-like, unfunny, completely-serious people, all the while reading death threats, legal threats, suicide notes, and people being hurtful, mean, pathological douchebags to each other on a daily basis— then on top of that be completely serious, myself, 100% of the time, then so help me I will leave the project. Demanding the impossible of the humans that edit the encyclopedia is, simply put, wrong.
Then again, maybe if we were all forced, maybe once a year, to remember that we're all humans with a sense of humor, maybe we wouldn't be making such a demand in the first place. We'd know better. Without seriousness, we forget what's truly funny; without laughter, we forget what's truly serious.
--slakr\ talk / 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Makeemlighter. While I feel there is some wiggle room for jokes, the front page should not be altered in this manner. What do you think we are? Google? We don't just go changing the front page around for silly holidays. If you want to play a joke, change your signature around or alter your own user page in some way- Or just flag yourself as a bot. GLaDOS (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

someone asked at least for some discussion on the AFD fornt page.But it was discussed for days if not weeks prior. There was even a link to the discussion on this Main Page discussion page! IMHO, the Irish politico story was funnier earlier in the day; but otherwise a great job, all! Can't wait for next year! 121.55.196.124 (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very unhappy with the misleading wording as it is at the moment: "Brian Cowen is seen publicly naked in Dublin". As a bare fact, that's simply not true, and surely violates the spirit of WP:BLP? almost-instinct 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know what the date is. As a joke its pretty lame, and in any case its after noon almost-instinct 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia runs on UTC (British winter time) and it was therefore 15 minutes before noon when you posted that comment. It is now after noon, but since the prank has already been pulled, it stays up till midnight when tomorrow's normal Main Page will automatically roll around. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Taoiseach seen naked publicly? and then it happens it was about some paintings (sigh!)...did this change from wikipedia to wikitabloid-beta overnight by chance? If the April's Fool thing is on, then you should consider that there is a huge non-native English speaker looking in here who doesnt necessarily knows about that. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

About the Front Page on the 1st of April

Who took the decision to put jokes and jokingly false information on the Front Page of Wikipaedia on the 1st of April? Why was this decision taken? Would anyone please point me towards an official policy page that states that this should be done or at least that it is allowed? IF there is no such policy than I BELIEVE that this at least should be discussed, if not mediated somehow. I understand that most people who write in the English Wikipaedia are from places where people celebrate Apil Fool's Day. HOWEVER, isn't this a systematic bias of the Wikipedia communitiy? As far as I know Wikipedia is an Encycloapedia that aims at providing accurate information at all times and across all cultures. Why exactly is Wikipaedia supposed to CELEBRATE any cultural event, as opposed to just MENTION it? Isn't this violating WP:NOT#JOURNALISM? I hope that this won't be taken as an attack on anyone, it's certainly not meant to be one. But isn't Wikipedia meant NOT to be a parody on any day of the year? Why should there be a day when the Front Page of Wikipedia becomes Uncyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of spoiling an amusing joke - every single thing on the main page is 100% true. Raul654 (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, April Fool's Day front page pranks have been a tradition for a number of years, and a good one at that. This front page is not even as radical as some have been in years past. I respect our strive for accuracy and reliability as any other, but our community's sense of humor is also a hallmark of the Wikipedian experience. If you lack any funny bone in your body, then I'm afraid you'll just have to tolerate this for one day out of 366. SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Classic - and yes April Fool's Day front pages are becoming a tradition here. Well done - I hope others will remember that humour is a part of our encyclopedia too!--VS talk 01:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not about anyone's sense of humour. As far as I know Wikipedia is written in an academic manner. I've never read anything about an exception to that rule of style. I'm merely asking on the basis of which policy the Front Page of Wikipedia is presenting unreliable information (not necessarily false) the 1st of April without even a disclaimer. I am asking whether is is violating the spirit of Wikipedia's policies or not. And I'm asking whether this has been discussed as a matter of policy or it has just been accepted as such by most people due to the fact that most writers of the English Wikipedia live in a culture where the people celebrate April Fool's Day (and therefore, this might be a systematic bias that needs correcting). If there is an answer to these questions, wonderful. If there is no answer to these questions I believe that these questions should at least be discussed, because Wikipedia has very real real-life consequences everywhere where there are people that know English, not only in the Western World. I hope somebody hears me: HAS this been discussed as a matter of policy? Is there a policy that allows this? Please point me to something, or at least provide me some answers to the reasons behind his. I assume that people will have the good will of pointing me to even a resemblance of discussion about policy about this. And as a matter of fact, I do have a sense of humour, I just come from a culture where April Fool's Day is not celebrated. Please stop the AD PERSONAM and answer me on policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that none of the information on the front page is false. It is unusual, or phrased in a deliberately misleading fashion... but it's all true. DS (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Now can please anyone point me to a page that states that this is POLICY or where at least this has been discussed as a matter of policy? By the way has it been discussed or it' just accepted as default? Because if it was accepted by anyone without discussion it MAY be a systematic bias due to the fact that most people who write on the English wikipedia come from a culture where April Fool's Day is celebrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you new to Wikipedia? Because the April Fool's Day tradition is nothing to be surprised about if you have been here for some time. I don't know whether it has been discussed formally as a matter of policy, but I'm sure that, since this tradition had survived-- thrived-- for six or seven plus years, being planned months in advance, and being approved by those Wikipedians in the upper eschelon who set up the heavily-guarded, most visible main page, this tradition is not viewed as an egregious violation of our policies. And if you worry that it will mislead people, you should understand that, as soon as curious visitors click on the links, they will realize that they have been fooled. There is simply not enough material to mislead visitors for any more than twenty seconds. SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. When I saw "Turkish missiles" and "oil" my first impulse was to phone my brother who is stationed with the Turkish Army on the border with Irak. My first thought was "Oh, no, it's war!" It's hard to think rationally when the misleading wording arise emotions such as fear. And I think that the son or wife od the Irish prime minister might have gone through something even worse when she saw "hanged" there, even if she is from the Western Culture. Anyway, thanks for the information. I live now in an European country and I will get used to it. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well thank you for your understanding. Thankfully the Irish prime minister headline has been changed so it's not as potentially shocking. SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I presume. — Dan | talk 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw another two cents in, the april fools day main page smacks of a lack of professionalism, and a licence to put every cultural "Whatever day" on the main page. I see no reason why april fools is special, or interesting in this context. Wikipedia is somewhere that people visit to learn things. User A1 (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the front page lacks of professionalism. I would love to be able to someday site this as a source in a paper, or be able to tell someone that I learned about something in the wikipedia and not have them look at me like it wasn't factual. This blatant waste of a wonderful resource isn't going to get the wikipedia any closer to those ends. I'll remember when I go to give money that my local NPR station doesn't give me fake news reports to try and be funny.Bobbit bob (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, only the main page is affected, all other articles are strictly off-limits to April Fools shenanigans. Secondly, this was discussed months in advanced, at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page, and it was a collaboration between many users. It's a tradition on Wikipedia, and indeed on the internet (many sites including Google and YouTube traditionally pull an April Fool) with the full blessing of the Wikipedia administration. Thirdly, if you phone your brother to tell him there's a war on, or cite an academic paper based on a single hook on the main page, you deserve everything you get. For that matter, writing any academic paper completely based on facts from Wikipedia is stupid as everyone knows we have issues of reliability even on our best articles. Clicking any one of the links on the main page would reveal the joke and present you with the unmodified truth. Fourthly, lighten up. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
NPR -- for example All Things Considered -- always does an April Fool's prank. One year the US sold Arizona to Canada; another year's show featured a dog-bark translator. Unlike those pieces, our Front Page stories are actually accurate. I see no lack of professionalism here, and encourage the tradition to continue. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Main Page is not an encyclopedic article. It outlines some of the best content we have on wikipedia and any relevant info for the day (today is april 1 so i think main page looks extremely relevant). So ppl need to stop complaining and live with the fact they got fooled thinking wikipedia got hacked after looking at main page. And if u truly believe that it is not ok to put jokes on april 1st then go home and grow some sense of humor. Ashishg55 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

...atleast half of the items on the April Fool's are about England

Says something.--PsyopsGuy1982 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think featuring England on April Fools day would mean something different? Matty (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I blame it on the Kenyan-centric bias we see daily on the main page. :d –  LATICS  talk  07:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That's simple. We never left the colonial period. It's all a complex illusion... Pacific Coast Highway {spring • ahead} 13:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I count (using the broadest possible interpretation) 9 England-related items out of 24. That's not half, and doesn't even beat the US contingent (also 9). Algebraist 13:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It's an optical illusion. If you cover your right eye, it's an India-centric main page with a decidedly British Raj flavor. If you cover your left, it's a page full of recipes involving mock chicken. Graymornings(talk) 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
CHEESY FAJITAS! It works. –  LATICS  talk  17:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Permalink?

Is there a permalink available for today's main page? I realize the content is transcluded from elsewhere, but as all the content today is fresh, such as ITN, I wouldn't think the usual technical restrictions would apply. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it myself. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the future!

Any reference source that deliberately permits false information one day of the year, will permit it every day of the year.

Chrmlssmn (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the truth, therefore delete it. The Wikipedia way. Long live Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrmlssmn (talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Chrmlssmn (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, nothing on the page is false. Just creatively worded. Enjoy! Newsboy85 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible ITN

A new item for today was suggested:

North and South Korea prepare for a hostile stand-off in Seoul, in their quest for world domination.

Because this talkpage has broader audience, I post it here to see if this is ok to have on Main page or not because it is a bit strong, as the public hanging discussed above. --Tone 07:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do it. They're all pretty bad, at least this one is funny. Matty (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok with it. This one won't have any BLP overtones. And we survived the attacks by Turkish missiles. :) Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There were some other BLP ones I could have chosen for this topic (a number involving Kim Jong-il), but I thought it better to steer well clear of them when drafting the above :) Daniel (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, seeing that the Brian Cowen blurb got trimmed. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed as of 11:26. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if a resident of Seoul is OK with it and someone who is originally from South Korea finds it hilarious... whatever went wrong? Incidentally, what was the final score? I'm sure I could just check the article but it feels like an incomplete conversation and anyone who happens upon this will have great difficulty piecing it all together. --candle•wicke 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
South Korea won, 1-0. So I guess we could have updated this to read South Korea defeats North Korea in quest for world domination. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hanging" discussion move from WP:ERRORS

"public hanging" has a rather more violent implication that paintings. Perhaps a more specific phrase could be used. (Also, it seems to me to be less than noteworthy enough for the main page, IMHO).—Goodtimber (walk/talk) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The April Fools jokes were pretty unique, I do, however, believe the wording on the piece about the Irish Taoiseach was a little inappropriate. While the jokes were in good fun, they also need to be in good taste as well. PTPLauthor (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The most important requirement for a joke is to be funny. I thought the "public hanging" wording was funny, and the subsequent attempted rewrites are not, and the wikilinking is clumsy. jnestorius(talk) 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You thought it was funny to suggest that a living person was hanged? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Now that the "hanging" is down, I suppose the rest of the main page makes for a good joke. "Row of suckers" indeed. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 02:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm less interested in the question of whether to make jokes about death than I am with whether it is responsible to use what is usually a trusted source of reliable information to imply that the head of government of a nation currently attempting to avoid a reemergance of regional violence/deal with an economic crisis has been assassinated by an angry mob. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
What Grant said. 201.154.195.65 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The article in question is largely about different perceptions of the boundary between humour and bad taste, so this discussion is somehow apt. However, the current text seems reasonably funny and not likely to offend the sensitive, so I'll sign off. jnestorius(talk) 05:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The story regarding nude oil paintings of Irish PM is NOT worthy of being on WP frontpage. Also the title is misleading and sensationalist. "Ireland's Taoiseach, Brian Cowen (pictured) is seen publicly naked in Dublin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.73.204 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (moved from WP:ERRORS)

I can understand the bit about misleading title, but why is a story that has been covered by media in Ireland and beyond not worthy of being on the front page? Kimchi.sg (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
What was wrong with the title? How is him being seen naked any more tasteful than being the subject of a public hanging? I personally thought that mentioning the lack of clothing was in bad taste. --candle•wicke 19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To The Miseries

I've just been reading some of the grouchy comments about today's April Fools pranks. It just astounds me that people are going on about cultural bias and so on. Now I don't discriminate based on culture or religion etc, but I do find myself being increasingly irked by certain 'groups of people' demanding their rights to practice certain customs etc, then jumping up and down and screaming bias and discrimination when other people exercise that same right. The English Wikipedia is written for a mainly Western audience which means most people looking at it today will realise that there is a prank going on. AND WHY NOT??? When Muslims all over the UK are allowed to take days off work to go to temple on one of their religious days for example, why should we be excluded from doing something that is a tradition in our OWN culture. Seems to me the Political Correctness police are on the case. (I imagine some hairy academic sat humming next to a burning joss stick reciting the mantra - other culture good, white culture bad) 78.150.147.42 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the April Fools' theme but I disagree with your assertion that "The English Wikipedia is written for a mainly Western audienc." It isn't, it written neutrally for a global audience. To use another example, WP:NPOV takes precendence over American-POV even if Americans make up around half of the readers and/or editors on enwiki. We won't have a Christmas theme on 25 December even though most readers would celebrate the holiday. Second, there is a significant number of readers of enwiki who are not from the Anglosphere (ie. English is their second or third langauge) because the Wikipedias of their native languages are tiny and hopeless.
And although I am not aware, I hope that the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias don't change their front pages drastically during a Muslim holiday nor the Chinese Wikipedia change during say, Chinese New Year. Wikipedia's policies > local culture of readers and editors. GizzaDiscuss © 10:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well said Gizza. And to the anon, don't claim April Fools' Day as your group's "own", it is a multinational holiday. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it as my groups own. I was merely stating that it is a tradition in my culture, I didn't say it was exclusively so. And as everyone seems to be disagreeing with me and spouting about neutral point of view etc, then perhaps you should stick to those policies and not be doing April Fools pranks either. I was just supporting Wikipedia for doing it, but now I wish I hadn't bothered... bunch of pricks. 78.150.147.42 (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, the encyclopedia is "written neutrally for a global audience". It would be a stretch to say that the Main Page is part of the encyclopedia in that sense, though! GracenotesT § 11:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I find myself increasingly irked by faux-controversy of all forms, whether "political correctness gone mad" or people being overly dramatic about a silly joke on one day of the year. -93.97.122.93 (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Now, this may be a bit off-topic, but if I remember correctly, the Chinese Wikipedia often places a drawing of an animal in the Chinese Zodiac along with a banner in front of the logo, on Chinese New Year. ~AH1(TCU) 22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No POV! Not even in a joke day like April Fools' Day! Please.

I don't like seeing that North Korea vs. South Korea in the page. It sounds like North Korea's gonna nuke a football field if they lose. Please remove that. P.R.O.C.K.Y. (Mydoctor93) 10:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"It sounds like North Korea's gonna nuke a football field if they lose" - or South Korea's gonna reduce Pyongyang to rubble if the South loses. I don't sense any POV in the line. Kimchi.sg (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
"South Korea's gonna reduce Pyongyang to rubble if the South loses.": LOL!!! I am originally from South Korea and I find the joke absolutely hilarious. :D --BorgQueen (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
And yes, we do celebrate April fools' day in South Korea, to a lesser extent. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Can someone please clean up the April fools nonsense? Implying that North and South Korea are at war may be funny and fitting for children's blogs, not for an encyclopedia. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t10:37z

It's a joke. If you realize it's a joke then there's nothing to worry about. Besides, I find it funny even here on an encyclopedia. --82.103.239.99 (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, score's still 0-0, about 15mins in. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
As a resident of Seoul, I find the whole thing hilarious. Waygugin (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Removed as of 11:26. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if a resident of Seoul is OK with it and someone who is originally from South Korea finds it hilarious... whatever went wrong? Incidentally, what was the final score? I'm sure I could just check the article but it feels like an incomplete conversation and anyone who happens upon this will have great difficulty piecing it all together. --candle•wicke 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
South Korea won, 1-0. So I guess we could have updated this to read South Korea defeats North Korea in quest for world domination. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I've propsed the following at WP:ITN/C but nobody appears to have noticed. It would be a shame to let it go to waste.

Venezuelan beauty queen Dayana Mendoza has a fun day at camp in Guantanamo Bay. [14] --candle•wicke 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo!

I commend whoever drew up the current version of the Main Page (well, the version as of this comment). A nice mix of humor, factual information and borderline nonsense. Especially the whole bit about British pay-per-view pornography. Pacific Coast Highway {spring • ahead} 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Sometimes facts are stranger than fiction! – Kaihsu (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo, indeed! Who says encyclopdeing can't be fun?! A most wonderfoul larf! Cheers! --Phyllis1753 (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I third (fourth?) that bravo. Sometimes this place just seems way too straitlaced, so when I see writing like this I can't help but enjoy it. It's all true anyhow, so no harm, no foul! --NovaKrazny (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who came in late, I'll explain. "wonderfoul larf" is John Lennonese for "Wonderful Laugh". Just follow the links! Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In the news

The blurb for the nude paintings of the Irish leader seems to have been changed from last night, and is now completely inaccurate. He was not seen nude; a painting was made that depicted him nude, and it was not painted from life.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I notice that all the news blurbs are written incorrectly and deceitfully. Well played, wikipedia, you've decided to subvert all that "BLP policy" claptrap just because of the calendar. I hope the day was worth selling off whatever reliability you still had.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Where's the breach of BLP? --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh for goodness' sake, lighten up. For one day a year, the Main Page (which is not an article, and therefore BLP does not apply) has a mildly misleading hook on it - which I might add is technically 100% true, it's just worded ambiguously. As soon as you click on one of the links you'll find the real, untouched article. Get a sense of humour already. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
BLP applies to all pages that talk about living people. While technically the blurb is correct, imo its rather cheap. There was no need to ridicule this person on the main page. —SV 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It was supposed to be handled with due care (i.e. not mentioning the nudity) but now it appears extremely tabloidy, I agree. --candle•wicke 20:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(←)The main page actually made the news (bottom paragraph). §hepTalk 00:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've created a proposal for Featured redirects. I'd like to know, if this proposal goes ahead, should these be displayed on the main page. and if so, how? Please discuss on the proposal's talk page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a priority; I think we should work on Wikipedia:Featured footnotes first. There are, after all, more footnotes than redirects. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not! We should first work on Featured hatnotes, because we need to work from top down, not the other way around.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, April 1, 2009 (UTC)
If you take that approach, wouldn't we want to start with Featured maintenance templates first? But I do like the idea of working down the page: Featured maintenance templates, Featured hatnotes, Featured infoboxes, Featured section headings, Featured captions, and so on, ending with Featured interlanguage links. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It's how the page is displayed that matters, not the wikitext. Featured categories should be done last. Featured interwikis are just a side issue. Algebraist 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait, do we still have space for Featured citations? Pacific Coast Highway {spring • ahead} 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest they should be combined with featured comments —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
What about Featured Policy Proposals? Modest Genius talk 19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Tivedshambo - I thought you were suggesting we feature comments that appeared on article talk/discussion pages, but you meant invisible comments in articles. Now that I understand, it seems to me that we've (so far) omitted the talk/discussion page entirely, despite that the number of such pages that are, well, fascinating. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Anyone else think the Main Page should be deleted? Just a place for lazy people to read the news or look at featured articles/pictures when they could go to P:CE or WP:FA/WP:FP, yet hard-working sysops have to maintain it. Æetlr Creejl 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? What would then show in your browser if you go for Wikipedia? --Tone 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If we used the random article feature as a redirect, that would usually send readers to articles that clearly need work, encouraging them to start helping out with writing rather than just sponging off the hard-working editors here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There would then be a (small) danger that they would hit a really good article. Your proposal would work better if we had a 'random terrible article' feature. I think I'll submit a bug report. Algebraist 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
We could always make it so it goes to the same horrible page, and then lock it so that it stays horrible. I think that would answer your concern. APL (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Or perhaps a sort of "collaboration of the moment"; all readers get sent to the same (horrible) page until it is improved to at least "C" class; then the target page is switched to another article that needs improving. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
A problem is that people might still navigate away to other pages, which don't need improving so urgently, and work on them instead. This could be solved by making the CotM the only page available. Algebraist 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
An excellent variant of the "Buy this magazine or the dog dies" approach: "Improve this article or you'll never see another page in Wikipedia." -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Attempts to delete Jimbo Wales were preemptively stopped. I doubt deleting the main page will get much farther. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If this proposal goes ahead, main page will be deleted. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not as good as 2005, when five recursive attempts were made to delete (see the page log on that last link) User:Jimbo Wales at MfD. ROFL. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Still, it does seem to be getting a lot of support, despite well-reasoned "oppose" arguments like "Provides an outlet for vandals that would otherwise attack critical projects like Wikispecies". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lacking...

The Main page needs more information about Wombats. Particularly Pre-Raphaelite Wombats. Our coverage in that area doesn't seem as good as it could be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

<laughs> I enjoyed that post, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure some people would disagree with you. Where's he at when you need him...? –  LATICS  talk  17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

March 31

Why all the fuss? Haven't we overlooked the fact that April Fool's Day isn't until tomorrow? Mlh loves avon (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (<--- Gah, even my computer gets it wrong!@)

Wikipedia works on UTC- it's April Fool's Day here. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow... way to kill my sarcasm dude. Thanks. Mlh loves avon (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is hard to define in writing. Try italics, they might just work! ;) --candle•wicke 20:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose... and besides, in the time zones that won't get to April 1 until "our" tomorrow, April Fool's Day isn't celebrated. So it was dry wit.Mlh loves avon (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

APRIL FOOLS

This isn't remotely relevant. I'd just like to say "nice one". I like the news articles, particularly the shoe one.--81.158.237.86 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a nice day. --candle•wicke 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

GREAT WORK

I must say, I'm very impressed by all this, despite the concerns of those who obviously cannot take a joke. The DYK "that German seamen forced a lesbian to go down during the First World War, and the French did the same during the Second World War?" is, in my humble opinion, the highlight. Great work, guys (and girls), great work. 71.254.9.136 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, now the featured article is meningitis. Talk about mood whiplash! the wub "?!" 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2

April Fools' Day is over...so why is DYK still hillarious?! ~AH1(TCU) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've switched DYK back to serious mode. Raul654 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Charade

Okay, this April-fools charade has got to stop. This is an encyclopedia, not MAD magazine. No excuses can be made for this blatant vandalism and destruction of what this encyclopedia ought to be all about. How is it any different when someone replaces normal content with obscenities, nonsense, or extremely biased opinions? HUCK2012 E. Novachek (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm. What's the problem? None of it is inaccurate or in breach of policy. In what way does it constitute vandalism? --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
In any case, it will stop in another eight hours. Till then, celebrate the All Fool's Day spirit and have a good laugh! :-) SBC-YPR (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Three obvious differences are that no obscenities, nonsense, or extremely biased opinions are involved. Algebraist 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, there is no WP:UPTIGHT policy or essay. Ikip (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
So is wikipedia going to have a section on the article about itself about its notable April Fools Day hoaxes, like it has for every other website that participates in the "charade"? =P NIRVANA2764 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Then you might wanna hide under a rock for the next 15 hours or so. Pacific Coast Highway {spring • ahead} 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a collaborative effort. Any collaborative effort that cannot occasionally have a little fun is, almost by definition, a government, which Wikipedia most certainly is not ("Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of other terrible ideas," quoted from WP:NOTSTUPID). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a quite remarkably weird definition of government. Algebraist 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(To original poster) You wouldn't have happened to have read WP:IAR by any chance, have you? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but trying to claim "having fun" in this case is, well, despicable. In several cases, you're putting up claims that violate WP:BLP, such as the Irish minister tidbit. If you wanted so bad to do this, you should have restricted yourself to past events outside the range of BLP, where this nonsense DEFINITELY is not allowed in any form. Honestly, I think that considering the massive outrage to this shown on this page, even after you guys have been deleting comments, the editors behind this should 1) stop trying to ignore everyone about it, and 2) probably, not be allowed to edit the main page anymore, seeing how badly you've violated BLP, and how unwilling you are to express any kinds of regret about it.128.210.146.26 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I still see no BLP violations and would be extremely shocked if I had. We do indeed take BLP very seriously. But it's hard for us to address BLP violations if you don't tell us where there's a BLP violation. --Dweller (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's hard, because you deleted my comment earlier. Okay, for example: listing that the Irish minister was seen publically naked, how is that not against BLP? It's not even true - he WASN'T seen publically naked. Satirical art was found which depicted a naked caricature of him. You've gotten tons of complaints about this, as well, from what I saw.
But it looks like the violations were finally removed. I'm still dismayed at many of the attitudes displayed on this page - people ask for serious coverage, and they are laughed at; a few editors, without ever bringing it up for discussion here (or for goodness sakes, having a disclaimer on the front page, ignore all the comments from a far greater amount of editors who criticize the decision. I still ask that the editors who put this page up not work on the main page for quite some time; I have yet to see any of them even admit that they might be wrong.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a disclaimer on the front page. The date was clearly noted on the first line of OTD. This sufficed for many other major sources of "reliable information" on the Internet (and other media channels).
As for arguing that the Irish minister wasn't seen naked when an image of him, naked, was seen... that's at least 80% semantics, and the other 20% can be easily ascribed to your need to relax and laugh at the world for a moment or two. I'm sure we're all sorry you didn't enjoy your first experience with April Fool's Day on Wikipedia, but maybe after a short Wikibreak you'll feel better. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK

...both Egypt and the Holy Land were originally settled by Germans?

— Gimmicky, but it worked for me. Sca (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

images

Why aren't the images linking to the relevant articles on the main page? When you click it, the picture enlarges instead of going to the particular article. Its better if the images links to the article. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would that be better? Algebraist 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting proposal. Especially since the images are usually in the article anyway... --candle•wicke 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Like candle•wicke said the image is already in the article, users can read the article first then view the picture later. For example users read the headline then view the image then go back and click on the link to read about the whole article. Might as well go to the article, read about it then view the picture. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Same here. Pretty simple to do, too. –  LATICS  talk  20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing so far to indicate the possible collapse of Wikipedia as a result... --candle•wicke 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
A problem is that this will conflict with what happens when you click on images everywhere else on Wikipedia. Having the main page behave differently from everything else is bound to confuse some new users. Algebraist 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Still no collapse of Wikipedia. Just one new addition for new users to deal with. They'll be pretty confused already. --candle•wicke 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't work, because we need a way to credit the image creators. If you clicked and went to an article, it probably would not be sufficient attribution for the various licenses used in Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Attribution is probably the major issue. See Talk:Main Page/Archive 103#Front page... picture linking for more along these lines. - BanyanTree 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
But attribution is only necessary with copyrighted work (which wouldn't be on the main page) and {{cc-by-2.0}} licensing, unless I'm mistaken. –  LATICS  talk  19:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Licenses that require attribution include all Creative Commons-Attribution licenses, images using {{Attribution}}, and the GFDL. That's a significant number, if not a majority, of the images used on the Main Page. There are some licenses that would allow redirecting, but you would then have two problems. One, readers would never know when clicking on an image would lead it to an image and when it would lead the image description page, without actually clicking. At least now, regular readers expect consistent behavior. Two, it complicates administration and opens a new avenue for disruptive editing. For example, if somebody turned the image page of a CC-BY or fair use image into a redirect, that seems to me to be a difficult problem to find and fix once it is made. For these reasons I would treat turning image descriptions into redirects as a form of vandalism and would respond with the revert-warn-block cycle. - BanyanTree 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fools Day

Wikipedia is no place for April Fools Day pranks and jovialitaies. People bang on so much that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I think it should start acting like one. This is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.248.15 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. -- Phoenix2 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It's only for one day of the year - it acts like an encyclopedia for the remaining 364 days. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Besides, if you think this is bad, take a butcher's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it's "jovialities", dear; and I had some here today, thank you very much. I sign my name: Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys have got to be kidding me. Someone complains that the information is acting disgracefully, and you completely ignore her complaint and brush her off. You're disgraceful, and I hope I never have you edit any of the articles I've worked on.128.210.146.26 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 86.18.248.15, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia 365 days a year. Brittanica never jokes around. Instead of adding things for April Fool's, you should do something productive for Wikipedia. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't publish on a daily basis, so it's not very relevant to this discussion. If you care to look at 'respectable' organisations that publish an April 1 edition (or even just an April edition) you'll find that many of them do run April Fools hoaxes. This year AP reported exchange visits between the presidents of Israel and Syria, the Guardian announced that it was moving entirely to Twitter, The Economist announced it was building an economics-based theme park, and so on and so on. Wikipedia's stories are pretty mild by comparison; you just have to click the link to get the straight story. --GenericBob (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
What about Google? Nobody's claiming that they are unprofessional, now are they? Newscasters have been known to hoax, as have scientists. 12.172.168.176 (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I pray that the majority of these people are being ironic and trying to April Fool us all? Otherwise they need to get a life or at least have a read of humour, wit, irony, sarcasm and fun. Christ, so wikipedia made a funny, the world isn't going to implode! As for "Instead of ... you should do something productive for Wikipedia" ... what, like adding ridiculous comments that are going to get you nowhere to a talk page? Yep, that's productive! Pfffft! Killjoys! --LookingYourBest (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Both complainants are newbies and both, already, have notes from other editors admonishing them for possible vandalism. Sour people who probably won't stay with Wikipedia for very long. Cheers. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shared IPs, warning dates back to November 2007. The users were looking for objective responses regarding the unusual setup of the Main page on April first, not your prejudices about their behaviour. —SV 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter Phyllis and thats a pretty disgusting attitude towards potential contributors to wikipedia. Its not surprising people turn away if they face this sort of snotty attitude. Shouldn't matter if they are new or having 100, 000s of edits. I am one of our most experienced editors on here and I think its a bad idea mixing humor with the actual encyclopedia even if it is for only a few hours and I have a sense of humor too. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld. Charming (and revealing) name. I'm 56. Experience in life does count. I call them as I have already seen 'em. If I can chase away some of the mindless, hidden agenda, shit smearers then it's for the better for Wikipedia. Let them go to Conservapedia and play their games there. Nor am I inclined to feel abashed by some youngster's emotional blackmail. I've already been there too. I onced worked in psychiatric nursing. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, folks. AFD is over and you can get down off the wall. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For everybody, new editor or not, getting brushed off and called a square for suggesting that the main page of Wikipedia isn't a place for half-truths and deliberate misinterpretations, this is apparently the place to start a serious discussion about it. If we try here, it seems we'll just face more name calling. We have 364 days now to establish consensus and put an end to this silly behaviour. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article of the day image

This isn't really something I like to see when I log onto Wikipedia; I'm sure millions of people today will agree. I'm all for a lack of censorship, but I'm not sure that an image so distressing is fair game for the main page. I just hope gangrene doesn't make it to FA. Seegoon (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya. I actually got sick a little when I saw that (thank god it wasn't on the keyboard). Quite awful. §hepTalk 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Came here to say just this. I have never once complained about content on the main page, not after Bulbasaur or History of erotic depictions or April Fools jokes, but this is crossing the line. Shock images have no reason to be on the main page. ShadowUltra (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
[Offended, are you?]

Anyway, maybe... But still, i mean, it's no worse than what you'd see in a medical dictionary handbook thing. 99.184.93.203 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a shock image -- the girl pictured there is literally the poster child for meningitis vaccination. Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
True... 99.184.93.203 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for the love of god, change the image immediately. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia's critics will love to point out. Just wait for the Conservapedia folks to point to this as evidence of how immoral and sick Wikipedia is... 63.245.144.68 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's distressing. It's also reality. Hope this image, of the same little girl with prostheses, helps. Kablammo (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you were suggesting using that picture on the main page. Assuming you are, it's not a good idea because (a) that picture isn't in the meningitis article, and (b) it's not a good illustration of the topic because she doesn't actually have meningitis in that picture. Raul654 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I'm making the same point (although obviously not as clearly) as you, and also showing what she looked like after treatment. And if the shocking picture influenced people to look at the article on the disease and the one on the girl, so much the better. Kablammo (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that Wikipedia isn't censored for minors and all that, but the front page at least should be clear of anything particularly disturbing or offensive, in my opinion. You can avoid disgusting things by simply avoiding such articles, but the front page is in your face all the time. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I too think that the main page is not the right place for shocking or disturbing images. The photo of the little girl with meningitis should be removed. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki isn't censored, and you all know that. I'm fine with the image, no matter how shocking or whatever. Would you complain if autofellatio was featured? 70.149.136.2 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would, and I'm about as against wiki-censorship as it is. As has been constantly mentioned above, the main page /isn't/ part of the encyclopdia, so a bit of restraint isn't a bad thing. I love the April Fools thing, as it helps show we're not all serious business (like WP:ODD for instance). It's not so much appropriate or not, more of...how to put it...it's just asking for trouble. That said, if autofellatio actually managed to get to FA level, I would be the first one to clap. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another vote for removal here. Let's have some consideration for our users, and not plaster disturbing pictures on our front page. Axlrosen (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A disturbing image of a child covered all up in bloody bruises is as disturbing as a man gapping out his anus. I would believe it's still an April Fool's prank. CHANGE IT PLEASE. 200.115.154.74 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats the problem with showing a image of the virus instead of this? At the least, we are not free advertising for that girl and her parents cause. Just put a normal, better quality photo and live with it. Matty (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, for starters, we don't have such an image. Or, to be more precise, we don't have one that's usable. At 100 pixels wide, the picture we have would be a meaningless pink blob. Raul654 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe the current one is completely fine, but if it does need to be changed, how about this symptoms diagram, which is surprisingly not in the article? Mfield (Oi!) 03:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well if i'm not mistaken, isn't the picture in the article showing gangrene? Matty (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The red parts are meningitis rash; the black parts are places where it has progressed to necrosis/gangrene. Raul654 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The text on that pic is illegible when scaled to 100px, and without the next it's just a picture of a naked guy. Algebraist 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never complained about a main page article, either. This is a really unnecessarily graphic image to have automatically pop up on the main page of Wikipedia. A good image if you're ready for it, but not if you're casually surfin' the web. Get some tact, people... I just ate, for cryin' out loud. ~PescoSo say•we all 03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The child was sick, not dead. Graphic? yes. Inappropriate? Not imo. She has an incredible survival story. The point becomes moot soon enough with the next front page article to replace it.--MartinezMD (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This argument is unacceptable. If 90-95% of people are unimpressed by the featuring of this picture, rather than ignore their concerns as irrelevant because they differ from yours, how about give them the benefit of the doubt?203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You all know as well as I do that if I were to get Goatse featured on the main page the image would be removed. There has always been a double standard with main page images and it's gotten to an unacceptable level. This is similar to the time someone tried to get a huge picture of a spider put on the arachnophobia article because it "illustrates the article's subject," when in reality the user was just seeing how far he could toe the line. ShadowUltra (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose removing/replacing the image. As graphic as it is, we're supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, as many have noted earlier in this thread. A serious encyclopedic article on meningitis should be equal to that of a medical paper in terms of comprehensiveness, no? –Juliancolton | Talk 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a slight difference between removing the picture completely and removing it from the main page. Toning the main page picture down might be the loving thing to do for the majority of people who aren't expecting and/or happy to see it. How about a warning that says "some people may find the following pictures on this page disturbing"? How about assuming that other people's feelings are worth something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Because, per WP:NOT (official policy), Wikipedia isn't censored. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
So your freedom of speech is more important that others feelings? I'm not denying you have the RIGHT to display disturbing images, I'm saying that maybe you could use your rights to love those with less of a stomach than you, rather than use it to offend people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
And what has censorship to do with warning people they may find content distressing? I believe that an encyclopaedia should be true to the subject, but should also be sensitive to the feelings of people. The main page is the first thing people see, and with no warning they are forced to see something they could find incredibly distressing. Please give those people a choice, rather than force your anti-censorship onto them.203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a great illustration. So what if they find it distressing? Maybe it will help get more kids worldwide vaccinated. In any case, it's not an encyclopedia's role to protect you from the real world. (Nor is it an encyclopedia's role to encourage you to make positive changes - that's just a possible side effect.) Get over your squeamishness - encyclopedias should not represent a sanitized version of life. In my view, hiding the truth of something like meningitis is just as bad as outright lying about it. It's a real disease, and that's what it can do. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll say it again. I'm N O T saying change the article's page. I'm N O T asking that the feature article of the day be changed. Let people go to the page, make a choice about whether they want to view the image, learn about the dangers, and make good decisions about vaccinating their children. What I A M saying is that the main page is first thing that people see, and that taking away the right of a person to choose whether they see a distressing image is a violation of a persons rights. Your motivations sound grand, but I don't believe that the end justifies the means.203.56.22.126 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
And still nobody has answered my question. Why can't there be an infobox at the top of an article stating that people may find images within the article offensive or distressing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.126 (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Cenarium (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles, but it really is stretching it a bit far to have it apply to the Main Page. I'm a fervent supporter of the notcensored policy, but that's because if people choose to go to the autofellatio article, or sex, or syphilis or any others with disturbing images, that's their choice. However, a kid going to the main page to look up flowers and bunny rabbits for school should not be presented with an image of a baby with necrotised arms. For that matter, many adults would not want to be presented with it. Can we at least err on the side of caution given that it's the Main Page we're talking about? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will put what many others have said in my own words. Can this image and article be found in an encyclopedia? Yes. Does said encyclopedia use this image on their cover? No. That's all. --Alex Barrow (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot of fair use images in Wikipedia, and just because we could probably legally put them on the main page, it doesn't mean people think they belong there. The main page has always been different... it's seen by hundreds of thousands of people a day, what's appropriate for an article isn't automatically appropriate for the main page. Personally I don't tend to read health articles because I realize that, this being a serious encyclopedia, there might be medical pictures and very disturbing descriptions of symptoms and procedures that I just don't want to encounter. WP:NOTCENSORED means that content can be put in the article if it's relevant, but it is just talking about articles and I don't think it means we have to be confronted with it on the main page, where people aren't opting in to the content by searching for it. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You 'forgot' the word militants

The page says on this day - "2002 – Operation Defensive Shield: Approximately 200 Palestinians fled advancing Israeli forces into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, starting a month-long standoff." You might wish to mention that they were Fatah militants, as acknowledged in the article it links to: Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Failure to do this appears very POV, since it suggests that 200 were civilians 141.166.227.7 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says no such thing. It says 'Dozens of militants, Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Security Forces men fled into the church to fortify, along with forty monks and dozens of other Palestinians who arrived at the site for different reasons.' To call all these people Palestinians is accurate. To call them all militants would grossly misrepresent the article. Algebraist 11:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

risquee

the "risque menage" a trois should be a risky menage a trois? it's not proper french either so i would think that.24.132.170.97 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Risque" in the sense of "wink wink, nudge nudge" innuendo... it's effectively an English word borrowed from French, as is "menage a trois," since they don't necessarily carry the literal definitions of the original French words (or maybe they do... my French is very, very poor). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't forget the accents! Without them, the words have a different meaning ( risque = risk ; risqué (with an acute accent) = hazardous). So, le risque ménage à trois would be used rather by an insurance broker trying to ward you against working disability induced by fights, nervous breakdowns etc...( id. in assurance tous risques) - while a preacher could vigourouly blame that immoral and risqué ménage à trois...Sorry about those accents é, è, ê (...& ë, though this one is very seldom used...) Heartily, a french passing by Arapaima (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Accent marks are only for preposterous, suspender-banging, smelly-cheesy-eating, freedom-hating pinko yoo-raw-pean communist bastards. Decent people are advised to steer well clear of them. 194.100.223.164 (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I knew some people felt threatened by different accents, but this is a whole new level of fear! Don't fear the written word, my friend, knowledge is good (as is cheese). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

no g20 news on the front page

that's crazy. --AaThinker (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C is your friend. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Added within 3.5 hours of above comment. It was already being debated – the delay was over the precise wording. --candle•wicke 16:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN suggestion

What if we included a link to these two articles: Accession of Croatia to NATO and Accession of Albania to NATO? I don't know how we would fit them in, however. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would be relatively intuitive to use them in place of the Albania and Croatia links. The accession articles for both will obviously have links to the main country articles, and we should really prioritise the accession articles before the country articles, as they are more pertinent. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Should've proposed on WP:ITN/C, not here. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors actually. --candle•wicke 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Either way would be fine. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we not have the horrific picture of a deformed baby on the main page?

It doesn't appear in the headline meningitis article. How can anyone have let that go up? It's awful, and children read this. It's not necessary for the subject. The more appropriate picture is that in the main article. Wikidea 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The image was removed from the article about 7 minutes before you posted, apparently due to concern that the picture was visible on the front page. While I don't think it's a great illustration, it's worth noting that the child depicted - Charlotte - survived, and became famous for surviving. I'm not sure I accept the "children read this" argument - partly because Charlotte's story is quite uplifting, partly because Wikipedia isn't censored, and partly because the image is tiny (which is why I don't think it's a great illustration). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Lack of censorship is justified when people are adult and know how to exercise self restraint and decency. Even if the girl had survived, it would not be decent. This wasn't about censorship really though, it's about conscience. Wikidea 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean, 'even if the girl had survived'? She lives to this day. Algebraist 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please can you remove that picture of that poor disfigured child. There is absolutely no need to put that on the front page of your website. If you're trying to be sensationalist then you've succeeded, i hope you're ashamed of yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 April 2009

Seem to have gone now - thank you! --Rcclh (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(UTC)

OMG! That image is terrible! Do we really want that to be the first thing people see when they visit Wikipedia? I know Wikipedia is not censored, but that picture sickens me, and I wasn't expecting it to be there. Can we please have a picture of the organism that causes meningitis (the virus/bacteria/whatever) instead? Densock|Dendodgein public 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's now been removed; and good riddance. Before anyone adds it back just because "Wikipedia is not censored", remember that it's also gone from the article too for some reason, so restoring it just to the main page but not dealing with why it's been removed from the article is pretty much just going for shock value. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It was removed from the article in the apparently mistaken belief that it would simultaneously disappear from the main page. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Striking comment, see clarification below. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The removal of the image from the article appears to have been done because the user contested the relevance of the image, it's disputed on the talk page. I removed the image from the Main page due to the rough consensus above not to include the image. Cenarium (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the clarification. I've struck through my comment, above. The removal from the article seems to be based on an incorrect belief that the photo's subject didn't suffer from meningitis, but this isn't the right forum to address that (and I note that it has already been addressed on the article's talk page). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the image of a bacterium that can cause meningitis. I'm sure no one is going to dispute that said bacterium is irrelevant to meningitis, or complain that the image is too boring. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It provides no useful information or encyclopedic value, at least at that resolution. I'd rather go with no image. Algebraist 12:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the new image, i cant see what its meant to be, it looks like a pink square with dots! atleast bring back the other picture, i dont whant the same thing to happen when wikipedia got black listed for having supossedly child porn in one of its articles this is getting silly.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I never thought we'd have no image for a non-CVG/music/movie FA. Sigh. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ah great now there is no image! this is getting silly, wikipedia is not censored!! It will never be now get over it a put the image back!!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently this happens every time some disease FA gets featured. Lung cancer comes to mind. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess it's something to keep in mind the next time a disease gets FA'd - make sure there's a Main Page-friendly image ready. On the plus-side, I've learned that I'm not as squeamish as I thought ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
unfortunately im not an admin so i cant add it back, who ever changed the image should change it back!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Censorship is the attempt to keep information out of people's hands. Do you seriously think that I'd argue for the removal of the image because I'm trying to keep people from getting information about meningitis? Or is it more likely that I'm being empathetic to people and trying not to gross them out?
For example, at the Boston Globe's web site, graphic images have a disclaimer, and are blank unless you click to see them (e.g. image #11 here[15]). This is not censoring anything - you can still see the picture - but it lets the user decide whether to view it or not. By putting a graphic image on the front page, you don't give users any choice. (I would vote for a user-decides system like this for both the front page and for the article itself!) Axlrosen (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Illustration is, in my opinion, essential to a comprehensive encyclopedia. I must say I'm rather disappointed that the image was removed, but I seem to be in the minority at this point... –Juliancolton | Talk 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yay, win for egoism over common intellect. If we can't force a perfectly relevant medical image depicting symptoms of an illness off the front page, simply for the fact that a few people dislike gore, what can we do? Nigholith (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's appaling if that image remains removed! It was a brilliant illustration of how dangerous this illness is and the damange it can do. Maybe it would go some way to alerting parents to this fact. But no, just because a few people piss and moan about it being 'graphic' the political correctness police take it down! Amazing! It's the same stupid argument every time something out of the ordinary is on the main page! Frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing birds and insects on there which I always ignore ... THIS picture made me go look at the main article, I imagine it's done the same for many other people! --LookingYourBest (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the worst thing Juliancolton; you're not in the minority, it's just the fact that all the people who don't mind that image there or acutally find it EDUCATIONAL will simply read the article, add to their knowledge-base and happily go on their way! A few people come on here and kick off and all hell breaks loose! Unbelievable! --LookingYourBest (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought the image was fine, but if we can accommodate readers who didn't, then so much the better (I take on board Cenarium's reasons for removing the photo, and Axlrosen's comments re: "censorship"). The photo was of Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman, and her story is fascinating and uplifting, in my view, and I'm tempted to suggest that the Main Page could still benefit from a photo of Charlotte as a survivor. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Reminds me of when the human eye or something was on the main page a few years ago and there was this terrifying picture of the eye being held open with those tong things.. heh my girlfriend nearly vomited when I showed her the (suprinsingly very high resoltion) image :P — Deon555talkI'm BACK! 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, for crying out loud. We're not here to tell harrowing stories, we're not here to put a brave face on things, and we're not here to sweeten the truth. We're here to present the facts; and what could be more factual and relevant to non-medically inclined readers than the symptoms of a condition? Nigholith (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We can do all those things. But we can also do them in a way that is kind and sensitive to the reader. BTW, as with most disagreements, egoism is a matter of viewpoint. To me, the egoism here is: "I am not disgusted by this image, so therefore nobody should be." Axlrosen (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
So where is this "kind and sensitive"? policy? The main page's featured article is a representation of the article within, and to censor any representation of the article is to censor the article itself. There are bound to be many things on the main page, from time to time, which, whether text or image, will disgust or shock the reader, and they are all representing the encyclopedia's content. To censor the main page is to censor the articles' content, and that is against Wikipedia policy. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
"Where is the kind and sensitive policy? It's called WP:CIVIL. Lovelac7 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No, WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to content. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this is at least second such discussion I see (first was about cancer showing picture of tumor) - now I don't find such images disgusting, but I know others do, so just out of curiosity - wouldn't it be more sensible to make a decision not to put such images on Main page ? If someone reads article about sex or disiese they expect that there could be such images and can turn off images (my browser at least gives such option), but, if someone comes to Wikipedia to look for some other information there mostly is no way for them to know what's the featured article of the day. You can't just always blindly follow the rules you know 87.110.124.8 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If the baby picture can't be used, then why isn't the pink image being used? Sure it can't be scaled to 100px, but since the item of interest is less than 100px anyway, why not just crop it? That would look fine. Better than no image at all, anywayAPL (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Why so much anger here? I submit the following (loose) definitions as they seem, IMO, to apply to TFA selections:
  • Censorship: removing, hiding, or suppressing information by making it unavailable or obscure.
  • Sensationalism: adding information intended to shock an audience for purposes of drawing their (perhaps morbid) interest, OR being as shocking and offensive as possible to get noticed.
To those whose knee-jerk response is to accuse the picture-removers of committing censorship on this uncensored website... you apparently fail to take into account a few considerations. First, unless the baby's image is removed from the actual article, how can you call it censorship? Decisions may be made for aesthetic reasons without "censoring" anything. Second, aesthetic motives are perfectly acceptable reasons to remove an image from the Main Page, as it is the first part of Wikipedia seen by the general public.
On the other hand, to those whose knee-jerk response is to accuse the picture-supporters of sensationalism... be careful. I don't think anyone's intent was to be shocking and offensive. The first "definition" of sensationalism that I offer might apply... it could be that someone got overzealous in their desire to "hook" people's attention into reading the article... but getting people to read the articles is what the Main Page is all about.
My personal opinion is that, perhaps, the editor who chose the image may have brushed the line dividing "interest-grabbing" from "shock value"... but it is a very fine line at times, and I can't see that such emotionally-charged responses from either side are really justified. Information that was present on WP about meningitis 24 hours ago is still here... no lasting censorship has occurred... and viewers who were bothered by the image no longer have to see it if they don't want to. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I hope "so much anger" wasn't directed at my post, the indentation makes it look as though you're replying to me. I didn't intend any anger in my post, and have no opinion on whether or not the baby image should be on the front page. I was simply trying to point out an alternative solution that appeared to have been missed. APL (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
@APL: Done. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Neat. Thanks. APL (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what is the rationale for not using the baby image? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't expect to see the baby, but I wasn't "disgusted". 216.79.193.59 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First the people who thought that the April 1 articles on the front page were made up (something that two clicks or, for that matter, picking up a newspaper now and then would have disproved) and now this. Wikipedia needs to implement some sort of anti-moron captcha for Talk:Main Page. Something that asks a simple question like "What is 2 + 3?" or "Do problems cease to exist if no-one openly discusses or displays them?" and anyone who answers incorrectly is directed to the Daily Mail message boards instead. --86.156.134.242 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"morons"? Who, with regards to the image matter, are you implying to be the morons here? Let's not devolve into personal attacks. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Those who think that covering up terrifying diseases is the same thing as curing them are morons. I am personally and directly attacking these morons, sans euphemism or courtesy, because they are being morons. I do not consider this to be "devolving". Animals are allowed to think that burying their heads in the sand will protect them from predators, because they have tiny brains. Humans have no such excuse. The sand-buriers are the ones devolving, not we.
Regardless of the context, you have absolutely no right to personally attack people on any basis whatsoever, so please cut this incivil "moron" and "sand-burier" stuff. Anyway, the discussion has been moot for the last 16 hours. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

--86.156.134.242 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Howcheng APL (whoops), forgive my sloppy (lazy) formatting. No, I wasn't responding to your comment; I was mainly responding to anyone who has leveled charges of "sensationalism" or "censorship" at the editors.

Haipa Doragon, the rationale for not using the image is that it is sufficiently emotionally disturbing for a wide portion of our audience that the "interest-grabbing" effect of the image seems to be crossing at least marginally into "shock value," which I don't think Wikipedia as a whole has ever been interested in. The information conveyed by the image is not essential to a basic understanding of the topic or its importance, so why should so many readers' first view of the Main Page be a strongly negative experience? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I happen to know such a child myself, an adopted boy from friends. And I was also disturbed, I don't think such a picture should be on the Main page. It has it's place on the meningitis page itself, to show the possible complications, just like pages about other diseases show pictures. So if you want info on meningitis, you will be fully informed. But the Main page in my view should be slightly more open, welcoming, neutral, ... whatever you want to call it. In addition, if I am well-informed, also medical textbooks nowadays try to avoid head-to-toe pictures of recognisable undressed patients/children with strange diseases or disabilities. Not necessary, and degrading. The fact that the parents of the girl in the picture have made her a show-case is worth another discussion, but would also not justify having her on the main page.80.60.102.202 (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, claims of "it's disgusting", etc., but where is the policy to back it up? Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state nothing about removing content due to any form of shock value. This is encyclopedic content and therefore needs to adhere to all policies, including WP:NOT#CENSORED, therefore makes arguments about shock factor, disgustingness, etc. irrelevant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Did I say it is disgusting? I am a medical biologist, I am not easy to disgust and I can deal with pictures like that. I just think they have no place on the main page, as opposed to the meningitis page. And as even the medical profession appears to have guidelines on how to deal with pictures like this, I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different.80.60.102.202 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it means approximately the same thing in this context. "disgusting", "disturbing", etc. are all arguments which contradict WP#NOT:CENSORED. This is what Wikipedia does; whether the medical profession censors its images is irrelevant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The policy is right in WP:NOT#CENSORED: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." We can talk about the exact details of this situation, but clearly this has the intent of, all things being equal, try to be sensitive to people. Don't offend or disgust them if you can help it. It's just the respectful thing to do. Axlrosen (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
More discussion in Commons Talk about using patient pictures, see link80.60.102.202 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
So what is the rationale for omitting this image? It is a perfectly illustrative image of the symptoms of meningitis and is far superior to the current one in use, which is just a blurry image of a couple of pink blobs, which is far more ambiguous than the "shock image" alternative, which, as proven by all these talk page comments, actually does its job of informing the reader of the subject matter. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The picture is not a "perfectly illustrative image of the symptoms of meningitis." It actually shows a rather rare complication of meningitis, and is not representative for the disease. In that sense the picture of the bacteria is more representative. 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That sort of quibbling cuts both ways. According to our article, most cases of meningitis are caused by viruses, so the current picture, which shows a bacterium, is not very representative. Algebraist 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
And it cuts back again. Why would you show a picture on the main page of a rare complication of bacterial meningitis, while viral meningitis is more common than bacterial meningitis?! Certainly not because it is "perfectly illustrative"? 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, if it can be proven by reliable sources that the image depicts rare symptoms of meningitis, then it would be definite undue weight to present it on the main page, where it would likely be assumed as depicting common symptoms. Whether or not this is the case should be discussed on the meningitis talk page, as that is where the sources are as to its reliability. Let's not splinter this into a discussion about which sources are or aren't reliable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the info is in the Lancet article cited as ref. 1 in the article, but that is not freely accessible. In any case this chapter on meningitis in the Merck Manual is completely silent on gangrene as potential complication. 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This chapter of the Merck manual] mentions the syndrome we are talking about, including loss of limbs. Not completely clear to me where the boundaries are between meningitis and the other (?) meningococcal diseases. Is there a doctor in the room? 80.60.102.202 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Haipa, failing to offend people does not require a rationale. Offending people does. I ask again, why should so many visitors' first view of the Main Page provoke a strongly negative emotional response? The image which was removed does serve a purpose, but it isn't necessary for that image to serve that purpose on the Main Page. This is not censorship we are advocating; it is aesthetics and respect... real concerns regardless of the presence or absence of policy which might apply here. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Bottom line. main page gets almost 7 mil views a day. u dont want that many ppl almost throwing up because of a picture that may or may not be considered inappropriate. It DOESNT matter if wikipedia is uncensored or not, no one censored the picture. It was removed because it wasnt necessary to show that image to support the article.Ashishg55 (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, considering there's since been questions (relevant mainly to undue weight, as it seemingly depicts only the symptoms of a rare form of meningitis) as to whether the image's content is relevant enough to be displayed on the main page, the argument relating to censorship, aesthetics, etc. is largely moot. Anyway, the featured article will change in three hours. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm aware of the arguments above, but I really think the blurry pink dots are not a useful illustration. If for various reasons it has been determined not to use the photo of the baby, then why not use the diagram of the meninges, which is the title picture of the meningitis article. Random89 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you still want to change it for the last few hours... 80.60.102.202 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I say anything is better than blurry pink dots. Selecting an image that conveys absolutely nothing about the topic is much worse than a picture of the disease's true effects, no matter how disturbing some people may consider it. Newsboy85 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually like the 'pink blurry dots' they seem to represent focused example of what the article is about, the previous image showed someone suffering from a mix of 2 conditions which the layman would have trouble separating. I have no objections to the previous image appearing on the front page or in the article, but I do think this one is better as the headline image. GameKeeper (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It's 'focused' in its content, but in the optical sense it's a blur that could be anything. If it was captioned "close-up of skin rash" or "pins on a map plotting meningitis epidemic" or "five red balloons in the sky near sunset", how many people could tell the difference? If we can't find an acceptable good-quality image, better to use no image at all. --GenericBob (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I had assumed it was the bacterium without looking at the description, and now I see that is what it is. You suggest it might be confusing but the previous image was more confusing as the person had more conditions than just meningitis, this is an improvement over that I hope you agree. Main page articles are more attractive with images (even if blurry), if nothing else it might encourage a better quality image donation. GameKeeper (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I know one of Wikipedia's strengths is sucking people in by tempting them to improve an article, but main-page FAs are supposed to be a showcase of Wikipedia's best work; any major failings should be addressed before it gets to that point. I agree that pictures are generally a very good thing, but I don't think that should be extended to the idea that any picture, however fuzzy and unexciting, is better than no picture. --GenericBob (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
GO CHARLOTTE! P.S. Im a kid, and well, that pic attracted me to the article becuase I wanted to see want the heck was wrong with that baby, and if it survived. and again GO CHARLOTTE!!!!! If you have ANY disagreements, just post on my talk page 24.110.2.116 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC) again P.S. i am user dcollins52, and GO CHARLOTTE, lol24.110.2.116 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Page Count Stats

What was number one then?  :) -download | sign! 04:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Without checking, I believe that #1 is perpetually Special:Search. Raul654 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No wonder; I never knew special pages were counted.  :) -download | sign! 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Shootings

There are now 16 people dead in that shooting. Go here to verify that: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30030756/?GT1=43001. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The site you provided gives "12 to 16" as the number estimated to have been killed; the headline averages at 14. As another point, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ says 12. 79.71.67.202 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Report problems on the main page at WP:ERRORS, please. See instructions at the top of this talk page. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed as 13. [16] —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


Presidential Election in the Republic of Macedonia, 2009

Today there was a second (decisive) round of presidential and local elections in the Republic of Macedonia. I suggest that the result goes on the front page in the "In the news" section. There's also a page on the presidential elections here. Is this the right place to discuss the news? Crnorizec (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to nominate that at WP:ITN/C. Generally, elections are only added when there is a final result. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday's main page

It would be really nice to have a link to "Yesterday's main page" for those of us who like to review the material we saw at lunch time and which has disappeared forever at dinner time. The lack of an easily found (who knows maybe there is a link but damned if I can find it!) link to a full page one day archive of the main page is the most consistently irritating things about Wikipedia. Thanks.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just see Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Julian. Now wouldn't it be an improvement if someone put that link on the main page so more of us can find it? I'd bet I'm not the only idiot here who didn't know the page existed.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, actually. I've set up a test at User:Juliancolton/MP. What do you (and everybody else) think? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer it in the Main Page toolbox, although I realize that would be a more difficult place to find it in. howcheng {chat} 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Main Page toolbox" is near the top of this talkpage. Just go to #Main Page Error Reports above. It's on the right side. Click on "Yesterday" to get "Yesterday's main page". --PFHLai (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday is not stable. This is particularly noticeable for ITN and DYK, which are not updated on a 24-hour basis, but is also true for SA/OTD, which tends to be modified slightly from year to year. There is no way I'm aware of to get a true snapshot of the Main Page at a particular time without going through the history of each template to see what it looked like at that timestamp, and even then you wouldn't see it as a whole Main Page. The software feature of seeing an old revision with all of the transcluded templates also set to that datestamp would probably have to be a task for the devs. - BanyanTree 04:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
For those of us who are unfamiliar with Talk:Main Page the link should be on the Main Page if at all possible. For every editor familiar with Main Page editing and Talk:Main Page I'd suspect there are a hundred editors and ten thousand users who are not. I like Julian's idea better.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the DYKs displayed are not yesterday's. Ditto for most of the ITNs. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of the ITNs? I wouldn't go that far... there are days when there are no new ITNs at all... --candle•wicke 12:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

2 things; what is an ITN or DYK, and I like the test of User:Juliancolton/MP It works.24.110.2.116 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN = In the news. Top right of the Main Page. DYK = Did you know... located below Today's featured article on the Main Page. --candle•wicke 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Main Page/Archive 124 § Today's Featured Picture

Given that (at this moment) "Today's featured picture" is actually a video file, should this be renamed to "Today's featured media"? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read archived discussions on this issue such as Talk:Main Page/Archive 124#Renaming featured picture to featured media. Some of the arguments you'll see there, and those who might chime in later during this thread, include (1) the suggestion to change Wikipedia:Featured pictures to something else since they also promote video files; (2) someone, like the previous comment, will somehow work in the terms "moving picture" or "motion picture" to argue that no change is needed; (3) the suggestion that a user or a bot should repeatedly check the WP:POTD queue and manually change the "Today's featured picture" on the main page at 00:00 (UTC) and then change it back 24 hours later; and (4) like most stuff on the Main Page (such as this issue and that issue), there will be some talk but ultimately no-consensus and historical inertia will prevail. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers? Stifling tradition, more-like... ~user:orngjce223 ☺ how am I typing? 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would support renaming to 'Today's featured media'. However, that would require the process currently referred to as 'featured pictures' to be changed to 'featured media' first, since we're just displaying one per day of their list. Try suggesting at WT:FP. Modest Genius talk 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the mandatory linguist comment: "picture" is singular, "media" is plural. Also, text is a medium, and so a featured article could be argued to be an example of featured media. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What about "Featured medium except for text"? :P 79.71.67.202 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
We've had featured pictures of text (manuscripts) before, though, like this one. Not that I don't take your general point. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking that, but surely that is featured based on its merit as a picture? There are a lot of great texts out there, but they won't be featured if their depictions are crude; text can't really be featured in its own right. 79.71.67.202 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. We have Wikisource for text- those images are featured as images. J Milburn (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
"Featured visual aids"? --PFHLai (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not keeping it as a picture(s)? After all, video is composed of moving pictures :-) (of course, that excludes sound...) --Tone 07:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Featured picture-sound? Featured picsound... featured picund... featured pind. Or sound-picture... but cut that down far enough and you're left with featured sore... a right pain... --candle•wicke 12:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Featured pound! Then nobody can complain of US bias! :D  GARDEN  12:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the rest of the world uses kilograms or stones, so I think we can ;) Coffeeshivers (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
As good still picture and video content grows on the site, and to encourage still more such free content, maybe there will be space for both a daily featured picture and a daily featured video.Dooley (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we not have the horrific picture of a deformed baby bug getting nailed on the main page?

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! So we can't have a picture of a sick baby on the main page but we CAN have insect rape on there? I've just eaten, I was almost sick, blah blah blah! I demand that it be taken down for the greater good incase children stray onto wikipedia, pick up on this picture and go out on a rape-spree! A blurred diagram of a cross-section would be MUCH more appropriate! --LookingYourBest (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"But it's only the first date!"
Just so everyone know what you are talking about, the above is posted in reference to Traumatic insemination appearing in the DYK secion with this pic. Raul654 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
"incase children stray onto wikipedia, pick up on this picture and go out on a rape-spree! " Uhhh. Seriously... There is no way that that would happen, not even the slightest chance. If the picture did not have a caption, you don't think you would have said anything, because you wouldn't have been able to tell what it was. If any child "goes out on a rape-spree" after seeing that, they have bigger problems than just really weird pattern-association techniques. J.delanoygabsadds 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI, Jdelanoy, I think LookingYourBest's comment was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Raul654 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
...And I epic fail for the third time today. And it's not even 11am. Sigh.. J.delanoygabsadds 14:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll let you off Delanoy! Although this was rather tongue-in-cheek, I'm still upset about the whole meningitis debacle!
Oh, and Raul ... best caption EVER! Ha ha! --LookingYourBest (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
HA! thsi is quite possibly the best non april fools DYK i have ever seen!
I'm trying to get it up to FA status for next year's April Fools :) Raul654 (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
...or maybe Valentine's Day? :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yo this pic sux! dont use it! 24.110.2.116 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "pierces and injects" would be a more apt description, to be honest... Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for getting rid of the pic! 24.110.2.116 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No problemo! Actually, I believe that DYK updates every 6 hours or so, so it's possible this thread here didn't affect the image at all ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Frequency of Oregon content on front page.

Am I the only one that notices a higher than average amount of Oregon themed links in the DYK section? Just curious. 98.246.121.170 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.121.170 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody evidently likes Oregon. Or is from there. Or both. --candle•wicke 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Kudos to DYKsters from Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon such as User: Aboutmovies and User: Orygun. Good job, guys!
If you want your favourite state/country to appear on DYK more often, keep typing! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That's what I do. :) --candle•wicke 16:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Theme?

Is it inspired/serendipitous or ill-advised/unfortunate that both TFA and TFP are paintings of sailors in distress? jnestorius(talk) 15:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

probably pure coincidence.  GARDEN  15:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Pure coincidence, definitely. howcheng {chat} 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that ITN is also on the same theme. And when I first saw the new page, the first DYK was about a rescue helicopter. 173.49.91.134 (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought the same thing, and when I first saw the main page, the lead article on DYK (along with the image- another painting) were about an admiral. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Recently featured - POTD

Under the "Recently featured" section, clicking on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz results in an image of the Wawona Tree? APK is ready for the tourists to leave 00:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Was reported in WP:ERRORS above and is now fixed. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 02:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing pic for lead hook

The more I look into it, the more I think the species originally identified in the image:Sticta ainoae.jpg pic is incorrect – it doesn't jive with the general description of the genus in the article (which is derived from material from a reputable source). However, the other image now in the article shown here

Sticta hypochra

matches the genus description, and is of similar quality. Could someone kindly make this change (image and species name)? Sasata (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

... just to clarify, the new hook would then read: "... that some species in the lichen genus Sticta (Sticta hypochra, pictured) can be used to assess the age of forests?" Sasata (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, we'll use the other pic. This hook isn't on the mainpage yet, BTW, it will appear in the next update. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"You have new messages" bar breaks

When I access the Main Page, if I have new messages, the links to the bar don't work and the words are oddly formatted: they're not oriented as they should. The "You have new messages" bar works on every other page. I used {{helpme}} (see User talk:MathCool10/Archive 6#"You have new messages" bar) and the {{helpme}} replier said that it was because of the forced placement of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" thing. Is this possible to be fixed? If so, can someone do so? MathCool10 Sign here! 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Main page archive?

^^ I want to see the Main page of 21st June 2006? --59.182.84.185 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no overall main page archive. Did you know, today's featured picture and today's featured article each have their own archives. For on this day, you will have to go to 21 June and check the revision history, and for in the news, you would have to, again, check the revision history. There's no way to actually view the whole of the main page at once, unless you were to recreate it piece by piece in the userspace. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Kinda sad! Main pages should be preserved man! Its a treasure... I ve seen Wikipedians proudling stating they had their article on Main page or DYKs... We all know its the most visited page...why not archive them? Disappointing :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.84.185 (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2009, Wikipedia:Recent additions (DYK), Wikipedia:Picture of the day/April 2009 and Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April are the spefic archives. For ITN, as far as I'm aware, you'll have to look at the page history. I think there's also an archive of April Fool's Day main pages somewhere, as that's a day where everyone makes a little extra effort! J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The April Fools versions are at WT:AFMP, see the links under 2009 in the inforbox Modest Genius talk 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
ITN in 2008 may be found here. I update ITN in 2009 by month (including diffs) so it currently exists as far as 31 March. --candle•wicke 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard_Phillips_(captain)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Phillips_(captain) i think we shoud add link —Preceding unsigned comment added by OspreyPL (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I would think not. He does not seem to be notable. --candle•wicke 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
However, he is reasonably relevant to the news item in question. More to the point, the various articles related to the Maersk Alabama kidnapping are in a state of flux, so it's reasonable to link all of them rather than miss something. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a redirect when I wrote that. It probably still ought to be... --candle•wicke 03:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite possibly. If there was no article then, we shouldn't have linked it. As it stands, though, I think it's reasonable to link the captain if there's an article on him. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

deleted history of the Main Page?

Last year, East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) used a bot to increase the number of revisions to over 5,000 (using dummy edits) so that the Main Page can no longer be deleted by normal administrators (this was before a "hack" was put in to prevent the deletion of the Main Page). However, I looked at the revision histories (and the deleted revisions) and could find no sign of such edits. Were they removed by Oversight or something? --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tim Starling removed them from the database with a script, per this message. Graham87 05:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks! --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hillsborough Disaster

As it is the twentieth anniversary of this event, shouldn’t it be acknowledged? --Patthedog (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Added. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. --Patthedog (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ack, I somehow missed there has been a maintenance tag in there for over a year, which disqualifies the article from appearing in OTD. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually I don't think they were valid so I've taken them off.  GARDEN  21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I see it's back anyway.  GARDEN  21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Error in DYK

You cannot abbreviate "Preston Village" to "Preston". They are not the same thing; the "Village" is absolutely necessary to differentiate it from Preston, England Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, added the "village" to the piped link. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What is the difference exactly? for future reference? --140.203.12.241 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, you know. Algebraist 14:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Preston is a city in Lancashire; Preston Village is a suburban area of Brighton and Hove in East Sussex. So the difference is about 500 kilometres (sorry!) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The first girl was a bit rude. But I like you. I think your page is fixed now after I accidently did something. Its so hard to tell which page is which. --140.203.12.241 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Oh it was a joke! I understand now! --140.203.12.241 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Hey, I'm guessing we put Emma Watson up because it's her birthday, but today's also Leonardo Da Vinci's birthday, and for some wacked-out reason, he's never been featured. Well, obviously it's too late to change it, and no one really cares, so.........can we do this next year? DeathNomad 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think Leonardo's page has never been TFA? Sure, it was five years ago, but we do have archives, you know. Algebraist 15:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Actually, Talk:Leonardo da Vinci says, near the top, "This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 10, 2004." So it's most unlikely that LdV would make it back to the Main Page, even if it was to regain Featured Article status, since articles only get a second spot in the sunshine in the most exceptional of circumstances. BencherliteTalk 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it...uh...says "former" featured article. That's a shame. Well, we should un-unfeature it (I'm still not used to Wikipolicies)! In my personal (though slightly biased) opinion, Leonardo da Vinci's page is far more "featureable" than Emma Watsons, but I suppose this argument doesn't belong on this specific discussion page DeathNomad 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Featured articles are featured because of their quality, not because of their subject. Thus, we have featured articles on obscure songs, porn stars and single episodes of TV series, while there are highly encyclopedic topics sitting around without any recognition. If you want something to be featured, the best thing to do is to work on it. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
To be precise, featured articles are featured because they successfully pass through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates after reviewers decide the article meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, commonly considered among the most challenging single tasks on the wiki. Once an article has been featured on the Main Page, only in extraordinary circumstances would it be reconsidered for Main Page placement, largely due to a constant queue of featured articles that have never had their day to shine on the Main Page. The article Leonardo Da Vinci had its featured status removed after discussion reached a consensus that it no longer met the featured article criteria. The article would have to be improved back to FA quality and pass through FA candidacy again before we would be able to have the discussion if it merited an extraordinary redo. - BanyanTree 12:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is very long and difficult to understand. Can it be summarised please? --140.203.12.241 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's your summary. Leonardo Da Vinci was, at one time, a featured article (articles that have been reviewed for accuracy/completeness/neutrality/etc and are considered one of the best articles on Wikipedia). It appeared on the main page in 2004. Subsequently, it was de-featured - no longer considered one of the best articles on the site. (Probably not because the article got worse, but because as time has progressed, we've come to have greater expectations for what a featured article should be). Raul654 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass suicide

"Over 1,500 farmers in an Indian state committed suicide after being driven to debt by crop failure" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-chopra/1500-farmers-in-india-com_b_187457.html This should be on the main page. --Green06 (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Go write an article on it. Then pop along to WP:ITN/C.  GARDEN  09:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured article (Emma Watson) semi-protected?

I see that today's featured article, Emma Watson, is under semi-protection- ostensibly to prevent page move vandalism by a certain infamous individual. It was my understanding that protecting the featured article of the day was against policy? Ashanda (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since the topic seems to be getting ignored here, I'm bringing it over to WP:AN. Ashanda (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The TFA is usually protected against page-moves, just not against editing. howcheng {chat} 07:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Not against policy, just not always. Matty (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What is policy? --140.203.12.241 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOPRO. --Herald Alberich (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are the features articles secret so that shitty stuff gets on the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.13.24 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy. In order to smash this odious cabal, we need to raise the quality of all articles to Featured Article status. Only then will ordinary, decent articles make the Main Page! Onwards, Featured Article-istas! To arms! (Or at least keyboards!) Yours in featured article solidarity, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Featured articles aren't secret- anyone's welcome to comment at WP:FAC (where we decide whether potential featured articles are up to scratch), see what's coming up, or even request that certain articles appear. More can be learnt about the selection process for FAs here or about today's featured article here. On another note, if ancient history counts as shitty, what on Earth would you like to see more of? J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
To slip in some praise, today was the first time for months that I read the Featured Article from start to finish and then re-read it. The Retiarius article had wonderful detail and is truly interesting and well-researched. I always wondered about those nets, and why the fighters had so little armour when they were fighting to the death. Now it makes sense. A great choice.
I do have doubts about some previous selections, which seemed to have limited interest, no matter how well written. However, whatever you choose, someone will think it's not as good as the article on his favourite band or on her favourite nematode.Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think your doubts are, in some respects, FA's greatest strength - a lot of the time I'll learn something new about a topic I wouldn't normally read about. And it provides an incentive to improve those articles that I am usually interested in! Which reminds me - must go and read today's FA, and then start working on improving a few articles... ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
When you say you "reread it" do you mean because every sentence in the Retiarius article shows up at least twice? 98.114.95.59 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead section (that's the one that shows up above the table of contents) should summarise the rest of the article-all information in it will appear elsewhere in the article. This is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article-Chiff Chaff

  • Hey could the lead to this be changed to match the change I made to the lead in the main article? It really did throw me off seeing that a bird had an onomatopoeic song. Unless it sings things like "Woof woof woof Wham"(which would be awesome) this should be changed. AlexTG (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Meant for WP:ERRORS? --74.14.17.253 (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving this to WP:ERRORS Ecphora (talk)

Sutro sisters in DYK

I've added a question to the article's talk page about whether "duo-piano" is a term likely to be generally understood. 132.244.246.25 (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good for you, but why is this here? 79.71.67.202 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm not opposed to playing the piano myself but is it wise to try to play two at once? I'm only asking mind I'm just curious about if anyone has managed it? Or if they have is it a regular occurrence these days? I might learn how to play one day. --140.203.12.241 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Presumably so, but this page is for comments on the main page, not pianos. Thanks.  GARDEN  09:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I meant to comment on this, and pardon the delay. Actually I think the original comment did belong here. The reference to "duo-piano" in the Main Page teaser was obscure. "Duo-piano" is obscure jargon, and was unhelpful in indicating what the item was about - even for the musically inclined. Its use obscured the information rather than assisting understanding.Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

From front page: "Naxalite rebels kill at least 17 people during the first phase of India's general election."

The link to kill directs to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2009#Phase_1_.E2.80.93_April_16.2C_2009

This seems a little odd. Above link should be placed on some suitable word in the news. 'Kill' have following page for itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill

Not a big issue, but questionable at first, atleast 203.122.33.194 (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Maddy, Delhi, India

WP:ERRORS.  GARDEN  09:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

nbsp

As Main Page editors become increasingly familiar with obscure Manual of Style guidelines, there has recently been an epidemic of &nbsp; explained here. For instance, Did You Know currently says "... three unrelated Irish clans ..." which is coded as three&nbsp;unrelated [[Irish clans]] . But WP:NBSP actually says to use &nbsp; when "figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space". Figure probably means numeral, not "three", and "unrelated Irish clans" surely isn't an abbreviation or symbol. There's more to the guideline than that, but I don't think it was intended to be used for every number, or the guideline would have said that. So unless someone knows something I don't know, can we restrict the use of &nbsp; to the list of situations in the guideline, or else change the guideline? Please note the Irish clans are just an example; my point is that this has become routine. Art LaPella (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The nbsp in the example you give is totally superfluous. Modest Genius talk 14:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad wording in "In the news"

"A number of delegates exit...". Couldn't this mysterious "number" be one, or even zero? It would be nice if the sentence were specific; but if it can't, it could at least be logical... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.170.162 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no definite number at the time. --candle•wicke 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm just saying that "a number" doesn't mean anything at all and thus constitutes poor wording. It doesn't even specify that the number is not definite.--137.146.170.162 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If a news item says "A number of people did x", the fact that you're reading it implies that it was a significant number of people, otherwise it wouldn't have been published. In the sentence "A number of people (whose exact quantity is indeterminate but large enough to merit reporting in a news article) did x", everything in brackets is completely redundant if you're reading it in a news article.
It's not poor wording at all unless you can't grasp the concept of context - in which case bad luck, but Wikipedia isn't aimed at the functionally illiterate. --86.156.134.242 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It is poor wording. What about 'several'? Modest Genius talk 14:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to "Delegates from at least 30 countries". I think the number of the countries they represent is the real point. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Several" means at least three, so it's no better or worse than "a number" - in fact worse, since thirty is arguably too many to be described as "several". Context, people, context. --86.170.68.167 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It is better than 'a number', because it places at least a lower limit and indicates that the datum is discrete. Not perfect by any means, and if we have the exact number we should use it, but definitely better than 'a number' Modest Genius talk 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been noticing how every day's feature article is vandalized frequently. Would it be a good idea to automatically semi-protect each FA as it's posted? a little insignificant (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this has been proposed before. I think the consensus was that we shouldn't semiprotect the first article people might try to edit while maintaining that this is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, good point. I caught myself thinking of the encyclopedia in terms of vandals rather than well-intentioned editors. Sorry- a little insignificant (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
For the appropriate guideline, see this page. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Wall of China

I don't know how people haven't noticed this. It says on the Main Page that the Chinese just discovered 2,390 miles of the Great Wall of China. Apparently no one bothered to check that the Great Wall article states that only 180 miles were discovered. This statement is cited by here. I think that the bigger number comes from the total length of the wall. Looking at where the possible discrepancy came from, it appears as if the BBC link says that there is 3,350 more kilometers than previously believed. This figure includes ditches, rivers and hills. The page should probably say what was found of what. This information also was at the top of the page, and the 180 miles is halfway through the article. Thanks to anyone who can notice and correct this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I want to ask if it's a vandal act to writte in the discussion area about things who don't really have nothing to do with the article or not related? Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.82.122 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think its vandalism as such, however is breaking the WP:NOTFORUM policy number 4 Dark verdant (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of which, this page is really for discussing improvements to the Main Page itself. The better place to ask question about using Wikipedia and clarifications on Wikpedia policy is the Wikipedia:Help desk (BTW, there's a link in that big box at the top of the page). -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

grammatical error in FA

The FA contains an error: "hundreds of fishermen were unprepared by" -- could somebody change "by" to "for"? This has been fixed in the article itself. Looie496 (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Protecting TFA blurbs

As mentioned here, I propose exploiting the little-known <noedit> function of the Mediawiki:titleblacklist to automatically and permanently protect all current and past Today's Featured Article blurbs. The current practice is to protect them individually shortly after creation and leave them protected as a permanent archive. This will eliminate that protection step and prevent accidental lapses. Are there any objections to this? Dragons flight (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is more of a technical issue, as far as I am concerned, I essentially don't see any change in the current TFA policy of permanently protecting the TFA templates. Therefore, unless is there some discussion about modifying the practice, I do not care either way. I was going to suggest that you ask User:Raul654, our featured article director, to see what he thinks is since he is the one who selects each TFA and writes and protects the blurbs, but I see you have already posted on his talk page. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and implemented this. Dragons flight (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Search box suggestion

When opening the main page it would be better that the cursor is already set to the search box so no need to click on it (just like google) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.253.91.79 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a frequently asked question. Art LaPella (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Go to Special:Preferences, Gadgets, under User Interface there's a box that says 'Focus the cursor in the search bar on loading the Main Page'. Tick it. Edit: forgot to mention that this only works if you have an account. Modest Genius talk 23:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Design in firefox 3

Firefox 3.0.9 displays English Wikipedia somewhat strange. Languages and Navigation tools are at the bottom of the list. It's not comfortable at all! It displays Wikipedia in other languages all right. What's the matter?Sasha best (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this problem.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange. What version do you use?Sasha best (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be something to do with CSS being disabled, or your browser not reading the site's CSS for some reason. I don't know what to do about it, however. Graham87 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, I'm using 3.0.9 also. Modest Genius talk 23:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

changed image seems wrong. Walrus is now weasel?

  • The discovery of fossilised Puijila darwini (restoration pictured), the oldest ancestor of modern pinnipeds ever found, is announced.
The picture before was a group of walruses, and now it looks like a big weasel. Clicking on pinnipeds shows a walrus. Is that a mistake? Dream Focus 18:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not. Please read Puijila darwini. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
In particular, please read this sentence: "Unlike modern pinnipeds, it did not have flippers and its overall form was otter-like, albeit more specialized; its skull and teeth are the features that most clearly indicate that it is a seal." Art LaPella (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2009

Image targets

Aside from featured picture, why don't we have the images in the FA, ITN, DYK, and OTD all point to the relative article, instead of the image itself? rootology (C)(T) 21:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that if someone clicks an image, they want to see the image- that is certainly true with me, and that's how it works on most other websites. Further, if we do that, we have an attribution problem- if an image owner has to be credited, then they should really be credited in the caption. We get around this with image pages, and so bypassing an image page is possibly not acceptable from a legal standpoint, and certainly not from a philosophical one. We should not hide the authors of images. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces on the Main page

A few days ago there was a thread here on non-breaking spaces (nbsps) on the Main Page. I'm probably the one behind a lot, if not most, of the nbsps in the Did You Know section of the Main Page. I think that nbsps should be used (or at least, should not be discouraged) between a number and its units. The current guideline at WP:NBSP says Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line. A specific example given is in compound expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space (17 kg, AD 565, 2:50 pm). A year ago the MOS nbsp guideline was changed to exclude nbsps in situations like "336,000 people" (example from OTD right now). The change sparked a discussion at the MOS talk page. One of the main points then in limiting nbsps was that they clutter up the edit window. On the Main Page, however, only updating administrators are looking at the source code. On the Main Page especially we should consider our readers over our editors. Seeing "336,000
people" is awkward, so I believe the current nbsp guideline would not discourage a nbsp here. I'd like to hear others' opinions on using nbsps more liberally on the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you're reading the guideline far too liberally- for instance, I would support a non-breaking space between a number and a unit of measurement (especially if abbreviated), but I would not support a non-breaking space between a number and something that is not a unit of measurement. Compare- "John owned 40 acres" and "John owned 40 fields". I think they should be used very sparingly- overly unjustified text is not something I find aesthetically pleasing, at all. J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The distinction between "40 acres" and "40 fields" seems to be a line in the sand. To me "acres" and "fields" are both units. Also, I've seen the justification issue come up before, but I don't understand it. Could you explain? (I don't notice a difference, but maybe I don't know what to look for.) Shubinator (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
J Milburn said "unit of measurement". Acres are all the same size. Fields aren't. Units of measurement are needed to specify variables in a physics equation. A square mile is exactly 640 acres, but 640 fields could be any size. 120 miles divided by 60 mph equals 2 hours. 40 fields divided by 5 fences is meaningless. Art LaPella (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
40 fields ÷ 5 fields/farmer = 8 farmers. But I get what you mean. Going back to justification, is the problem that the text goes to the next line, leaving some white space on the previous line? This is more of an issue on articles. Three of the Main Page sections (ITN, DYK, OTD) have bulleted lists and you can't really see the justification. Shubinator (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Zuma didn't Lose the Election

Hi, the report on the South African election highlights in bold the word "loses" giving anyone hastily glancing at this the impression the ANC lost the election, when really they won. The report deserves greater accuracy in this respect.Gallador (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, "anyone hastily glancing" should consider reading it again. The line on ITN didn't say who lost the election -- the word "election" is not even in the sentence. Zuma's party lost its parliamentary supermajority and that's accurate. BTW, for next time, please consider using WP:ITN/C or WP:ERRORS as explained at the top of this talkpage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I second Gallador's comment. While technically accurate, this statement indeed needs to be read twice because the first interpretation that comes to mind is wrong. In any case this is not in line with the way other elections' results are reported. 86.70.119.250 (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

250th birthday?

April 27: 250th birthday of [...] Mary Wollstonecraft.

Given that Wollstonecraft died in 1797 according to the article about her, shouldn't this read "250th anniversary of the birth of [...] Mary Wollstonecraft"? — 217.46.147.13 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. For future reference, these sorts of comments are more noticeable if they are made at WP:ERRORS. BencherliteTalk 16:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Most people would be able to link the fact it says 250th with the fact they died.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whee, bias!

Wollstonecraft features in TFA and OTD, yeah, I get that... and the Nameless Book mentioned in DYK was probably written by a woman and features an overview of prominent female authors... and Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is ITN... I think I detect a bias toward influential women. Let's get some obscure, non-notable men up on the Main Page to counter this bias! I volunteer to be featured myself, as a wholly unimportant anonymous contributor, if no one else will step forth. Viva le rabble! 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That widely recognized manufacturer of boots and saddles in rural Dickens, Texas, Charles Weldon Cannon, known as Tooter Cannon, (presently at DYK) ought to go at least some of the way to countering this utterly earth-shattering revelation. :) --candle•wicke 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Then there's that guy, Antonio Bastardo, (also at DYK) who we all know for... uh... --candle•wicke 18:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Surviving elementary school? --86.159.27.165 (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Better tone down all this Mexican stuff when we're at it. TFP and a prime spot on ITN? Never! :) --candle•wicke 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I quite like today's Norwegian DYK... :) --candle•wicke 03:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chopin

Of course, one must love Chopin. However, today's DYK entry on his Nocturnes Op. 37 seems contradictory: If these compositions “act as an aphrodisiac," wouldn't that tend to stimulate the libido, rather than “comfort” said impulse?

Sca (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "comfort" here means "stimulate an underused libido", i.e. women could get from Chopin the "comfort" they couldn't get from their uncaring husbands. That's how I read it, anyway. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess if one broadens one's concept of libido to refer generally to the creative impulse, that makes sense. I was thinking of it more narrowly in terms of sexuality, i.e. concupiscence.
Sca (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NORWAY

I'm not really complaining about this but the main Page does seem to have an awful lot about Norway on it recently. It's a lovely country and the people are even nicer, but I wonder whether it would be helpful to do stuff about other countries as well. ( This comment is not available in Nyorsk.)93.97.194.138 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently we have only one Norway-related item on Main Page, in the DYK section. And I am pretty sure we had a lot more U.S. items than Norwegian ones. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the OP doesn't know the difference between Sweden and Norway? Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The Pirate Bay being countryless at ITN may have gone some way towards this. --candle•wicke 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I check this page every few days to see if there's anyone complaining about a geographic bias on the main page. For some reason I find it amusing when people get their panties in a twist over which country front page content is about. 198.209.225.230 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Norway is even complaining about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the Durban Review Conference. --candle•wicke 17:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
OMFG we have an item on Norway on SA/OTD now. Help, help!!! Seriously though, looking at Wikipedia:Recent additions it looks like we have had quite a few Norwegian items (search for Norw) over the past few weeks, I'm guessing someone (or a group) with an interest in Norway has been hard at work in Norway related new articles so we've a spate of nominations which have been spread out as they should. This happens all the time and of course we seem to get a protest when it does, sigh... Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another excellent piece about Norway on the front page today. As I said in my first observation, I'm not really complaining about this because the individual items have usually been interesting. In fact it is quite reassuring to know that every day I wake up I am going to learn something about Norway that I didn't know before. The Norgeophiles who have produced these pieces are to be congratulated not criticised. But maybe we could get somebody from Denmark or Sweden to write something to add a little variety93.97.194.138 (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, this is a wiki. So if you don't like what's on the main page, write something and nom it for ITN or DYK or TFA. J.delanoygabsadds 05:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Although I am of half-Norwegian descent, I have to say that today's Norwegian entry about the Krag-Jørgensen rifle strikes me as excessively obscure. I know some Wikipedians think obscurity is what Wiki is all about. I have a different view. It seems to me that Nguyen Van Thieu's flight from Saigon in 1975, for just one possible example, is of far more interest.
Having said that, I wish to report that my paternal grandmother always told my dad that "the Norwegians are the finest people in the world."
Sca (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As the person who first raised the issue of Noregocentricity, I should like to endorse your paternal grandmother's view. Or more precisely, that I have never met any finer people. I'm not really complaining about this, but has anybody else noticed that we have had a lot of items about of the amount of Norwegian coverage on the discussion page recently?

No. --candle•wicke 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
i can assure u the pigs got nothing to do with norway :) Ashishg55 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the obscurity issue. Todays Norway-related DYK-blurb is really obscure. I'm Norwegian, and it's a bit cheesy to propagate so much trivia about Norway. 85.200.193.67 (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, millions of English speakers have been wondering for years just who the Norwegian editor of Verdens litteraturhistorie was. Thanks to today's DYK entry, we know at last.
Now, who was his assistant, and what was his mother's maiden name? Also, what model of Volvo did he drive? And speaking of cheesy — did he really like gammelost, or did he only pretend to like it?
Sca (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really complaining about this, but I can't see anything about Norway on the Main Page today. Is there a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What? No Norwegian entries today? Two days in a row? Det gjør vondt! Sca (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am told that there WAS a Norwegian entry but it has been removed from Wikipedia. The link was http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=FC+Dammers&go=Go and it concerned a team aiming to become the second most successful team in its town. Regrettably, I did not notice this when I commented on the lack of any Norgerama yesterday. I apologise for any concern this may have caused. I am pleased to see that today's entry on Amund B. Larsen maintains the standards of broad general interest which we now associate with Norwaycentric articles on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Drammen FK? --Rettetast (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite right! I am sure we all wish them well in the demanding task they have set themselves. Excellent piece on Carl Platou today, complete with link to his first cousing once removed.It only goes to prove that Andy Warhol was right when he said that every Norwegian has the right to be on Wikipedia for 15 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) When I awoke there was nothing about Norway on the main page and for a moment I felt a deep sadness. But thanks to Andreas Claussen and his famous role as a state concillor, that fear has gone away. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Today's entry on the Lithuanian Special Operations Force is quite interesting. I have a suggestion: How about a series of Lithuania entries to fill the vacuum left by the apparent demise of the Norway series? (Second article could be on famed Lithuanian cuisine, perhaps starting with Cepelinai.) Such a series would go far to relive our disappointment over the lack of Norway entries in recent days.
Sca (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Norway has not let us down today. The piece on Øvre Richter Frich tells me at least as much as I want to know about this great writer. To be fair, I do not believe there was ever a full 24 hour period when the DYK section was entirely devoid of any Norwegian material, though I am sure there is still much to learn. For example, I do not believe we have ever had had a full list of Norwegian entries to the Eurovision song contest, full lyrics (in English) and names of cmposers together with links to first cousins once remoed if appropriate. So there is much to be done before we move on to the equally important matter of Lithuania. However, a serious point having raised the issue in the first place. I have come to really enjoy the pieces about Norway and would be genuinely disappointed if one day there turned out not to be one. That is because they are nice pieces written about (mostly) nice people or are unflinching ion their treatment of bad people. But what if they were about some less benign topic? What if a group were producing pieces at such a rate that the automatic selection process gave them continuing prominence but they were about something much less benign? Sometimes just giving prominence to an issue introduces a bias to believiong that issue is important. Is there/should there be a mechanism for regulating that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're all sitting down before you read this... but I was wandering by the nominations page and I think one of the future Norway DYKs has run into some bother!!! There might soon be an entire day of Norwayless DYKs!!! But don't worry!!! CALM DOWN!!! My natural reaction was to immediately begin preparing for this possibility although I'm sure it can be fixed as there is some time left!!! I'm currently trying to contact Norwegian security services and medical teams across the world to ensure they're all on stand-by in the event of this disaster actually occurring!!! The main thing is not to panic!!! We're all in this together!!! We can cope!!! Our Lithuanian editorial team are on stand-by to assist although, as we all know, Lithuania simply isn't Norway... :( --candle•wicke 15:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Normal service has been resumed on the Norse front I am glad to see. Please don't let the interruption happen again. I understand the enormous amount of work needed to maintain the quality of the Norway-centred articles but it is well worth it. The world is rapidly becoming extremely well informed about many Norwegian personalities who have been unaccountably ignored. There's a lot more to it than Vikings, Ibsen and Greig.

If you look closely, you'll find that today's featured article on Ælfheah of Canterbury is actually a Norway entry. Sca (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
You might also notice an astonishing bias in favour of the English south-east on the Main Page today; TFP is this lovely panoramic view of the Thames. --candle•wicke 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some technical problem, as no one has objected today to the use of the term "Association football" in the featured article. There are nineteen archived pages of discussion of this article, mainly about that subject. Have they died in vain? Football is the name used by the rest of the world, while Americans ....(continued page 94) Michael of Lucan (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The main page takes its cue from the article. If you want it to change, you should go to that article's talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you might take a cue from reading the following article - Joke. Next time I'll add the smiley. Michael of Lucan (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place for puerile jokes. This is for discussion of the Main Page. You have a userpage for jokes. Danthemankhan 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Insulting a comment as puerile is contrary to the principles of adult discussion, and possibly self-referential.
You do me an injustice. I suggest you read back and see what happens every time this subject is mentioned. It is no coincidence that there are 19 pages of archived comments and a FAQs on the talk page for the article. I may have pre-empted another two pages here. Michael of Lucan (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought it was funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Michael of Lucan's right... there must be some problem where users on the North American continent can't post errors... it's a catastrophe! 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Michael. Something is seriously amiss when Norway and Lithuania are getting more coverage on this page than the United States. Is today a public holiday there? But then that would surely give more people more free time... --candle•wicke 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
...because people in the USA know very little about US topics and a great deal about Norwegian topics? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic points, maybe tomorrow we can featureUniform (soccer)147.72.72.2 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. I well remember the angst over the name of that article. Ugh. --Dweller (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've actually never heard it called that before... it seems an extremely unusual use of the word "uniform". Thanks for telling me. :) --candle•wicke 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I was responding to the original point - the name of the article Association football --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is technically a technical problem; but, the featured article for today and yesterday is/was just, well, dumb. I mean, this stuff is obscure minutia in the extreme. Who the hell selects this crap? Can they be sacked?

Finnbjorn (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Try telling that to the editors who worked to get these articles to FA status. User:Raul654 makes the final decision. Also see this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe this issue is raised time and time again and I really don't think this user fully understands the process of WP:Featured articles and WP:Today's featured article... --candle•wicke 09:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Request Edit

Sorry, if I'm doing this wrong. Learning as I go. The number of confirmed deaths due to swine flu as of today according to the WHO is 7, not 152.[17] Could someone please change this?Jcblackmon (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Future requests for change to Main Page content can be brought to WP:ERRORS where they may be noticed sooner... --candle•wicke 21:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Outwith Mexico maybe --86.148.187.16 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
If you mean a new ITN, things have been a bit slow but I think enough people have died today in Azerbaijan and the Netherlands so a new one will be along soon enough... :) --candle•wicke 21:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Other languages

Hello. I notice that on the list of worldwide Main Pages - the one that appears on the left of the monitor - it only gives en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and not en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main Page, for example. Could someone unprotect the page so that I could correct it?--Pokémaniac Thomas (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because "main page" is English and other language Wikipedias will have the URL for their main page in that language. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to add what their equivilent is. Like it is [ar.wikipedia.org/wiki%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9], for example.--Pokémaniac Thomas (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
But there's no point - that's just many (unintelligible) extra characters cluttering up the edit box that serve no purpose. They both point to the same page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
That would also store up problems if other languages decided to move their main pages (such as the perennial suggestions to move ours to Portal:Main Page). No real pros, several cons, not necessary. Modest Genius talk 23:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't you love it when a (now banned) sockpuppet of a banned user asks for a critical page to be unprotected? He'd be "more than happy" to help, really. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Now, now... let's AGF on this. --candle•wicke 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu

From the wording of the section, it sounds like there actually is a problem in the US just like mexico, even though there's only 8 people infected in the states and they have recovered. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You should let them know at WT:ITN. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Rephrased. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Where in Hell are you getting the figures being claimed in the headline?? CNN as of Noon, PDT is reporting 73 CONFIRMED cases worldwide, with about 2000 reported in Mexico, a far cry from the number given here. Again, the LOWEST figure is what "at least" means! In this case, the LOWEST number confirmed (which the current CNN article does not give, only "as many as 103 deaths in Mexico". We have this same trouble EVERYTIME multiple deaths are reported- someone posting the headlines does not understand (or care) what "at least" means. Such REPEATED sloppiness really hurts Wikipedia's reliability. CFLeon (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Main Page gets its figures from this article. That article gets its figures from this CNN report and this AP report. I didn't find your CNN report (so where in bleep are you getting your figures?). If it exists, the article's talk page would be a better place to discuss which report is the most reliable. Art LaPella (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
As of 6pm PDT, the CNN report has been updated to the 149 figure (unconfirmed) with only 81 cases confirmed worldwide, but at the time that I posted (not to mention the time that the Wikipedia headline would have been posted), my figure was the one being used. But whatever # is current still does't change my point (which you ignored), which is that by using the term "at least", Wikip is claiming that 149 is the smallest confirmed figure, which in actually it's the LARGEST REPORTED UNCONFIRMED figure, with CONFIRMED #s being MUCH smaller. (I still haven't found the # of CONFIRMED deaths on CNN, and I don't have the time tonight to do any more intensive search.) And it is pertinent to THIS page when Wikip is spreading inaccurate figures on the gateway page. CFLeon (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the top of this page states: "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." Admittedly the article doesn't say "at least", but that phrase does allow for a delay in getting the Main Page to match the supporting article. Art LaPella (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that "at least" has been removed, I don't have a complaint. Just to be clear, I don't mind what figure is used (in a week, we may see 500 deaths); my complaint is the intellectual and journalistic dishonesty of taking the LARGEST figure being mentioned and then claiming that it is the SMALLEST. To me that practice smacks of Tabloid Journalism or PR Propaganda. CFLeon (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The old photo of the two masked Mexican cops (who aren't getting married in Sweden, after all) should be replaced by B00526-Swine-flu.png or some such image of A(N1H1). The epidemic has spread far beyond Mexico. kencf0618 (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

well exuse me

i dont really think thatthere should be disscoshions because there are strangers that lie about there age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.183.130 (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. Not much we can do about that except assume honesty. --candle•wicke 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Er... what? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't go to that disco either! There seems to be a lot of people that lie about their names here too ... either that, or there are a lot of cruel parents in this world! --LookingYourBest (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

General Belgrano image

Resolved
 – Vandalism removed by an admin on Commons

(cross-posted to WP:AN)

FAO anyone who can edit protected pages on commons, there's a spot of vandalism on the ARA General Belgrano underway.jpg image in "On this day". EyeSerenetalk 09:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism was removed by an administrator at Commons [18]. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Category

Should the Main Page be placed in a category? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Now this issue I remember because it is right on the page history of the Main Page: About two years ago, somebody added Category:Main Page[19] but then was reverted.[20] As archived on Talk:Main Page/Archive 111#Category, the objection was that it spoils the appearance of the main page and that no one needs help finding it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC) .

Prime Minister of Senegal really that important?

I mean, both guys, the guy who was replaced and the guy who replaced him, only even have 3 paragraph articles slapped together for this headline. Because it's Senegal. It's not that important, stop pretending it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.19.89 (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It has a population higher than Switzerland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Sweden, Israel, Finland, Norway, Ireland and other countries that we cover in depth or which would be considered "major". However, English is not a language widely spoken in Senegal, and, as far as I know, it has no major links with English speaking countries. Our coverage of the nation is poor due to systematic systemic bias. I'm not quite sure how you could argue that the Senegal news is of little importance when we have a car crash, a poet and something about marriage in a tiny country (see above...) next to it. Note that all those stories are about Europe. If anything, we seem to be strongly biased against the important political stories in Africa. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Any opportunity to have an African ITN is to be welcomed. It is also pleasing to note that we had a slight increase in South American ITNs last month. No country or continent ought to dominate. Three paragraphs is a more than suitable length for ITN and having it on the Main Page means someone might come along and add to it. --candle•wicke 18:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That's systemic bias - systematic bias is quite different (and implies consistent but intentional bias). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry? Are you saying what I was describing was not systematic bias? My description seems pretty consistent with what our article on the subject says. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You mean systematic bias? Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, shut me up. Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
For those who are wondering: Systemic_bias#Systemic_versus_systematic_bias states '[...] systemic biases are sometimes said to arise from the nature of the interworkings of the system, whereas systematic biases stem from a concerted effort to favor certain outcomes. Consider the difference between affirmative action (systematic) compared to racism and caste (systemic).' Modest Genius talk 02:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry J - I should have been clearer. Your definition of systemic bias was quite correct, I just meant you got the link wrong and presented it as a definition of systematic bias which (I would sincerely hope) Wikipedia does not have. After all, TINC (however, SCREWy it may seem). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of Gay

The Gay-Class ships should be capitalized; not only would it be proper English to capitalize a proper noun, but the way the page reads now is borderline defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cransona (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Report to WP:ERRORS. --candle•wicke 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WW2?

I think World War II should be spelled out instead. It would look more professional. 99.138.181.187 (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Where? In other news, please report any inaccuracies or stylistic suggestions about the content of the Main Page sections to WP:ERRORS. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Second World War is generally the accepted historical term. --89.240.151.100 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
...in Europe and the Commonwealth; I believe "World War Two" is preferred in the US. However, it doesn't alter the fact that we have no idea where this is an issue - we need the original IP poster to let us know. I've also looked at the Main Page and can't see anything obvious. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgot about this. Saw it a few hours after it was left and couldn't see anything either. It must've been a DYK which was replaced... but I can't find anything in the archives... --candle•wicke 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

gay did you know...

wow...

... that the Royal Navy accepted a gay Viking and a gay Corsair into their service during the Second World War, with another 12 gays joining in the 1950s?

just... wow.--Onstet9 (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; that's completely inappropriate. It reads like an April Fools' joke. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the wording. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine Influenza

Shouldn't the main page have a short section about the word-wide crisis that's going on that the moment? It is extremely important for Wikipedians to know about and I think it should be on the main page, along with a map of the world showing which contries are currently affected by it. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was on the news, but it scrolled off. Besides, it's not that important. So far, you're more likely to die from regular flu. APL (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I suppose, though it is affecting people all round the world. And for all we know, it could get much worse. I still think it should be added. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 15:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It could get much worse? No crystal ball please. We will definitely feature it again when it does get much worse. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If it gets much worse. No crystal ball please. :) J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. You made me blush. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
?I think wikipedia should be worried if people come solely HERE in order to get current news... --Jakezing (Your King (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not surprised considering the frequency of new ITNs at the moment... 2 May is beginning to disappear already... --candle•wicke 02:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Please see our sister project, Wikinews. —David Levy 03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

er no that's just wrong. the WHO are a reliable source that says that a pandemic is likely. that is nothing close to a 'crystal ball' and does not go against wikipedia's guidelines. reporting on a future pandemic might well be wrong but surely no-one wants to write about what people will say about a swine flu once it happens, or anything else that might be original research. people want to write about documented speculation on whether a pandemic is imminent: nothing to do with crystal balls. jesus christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.11.169 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The WHO being a reliable source doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not a news outlet it is an Encyclopedia. If/when anything changes regarding the Swine Flu, I am sure someone will update and readd to the ITN section. And as someone has already mentioned why would people mainly be coming to Wikipedia for current news, I would go to a proper news website or even the TV for up to date information. Dark verdant (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What does the word pandemic mean? Certainly few people are dying of the bugger,

The NORMAL FLU is more of a pandemic then H1N1... Besides: The Southern Hemisphere is the one who will be enduring Swine Flu for the next couple of months, and since the people who come to En.wikipedia and edit and therefor make their presence known seem to be of a Northern Hemisphere group: why would we care (jk)--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

On this day ...

Re today's Latvia entry, I'd just like to point out that Lithuania was the first to declare its independence, on March 11, 1990. Sca (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The entry does not imply that Latvia was the first? J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. It seems quite odd that today's "On This Day" fails to list the Mexican connection with Cinco de Mayo - which is widely celebrated as a Mexican heritage day in North America.
Sca (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
At the top of the section: 'On this day... 5 May: Cinco de Mayo; [...]' Modest Genius talk 23:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you know (picture)

The line referring to the picture mentions three people then says "(pictured)"... The picture is of a single person, which of the three is the picture of?  æron phone home  08:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The single person pictured is the last one mentioned (the name followed by "(pictured)"). — JamesR ≈talk≈ 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Still somewhat confusing that way.  æron phone home  09:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Re-ordered for clarity, and because it makes more sense to have Milligan mentioned first in the context of his eponymous legal case. BencherliteTalk 09:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Turkey attacks

Should this be in the news section, as with all attacks like this! It is a sad event but a significant one in Turkey because of how it was carried out. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest candidates at WP:ITN/C, NOT here. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Posted now. Thankfully I lurk around here to spot these types of comments. --candle•wicke 02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Error in "Did you know" section

page says, "... that Ida Henrietta Hyde was the first woman to receive a Ph.D. at Heidelberg College?" Link is to Heidelberg University in Ohio. In fact, Hyde received her Ph.D. at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.99.8.10 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS. --candle•wicke 14:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ventura

Another DYK note: It should be Jesse Venture, former governor of Minnesota. His term as governor ended six years ago. Sca (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Another WP:ERRORS. --candle•wicke 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, surprised nobody has complained about the systemic bias with wrestling on the main page. --Kaizer13 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The table tennis ought to go some way towards evening that out. --candle•wicke 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In The News section

the highlighted news article links in the In The News section today read like this:- seal products, mutiny, slaughter, kill 2009 World Snooker Championship. (insane marines rebel and do your worst at the snooker) Now if I was an insane paranoid schitzo they probably wouldn't give me stuff highlighted like that in whatever hospital had me. Point? It could have been linked like this, (actual news style?):- "bill banning imports of seal products", "Georgian troops mutiny", "Egypt commences the slaughter of all domesticated pigs", "gunmen kill 44 people at wedding party", OKay you get the picture, it is sort of random? 86.46.64.230 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't get the picture Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Where the current link is kill it could have been a link to gunmen kill 44 people at wedding party without much extra work. Maybe it doesn't make so much sense, I just thought it could improve for anyone who works on that stuff if they might not have thought of it. Some of todays links like mutiny and slaughter sort of fit but usually it seems like Georgian troops mutiny and Egypt commences the slaughter of all domesticated pigs (no change to current wording only change to size of link) sometimes it seemed like that type of link was more correct and newsy. Not much of a suggestion but hey maybe next year :) 86.46.64.230 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason why Georgian troops mutiny doesn't work is because there are useful links in Georgia and troops. Ditto with Egypt and domestic pigs. 'Gunmen kill 44 people at wedding party' is a very long link and is likely to cause more confusion and doesn't look good for a stylistic viewpoint. Finally ITN is not about the news. Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
A good reason for changing the title to something involving the word "events". Of course then there would be no more ITN... there would be a brand new set of initials... --candle•wicke 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Snooker word choices

Just a minor comment on the headline about Snooker. When I first read the verb "beats" it brought to mind a vicious crime. As I continued reading the note, I realized it was about Snooker. Perhaps a different word would be in better judgment. "Defeats" or "bests" immediately come to mind. Any others would just help the situation. Thanks. --Everchanging02 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yip, I'll pass this over to WP:ERRORS as well... --candle•wicke 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It constantly eludes me why people never report errors in the correct place. What really is so difficult about posting properly? 79.71.114.103 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
When you come here for the first time you might not know where everything is. --candle•wicke 13:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. At the time I looked at the page to submit my note, I searched the page to make sure nothing was mentioned about it previously, and then could swear that I saw something about posting to the end of the page. I usually do minor contributions like the aforementioned correction, and so when I run into a page that I can't edit, I tend to look for the best way to help correct it. Some people don't have all the time to read through all the rules and minor nuances (not to mention search for the specific locations) when they just want to make a simple contribution. Again, I apologize for posting to the incorrect place and in the future I will either contribute to the list of errors near the top of the page or choose not to contribute at all. --Everchanging02 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In the news: Georgian Mutiny

Shouldn't there be anything in the headline about the mutineers surrendering? The current wording makes the event seem like it's ongoing. Ansh666 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS. --candle•wicke 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Snooker really _that_ important

Are there not more important things in the world to include on the front page than a picture of the most recent Snooker champion? Since "In the news" only gets real estate for a single picture, there has to be more important news that the picture could highlight. "And in other news, the Rotary Club is having a bake-sale at the local MegaMart. Stay tuned for details". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.229 (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So now were being reprimand for putting something BESIDES major news event as thje picture? Amazing. I think it's a good change; we need to mic up the ITN pictures between important and not important entries.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
A balance should be able to be found between the utterly unimportant from a global perspective and fear-mongering, 'the sky is falling' tabloid news. Snooker champion=ultimately unimportant. Swine flu pandemic='the sky is falling.' Georgia accuses Russia of coup attempt=somewhere in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.229 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Difficult, though, to produce a picture of one country accusing another country of plotting a coup. Also, note that this ITN is currently top; when it gets displaced by a more recent news item the picture will likely change. I suspect recent events in Turkey, and any accompanying picture, may satisfy your criteria. To my mind, however, snooker is a growing sport in Asia and Europe, and a significant part of the anglophone world will find it at least slightly interesting (mind you, I'd prefer a picture of a Nepalese politician or an Austrian avalanche). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

snooker, what the hell is that? How does this affect the world? SACP (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said for various sporting events that get mentions on ITN. Namely American Football and Baseball. To be honest I care little about snooker and other sporting events but I'm happy the ITN items have taken away the fear mongering Swine Flu that is constantly in your face at the moment (well my face anyway). Dark verdant (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If only there were some way to find out... Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it helps, the Snooker Championship was participated by representatives from a grand total of 5 countries: the United Kingdom (if you count the Home Nations as one), Rep. of Ireland, Thailand, Australia and China (including Hong Kong). Now, to gear up for 9-ball once the tournament (if) ever gets held. –Howard the Duck 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it was invented in India if that article is to be believed. Considering India has one of the largest populations in the world, add in China who had players at the tournament and tried to steal it from Sheffield (reported in the Irish Independent despite Ireland having no players in the tournament), and this dwarfs the population of the US... throw in the fact that the result was published in The Sydney Morning Herald within minutes... seems like the sport is at least as relevant as baseball and American football for most of the world. If it is perceived as unusual, I think that is to be welcomed... it might attract more editors to become involved in that area and readers learn something new... presumably why they're here? --candle•wicke 15:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with having 9-ball either if it is of the same relevance. --candle•wicke 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. And while I'm not a sports fan, I welcome ITN items that counter the misconception that the section is a news wire reporting the most important stories. Assuming that the appropriate articles have been updated/created, the highest championships of all major sports should be included. —David Levy 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> The number of countries represented is hardly relevant. We traditionally include the winners of the baseball World Series - how many countries are represented in that? It's the world championships of a significant sport in many countries (like baseball, including ones that aren't notionally represented). --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I am up for including any sport at its highest level if all the usual requirements are met, i.e. article in decent condition, lots of sources, etc. Anyone who doesn't recognise what it is can click to find out more just like many have to do in the case of scientific discoveries such as Puijila or Mycocepurus smithii. However, it is worth pointing out to some of those unfamilar with this particular sport that it is played across the world. --candle•wicke 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh is right. Wikipedia is not a news source. The section on the main page is purely to showcase articles whose subjects happen to be in the public eye, not to inform of sports champions. This is a perennial complaint (that is, "What makes X so wonderful when Y is so much more important/news-worthy/multicoloured).  GARDEN  20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We have a standing policy for which sporting events get listed, which is outlined on WP:ITNR. Strangely, snooker is not on it. Although I support including this story, it does contradict existing policy - personally I would like to see it added to WP:ITNR Modest Genius talk 23:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaken? I was under the impression that it was just a guideline/reminder and that anything which was deemed suitable and updated could be included on the Main Page. Despite this, it seems increasingly difficult to add sports which are unknown in the US, whilst the Super Bowl continues to be included and the Pulitzer Prize (a national award which can only be given to items published in the US) was lying dormant on the list until it was spotted after it made its way onto the Main Page a few weeks ago. Based upon my knowledge I too would say snooker is a suitable candidate for WP:ITNR. --candle•wicke 00:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
>>By the way, happy belated birthday Mr Genius, I think it's time to update your p/age. :) --candle•wicke 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Please cite the recent instances in which sports unknown in the U.S. were unfairly omitted from ITN. If this is so, it's a problem that should be addressed as soon as possible.
2. Are you suggesting that the Super Bowl shouldn't be included? —David Levy 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, I just find the inclusion of the Super Bowl unusual, considering it's a national championship. The equivalent in association football, for instance, would be the Premier League or, in Gaelic football, the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship (which has been around a lot longer than 1967 (1880s in fact) and features London GAA and New York GAA, the former being on an entirely different island in an entirely different country and the latter being on an entirely different continent altogether, and the entire tournament which I would consider as culturally relevant in its region as the Super Bowl seems to be in its region). Also, "hurling is played throughout the world, and is popular among members of the United Kingdom, North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina..." Even The New York Times considers it the fastest field sport in the world – in its recommendation as a suitable event for its readers to attend, it says the game dates from ancient times and that modern semi-finals have "only a limited number of tickets" available on match-week. And that's just the semi-finals. I just think some of those illogicalities aren't being addressed appropriately. Also, considering this would be those two sports at their highest level, I think those two have more relevance than, say, the Premier League; football of that variety of course having so many popular continental championships and the FIFA World Cup as its signature events. --candle•wicke 02:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The Super Bowl is the premier championship of its sport (American football). That sport is played primarily in the United States, but this is a country whose population is equal to 61% of the entire European Union. (The Super Bowl also has a large international audience.)
However, the U.S. population needn't be considered, as there is consensus for the inclusion of every major sport's highest championship(s), assuming that the appropriate articles have been created/updated. This includes sports played chiefly in countries with much smaller populations than the United States, such as Canadian football (the Grey Cup) and Australian rules football (the AFL Grand Final). You mentioned the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, which is another event that qualifies (because it is the highest level of Gaelic football). You also mentioned hurling, and it appears that the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship qualifies as well. As you noted, the Premier League championship is not the highest level of association football.
You stated above that "it seems increasingly difficult to add sports which are unknown in the US." Again, please cite specific instances in which the criteria were met and such items were unsuccessfully proposed. —David Levy 03:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
That list is neither complete nor sacrosanct. (And it's more an indication of which specific events should be featured than of which sports should be.) It appears that the sport of snooker simply hasn't been discussed in this context before, but I see no reason why it shouldn't qualify (and I realize that you agree). —David Levy 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"Snooker" is a funny word. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Does it make you snicker? —David Levy 03:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I think it's partly due to the old joke (adapted), "Snooker?! I barely know her!" :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, let's just say I won't be touching items such as this with a 10-foot rake from now on. –Howard the Duck 10:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it on, this is going to fall apart into a "My country is best" POV argument, really soon and we all know it.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, based on the current ITN picture, the best country is obviously this one ;-) Slightly more seriously, as the ITN picture has changed now, isn't this thread somewhat moot? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I find it amazing that no matter what we put on the MP, fort no reason somebody has to complain, to much Norway, to ?Much US, to much unimportant stuff.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hanging around WP:ITN/C more often is advised. Have you seen the length of the discussion on snooker? And that made it to the Main Page... but that's besides the point, I was asked for examples for what probably seemed like strange claims and I have given a summary of points I've made elsewhere before since that was essentially what I was asked for. There was meant to be no bitter accusations involved but I apologise if my tone came across in the way. As for the list, well clearly there are those who are uncertain and it may be regarded as policy by some. At the moment there is a very flat, eventless discussion on the 2009 World Table Tennis Championships. I've seen the the men's section and it has Japan, South Korea, Denmark, Austria, France, Slovakia, Italy, Romania, Russia, Czech Republic, Australia, Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, Slovenia, Portugal, Greece, Russia, Poland, Belarus, Croatia, Serbia, Sweden, Noway, Chinese Taipei, Mexico, Ukraine, Egypt, England, Latvia, Belgium, Iceland, Spain, Singapore, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Scotland, Bulgaria for the geography enthusiasts + India and China for the population enthusiasts. Not at WP:ITNR and no representation from the US does create stumbling blocks and uncertainty when you only have yourself to comment with on the topic... and no, ITN does not usually bow to pressure fom the Talk:Main Page regulars to remove the latest controversial topic unless there is some logical reason to do do. --candle•wicke 12:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
With the current developments, WP:ITNR is now rendered as obsolete, with the recent loosening up of the rules. The quick removal/re-addition of big 4 U.S. sports would've been reversed, anyway. –Howard the Duck 14:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It depends how recent. The presence of the Pulitzers on the list rendered the awards section obsolete and destroyed the honest rationale which was offered to the person who nominated the 2009 BRIT Awards earlier this year. --candle•wicke 14:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Which probably opens the floodgate for such articles. –Howard the Duck 14:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It was removed... we cannot possibly have every national music, film, literature award... and then where would it stop? Radio might feel left out. The internet itself. Then science would have a valid claim since this is an encyclopedia. I think there is much greater step between awards and sport. --candle•wicke 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't wait for Burundi's equivalent of the Oscars to get in. –Howard the Duck 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think that was happening. --candle•wicke 14:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
But then it's hardly rendered obsolete if it's just a guideline and not a policy? --candle•wicke 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe tag it with historical or something. –Howard the Duck 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean important as in news of the deadly, dangerous, rich beyond dreams, power beyond control and evil beyond sanity, or do you mean that kicking a ball is just not the international exciement it is made out to be, the fastest man in the world is sort of lame, maybe curiosity is a search for merciless justice or a bit of whatever that dum cat was having and the news, is not really the news, but is the bads!! We should not be expanding it in love, we should be crushing it like a spine in the ass. Olympics? World cup?? Please wait here while we crush your puny hopeful spirit! Wahahaha! Beleive it. World champion anything is top rate news. Mr. 1 in six, thousand, thousand, thousand... not Mr. top of the street but top of the WORLD Ma! If there was less public sport there would be less world peace 'cos humans other attributes are ignorance, boredom and evil mind-ness. And it's nearly as hard as golf? 86.46.64.230 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Table tennis?

Really? That's news relevant to the world? Table tennis championships? I understand it's a legit sport, but... NIRVANA2764 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it any less relevant than, say, the Superbowl or Baseball World Series? Table Tennis is hugely popular in Asia. Seems fine to me. Modest Genius talk 02:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. ITN's purpose is not to document "news relevant to the world"; it's to link to articles that have been created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events of timely, widespread (but not necessarily worldwide) interest. Table tennis is very popular, and there is consensus for the inclusion of every major sport's highest championship (provided that the article creation/update criterion is met). —David Levy 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The power resources for india —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.108.250 (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Countries competing in the men's competition. Japan, South Korea, Denmark, Austria, France, Slovakia, Italy, Romania, Russia, Czech Republic, Australia, Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, Slovenia, Portugal, Greece, Russia, Poland, Belarus, Croatia, Serbia, Sweden, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Mexico, Ukraine, Egypt, England, Latvia, Belgium, Iceland, Spain, Singapore, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Scotland, Bulgaria and India. Others spotted in the women's competition include Colombia and DR Congo. Germany (a non-Asian country) claims to have the fourth best player in the world. Thank you. --candle•wicke 13:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly a few more than the FIFA World Cup, and a ton more compared to snooker, eh? –Howard the Duck 14:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm surprised it hasn't been included at WP:ITNR before. Just passing by there and I noticed the slightly older, Australia and New Zealand dominated Netball World Championships are already included. So snooker and table tennis being dominated by the UK and China respectively would appear to be no excuse for their exclusion. Can I just confirm that it is acceptable to add both table tennis and snooker to the list? I also have two further proposals, having just nominated the 2009 Cannes Film Festival at future events per the recurring items list. Would appreciate some input as to the debuts of Italy and Germany into the list of annual items. --candle•wicke 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I remember ITN adds the winner of the Palme d'Or consistently. And with that said, I'll be adding the AFC Asian Cup and the 9-ball championship. –Howard the Duck 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That seems agreeable. :) --candle•wicke 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Since every "major" sport gets in to be there, I don't see the point of maintaining it. What's the definition of a "major" sport? How about sepak takraw and my favoritest sport of all time kabaddi? –Howard the Duck 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If they're organised into competitions and there is one that stands out and has a following of some sort, then I don't really see why not? I was going to ask now to include Gaelic games as well since they weren't exactly disagreed with above and since we now have one more association football event and the American and Australian versions are still there. There's no real point to saying we can't include this sport or that as people are going to become annoyed. Also, it might be included in the list and therefore can be nominated but it can't be posted until it is updated so there is still work to do for each one. :) --candle•wicke 14:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I honestly had never heard of sepak takraw but if it's played in that many countries across Asia and Australia... :) the difference between this and Gaelic games though being that they have a major championship and there is a WikiProject Gaelic games who work to improve those articles. I wouldn't say the latter is any reason to go for or against, although it shows there are people who have come together and who are interested in improving this area. But surely there ought to be a definite championship to make an ITN wording easier? Is there one and can you inform us more about it? --candle•wicke 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about hurling though, and I saw it on the winter Olympics which presumes that is the more important competition? I guess that would've been the top competition of hurling. –Howard the Duck 15:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I presume you mean Curling? Hurling is a Summer sport (and quite possibly not played at the Olympics). Curling at the Olympics is, uh, interesting because the Great Britain team is basically the Scotland team, renamed (Curling doesn't seem particularly popular outside Scotland, North America and New Zealand). Anyway... what was your question?! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, there can be more than one "top competition" per sport. Many sports included in the Olympics have other championships that we feature in ITN. —David Levy 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So the purpose is not to be relevant but to link people to articles on current events that we consider to be exemplary? Hah, and I thought this was a news section. My mistake! NIRVANA2764 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes actually. I sense you were trying to be sarcastic but you're correct. Wikipedia is NOT NEWS. --candle•wicke 16:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Pssht. Now pocket tennis, THAT's a notable subject. I was just wondering, can you feature my victory over Triple H while playing as Hardcore Holly in SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 in ITN? I mean, since you're bending your notability criteria just a tad here. --Kaizer13 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? I didn't think we'd gone as far as including personal achievements of the virtual variety... but it would be helpful if the actual final or championship could be specified otherwise there isn't really much of a case. --candle•wicke 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think a systemic main page bias towards sarcasm detectors would be of great help to everyone. --Kaizer13 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What are we on about now? There's so much confusion surrounding topics with which I'm barely familiar that I can't detect the sarcasm any longer. --candle•wicke 18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I've lost track, too. Possibly "Pocket Tennis" refers to this, though given the presence of a partner it may refer to this. Possibly not a suitable topic for ITN. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow... I would never have come to that conclusion. Not as funny as this gem. --candle•wicke 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian floods

Is there any need for this news? I'm Brazilian and nobody, I mean nobody is talking about this here. I didn't even know it happened before I saw it here. Brady4mvp (Talk) 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

seriously whats with people arguing about every news item after it gets posted. go ITN/C and help pick proper ones. and ITN is not a news source. If the article is good and the event is interesting enough (which gets discussed for notability and international interest beforehand at ITN/C) it will get posted. Ashishg55 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the BBC, you are now experiencing your worst floods in over twenty years. Have you looked outside your window recently? --candle•wicke 00:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, no. Maybe because all the news are about the swine flu. Brady4mvp (Talk) 01:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Swine flu, is that still going on? Have the media not said "whoops and sorry for alarming everyone" yet? Dark verdant (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but that's the news. This isn't. Perhaps it is an attempt to deal with one disaster at a time on the part of the news. --candle•wicke 14:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured User Page

I think there should be a featued User page. Parker1297 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Who have you in mind? --candle•wicke 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
iirc, this was discussed before, but the primary concern against it was that each featured user on the Main Page would end up getting their user page and user talk page constantly vandalised for the duration of the day, especially those who are prominent or have attracted a bunch of enemies as a result of various heated disputes. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the main objection? What about the fact that we're not MySpace, the fact that it would cause bitter infighting (as it would sail dangerously close to commenting on the user, as userpages are by their nature personal) it doesn't aid the encyclopedia in any way and the main page is for readers, not for editors? Seriously, featured redirects would be more useful than featured userpages, but before them we have featured sounds, featured lists, featured topics, featured portals, featured image sets, good articles, good topics and valued pictures that all deserve more recognition than they are getting. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. But this conversation started with the concept of a featured user page. Where did the notion of putting it on the Main Page come from? --candle•wicke 21:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, anytime somebody proposes a featured X, the conversation always evolves into "can we put it on the main page". Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is on Talk:Main Page so my presumption would be that the OP wanted to put it on the main page. Of course we do get a lot of completely OT chatter here so who knows? Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the first page marked "discussion" which anyone will view... --candle•wicke 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Are we talking about a featured user or a featured user page? Both are very bad ideas but are quite different concepts. Nil Einne (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The section header says featured user page so unless there's been some mistake... --candle•wicke 01:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well Zzyzx11 and you seemed to be talking about featured users not featured user pages but it seems I was wrong Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems like a bad idea to feature things that are not content. Why would WP want to encourage people to put time into their user pages? How does that benefit the encyclopedia? APL (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes but then we would get into fights over what KIND of user is good, we would have to protect user pages, and in general it would be pointless. Besides, no user on wikipedia is worth being on the mnainpage.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a very cruel but agreeable way of putting it. --candle•wicke 02:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Clarification. The above comment does not necessarily mean I find cruelty agreeable. --candle•wicke 14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you guys it should be due to well you know Parker1297 (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

BREASTS?! ON THE MAIN PAGE!

Where is the decency in this world?! If I don't die from kissing all these pigs, the shock of seeing those spaniel's ears is sure to finish me off! Surely a cross section of a bra or a blurry purple image of a bra will do? I'm distraught here ... think about the children ... and the kittens! (BTW, "Bra" in German is "Büstenhalter", literally "Bust holder" ... easily my favourite translation EVER!) --LookingYourBest (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? It's possible all you saw was a little image vandalism. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
THIS was in the DYK section! Horror!;
*Gags*
--LookingYourBest (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit partial to her Elvis quiff though ... hmmmm! --LookingYourBest (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The US Patent Office should be ashamed of itself, publishing this smut - though perhaps it was just an honest boob, and they deserve our full (underwired) support. I don't want to make a tit of myself, but I felt I had to get that off my chest. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
/*claps* You racked up some points there! --LookingYourBest (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
We had better nip this in the bud. Agathman (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't be crazy, after all, wikipedia is nork censored! --LookingYourBest (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You guys sure milked that for every joke it's worth. 75.142.209.214 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree, but knowing wikipedia editors, I'm sure they'll find udders! --LookingYourBest (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Time to change the subject and moo-ve on before we all make right tits of ourselves. --candle•wicke 02:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh I don't know, with a bit of tweaking I think this is a great discussion ... or am I just groping in the dark? --LookingYourBest (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
We are thinking about children, it is called education. Censorship doesn't work that well and I see no problem with this subject. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Editors say "decency screening = censoring anatomy articles" and "this is no place for kids" but wikimania is using pictures of little 3rd world kids being given wiki-equiped computers for fundraising and if there is no place for decency screening, let's see some kiddie porn. You must agree, so long as policy and concensus is going to say that grannies fanny is not sacred, or that pulling the piss out of the idea is really entertaining, the place is unwell right there. Exposure to such microbes should (eventually) give equal chance to decompose the place or mutate it (swine flu) into a place where sickness has no more ground. (and next thing you couldn't read an article about penis, huh?) People forget that avoiding gang rape means asking the average granny if she fancies everyone seeing under her skirt NOT asking a mob if they are in general favour of wickedness or not. Looters have to be shot eventually or left to die in the disaster zone. 86.46.64.230 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you have just said, but I fight for your right to say it. Thanks for adding your two pennies. Also, thanks for thinking about the children as Enlil Ninlil suggested ... although I'm not sure that's quite the way they meant! --LookingYourBest (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What has this world come to that anyone could be so shocked at age 30+ of seeing something that was created to nurture that same person at age 0-3 or 4 or 5 or so? To say you are thinking about "the children" as if a child has never seen, touched, suckled on a breast? What on earth did you think breasts were for, if not for children? And someone is worried about children seeing a breast on Wikipedia???? Get a life. We need more breasts on the main page, not less. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw that picture on the main page for five seconds in school and never came back to my mind later. They are just breasts. I think this is a bit of an overreaction. --Cabbage9 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for the editor who initiated this thread, but I'm reasonably certain that they were acting as a straight man so that clowns like me could crack as many bad puns as possible. I don't believe there was any genuine concern about the corruption of the morals of children - most children have seen this kind of thing before, anyway. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.224.103.240 (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, yes it would be fun to see all the complaints demanding to know why their country isn't featured. I think we should leave it at the inordinate amount of complaints because of ITN for now, when that dies down maybe do a featured country just to keep the complainers on their toes. Dark verdant (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
We'd run out of articles by the 250th day. –Howard the Duck 14:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It depends how low our standards are: Category:Micronations would increase the number of complaints countries quite a bit. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Not if we included historical nations: Wessex, the Sabaean Kingdom, the Kingdom of Burgundy, the Federal Republic of Central America, and the like ;) Modest Genius talk 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If we could find one for every day of the year, each country would have its own day and they could be recycled each year. Then every country would get its day in the sun and it would happen each year. It would be like deciding TFA, there would be some more obvious dates than others, such as the US on Fourth of July, Wales on First of March, Ireland on Seventeenth of March, Netherlands on Fifth of May, Portugal on Tenth of June, France on Fourteenth of July, Switzerland on First of August and so on. Countries get their holidays posted every year anyway and maybe the Main Page is taken over by them in some cases. Images wouldn't necessarily be maps, symbols like national flowers or vegetables or whatever would do fine. I have to say that I think this is a lot better than the featured user proposal and a lot better than any featured proposal I've heard in a long time. --candle•wicke 16:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Within five mintes of the first country going up, the whataboutery would start - "What about the unrecognised right to independence/autonomy/territorial claim/droit de seigneur of the downtrodden people/glorious people/king/guerillas/gorillas of our nation/state/land/island? Why has this not been dealt with in detail, with footnotes, on the Main Page? Evil swine, we demand satisfaction forthwith." Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
True. Better than featured user though. --candle•wicke 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Cornwall would want one for a start and you may have to deal with a lot of very serious Cornish Nationalists who are terribly sure that Cornwall should be an independant nation. Besides you cant put anywhere near as much for Monaco (for example) as you can for major countries.92.8.152.71 (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside Cornwall, I disagree about Monaco - it's Europe's favourite tax-haven, home of the Monte Carlo rally, and a major stop on the F1 circuit. The King married a movie star. It's political geography is unusual, it's the second smallest country in the world, etc etc. Now, apologise to Monaco! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I unreservedly apologise to Monaco and i take full responsibility for my terrible slander. Monaco was only supposed to be an example (admittedly a bad one as i have now realised!). What about the difference between a country with thousands of years of history and one thats 20 years old (admittedly their is history within the country but not OF the country).Willski72 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up about it mate.  GARDEN  19:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! I still cant think of another very small country with not very much to talk about! My point seems to be crumbling before my very eyes! (Although i stick with the new country-old country hypothesis!)Willski72 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's Andorra, but I reckon any small country tends to be interesting. The same applies, I guess, to micronations. On the topic of new country-old country, did you know that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is only 82 years old?! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeh it used to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but then the Republic of Ireland popped up and ruined the timeline! But Great Britain's over 300 years old though and i'm not quite sure how old each seperate country within Great Britain is!Willski72 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, pr

obably over a millenia for England, Scotland and Wales. I've been thinking of small, new countries but the best I can come up with is Vatican City (1929) but it traces its history back to Papal lands since the dawn of Christianity. I'll keep thinking...!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Bahrain, admittedly i dont know very much about it and it probably has much more than i could guess, but possibly less than other nations?Willski72 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, I had high hopes for Bahrain - its neighbours at first seemed larger and more interesting - but in 1802 "it was governed by a twelve year old child, when the Omani ruler Sayyid Sultan installed his son, Salim, as Governor". Far too interesting to qualify, I'm afraid. What about Norfolk Island? Technically its part of Australia, but I believe its semi-autonomous. They speak a dialect of English (boring!) and don't have much in the way of history (boring!) - if we can call them a country I believe they tick all the right boxes. (Best I can find in the South Pacific; far too much in the way of interesting mythology, tax havens, battles etc). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bleedin hell who would of thought it! Looking around the Norfolk Island area what about East Timor? Its an independant nation that is dwarfed by its two neighbours (Indonesia and Australia). Its not actually very small and it probably has quite a big population but surely there isnt a huge amount you can write about it? (I know their probably will be!) I like the Norfolk Island idea, just got to be careful that its allowed in the theoretical Featured Article world!Willski72 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What am i saying! Featured COUNTRY world. Im sorry!Willski72 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, definitely not, I'm afraid - long struggle for independence, grassroots support campaigns in the developed world, UN peace-keepers - far too interesting ;-) Many of the -stans have interesting histories of struggle with Russia, or economies based on commodities, but I'm wondering whether Central Asia might hold a few dull gems? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I really should look these things up before i say them! I know what you mean about the stans, brief flashpoints of interest in history but long periods of not very much happening. Another good point is that as these countries are relatively new as independant nations much of their histories are intertwined and so its not technically the history of that country alone (but thats probably cheating!)Willski72 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I like the idea. We would just have to be careful that everybody can be included equally with no regard to size, age, notoriety, or politics. I also think that autonomous regions should be included. If there are more than 365, we could just cycle them all through, without assigning a specific day of the year to each.--Falconusp t c 04:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Could it be put on a randomiser? Im not sure if thats possible but its a good way of deflecting criticism, unless it 'randomly' chooses the same one over and over again anyway! In that way it wouldnt really matter how many countries you had in comparison to days (unless you wanted to give each country a day!)Willski72 (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

KOREAN WIKIPEDIA!!!

you people should make a korean wikipedia! If you already then put it up on the page where you select the language. put the korean wikipedia available here.--Nomichosso (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean like this?! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Korean Wikipedia is already available here. It's in the list under 10 000+, after "Galego". You might need to scroll down to find "10 000+", depending on your monitor. Art LaPella (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I *think* the user means in the interwiki link column. Who wants to shoot that idea down? 99.50.50.41 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article notice

I can't work out where it is myself, and I am leaving in minute anyway. The notice should say "The English Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,500 featured articles." rather than "The English Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,500 Featured articles." There is no need to automatically capitalise "featured"- we never do elsewhere when it is mid-sentence. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Done at Template:Main Page banner. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it me, or is the notice slightly wider than the two columns underneath? It would be nice if it aligned properly. Modest Genius talk 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It's wider for me as well. Firefox 3 BTW. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Looks a tad wider for me too, but only once I looked. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I came here to say this, so let me confirm that I see what the above user does. I'm using Firefox 3 as well, so I assume that's where the issue is. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem on Safari 4 68.104.142.242 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The banner is wider than the boxes below it because the mp-upper table has a slight (possibly 1px) padding on it between the actual border and it's cells' border. The text in said banner appears to be centered, but doesn't look that way because the Featured Article "column" and In The News "column" are not the same width. JPG-GR (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It would've been nice what was the 2,500th FA. –Howard the Duck 09:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that it's Arthur Henry Cobby, counting back in the May FA log. Daniel Case (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Accordng to this edit and the FA log, 6 articles were passed at once, achieving 2,500: Nancy Drew, Arthur Henry Cobby, Bruce Castle, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, Fort Ticonderoga, and Franklin Knight Lane. I hope we will get to 3,000 soon! Reywas92Talk 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it!  GARDEN  19:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I hope that's not been bothering you all weekend! Thanks, though - I can confirm it's fixed, at least from my Firefox/XP combo. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Modest Genius talk 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, more than 2500 FAs have been created, beacuse some are delisted. I, for one, do NOT thank the users who have wasted their time simply to create a featured article, and I think the banner should be removed. Physchim62 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought our goal here was to bring every article up to FA status? In that context, editors who have participated in this Herculean task definitely deserve our thanks, IMHO. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

note that many good and proficient editors don't give two hoots about the FA process. The real task is getting the myriad crappy articles up to useful status, and keeping them there. FAs are a nice extra. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, and I guess I'm one of them - I've never participated in FA: my edits tend towards gnomery and vandal reversion. That shouldn't diminish the FA process, and its contributors, however. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel like "contributors" should link to Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia, not Wikipedia:How to edit a page. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In the news picture

I'd recommend reverting back to the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono picture for the moment. With no picture for the featured article today, the lindane graphic makes the main page look a bit bland. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 16:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no image for the FA (sorry, that's not directed at Sillyfolkboy in particular - just anyone who knows). The image on The Million Dollar Homepage is quite striking, and too small to advertise anything, as far as I can see. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. While the ChemDraw image is not colorful or spectacular, I really don't see why we have to use male headshot images so often. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is their a more colourful picture of lindane? One of it in reality for example (but then if its poisonous not many people will be taking pictures of it!) Or in fact we could even have a picture of one of the other banned substances. In this way we dont have to have a headshot or a black and white drawing.Willski72 (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just thought, pictures of chemicals arent really very interesting! Maybe just a chemical tub with a DANGER! sign or something like that so that people get the idea!Willski72 (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Something like this? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I suppose. I much prefer this chemical warning sign. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree a picture of a bottle of one of the chemicals or something would look prettier, but I think using a warning symbol would be a little silly- we're an encyclopedia, here to educate, not a blog. The reason there is no image for the featured article is not for advertising reasons, but as the only image in the article is non-free. J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Doh! Screenshot of a website. That should have occurred to me. Thanks. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess the dog symbols would be useful for restaurants that serve dog meat. The first one with fire: dog barbecue. The second one... oven-roasted? The third one... overcooked. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You're more imaginative than me - I've struggled for a while now to think of a good use for them, outside Uncyclopedia. I even thought about using them for training cats (that has to be possible, right?)
Back on-topic, "Today's featured picture" brings some colour to the page, but don't we normally have "featured media" at the weekend?
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
No, there's no "weekend" schedule for media; they just come up whenever it's their turn in the queue, or if there's an anniversary or something. (Note: yesterday was a film AND a featured sound). howcheng {chat} 18:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it, thanks. But film and sound? That's just showing off! Yesterday, that wasn't big and it wasn't clever. You'll make the other days feel small if you keep that up. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the manual of style violations, I thought the featured sound was a great idea. It would be nice if we could get that sort of thing more often. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Just come back on. The orange picture with the skull and crossbones would of given a few people a fright! I wonder how many would of thought something terrible had happened?Willski72 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Shanabarger

For the article on Ronald Shanabarger in the Did You Know section, I not sure the article should even exist, let alone be on the main page. While a murder of an infant will get some news coverage, there isn't any information provided in the article that indicates the person is notable enough for an article. I think similar articles on people who got breif news coverage for single event are usually deleted at AfD under WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. At the very least, I think the article should be about the event and not the person per WP:BIO1E and Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Calathan (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I just want to add that I think the page should be renamed to Murder of Tyler Shanabarger and the main page blurb modified so that Tyler's name links to the article. Calathan (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
As stated in the big header at the top of this page which is also displayed when you edit this page, errors should be reported to the error report section. As stated in the section, the main page defers to articles. In other words, it's pointless complaining here about a problem which is a holdover from an article that has not been resolved. I suggest you take this to the article talk page and/or WP:BLP/N and/or WP:AFD. As long as the article exists and is new or recently expanded enough then generally speaking it is eligible for WP:DYK. There is no further notability considerations for DYK. Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there was anything factually wrong with the blurb, so I don't think it would have been appropriate to post my concerns in the error report section (I'm not sure why you are even suggesting that). I do think it would have been appropriate to discuss renaming the page on the talk page for that page, but I figured then I would have to start a second discussion here to have the blurb rewritten, or more likely that no one would read my comments until long after the page was off the main page. I figured things would move faster so the page could be renamed while still on the main page if I posted here, but it turns out I was incorrect, so the issue of rewriting the blurb is now moot. Calathan (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I want

I want a map of Brownsville Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.133.137 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We have File:Cameron County Brownsville Highlighted.svg, but if you meant a street map, then may I suggest your local AAA office or perhaps Google Maps? howcheng {chat} 05:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but how does this has anything to do with the Main Page? Please try to stick to main page issues here. Thanks Ashishg55 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pm expenses row

Why has this story been removed from the front page news? Misortie (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the lotto news had more money involved. </sarcasm> –Howard the Duck 09:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Because of this discussion, where it was determined that there was no international significance to the story.  GARDEN  10:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Shouldn't this read "it is said to embody the spirit, tradition, and passion of the Tech student body"? or "is considered to" - it's talking about subjective emotions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Or we Could just remove that phase entirely, It doesn't belong on the Main Page. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 18:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. howcheng {chat} 18:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Telugu wikipedia

Please include Telugu wikipedia (te) in both interlanguage links and in 20000+ article list. Telugu wikipedia has 43,000 + articles and is the largest Indian language wiki. Thanks --వైజాసత్య (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is your link? Darrenhusted (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
[[:te:|<span title="Telugu (te:)">తెలుగు</span>]] Thanks--వైజాసత్య (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
[[te:]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by వైజాసత్య (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wrapped your te: links in <code> to make it clear that you mean them to display and not link. Telugu WP currently has 42,820 articles, 87,291 pages total, 407,148 edits (4.66 per page), 9,817 users (15 admins), and a depth of 5 (the minimum for inclusion). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As I noted in March at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Telugu wikipedia over 40K, I viewed several dozen random articles, and almost all were bot-created/edited stubs/placeholders. —David Levy 16:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with David. I just clicked random article 50 times and on just four occasions I got an article which was longer than one line - Dumelow (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I got same with 10 random articles. However, some kind soul has posted me a message, so it ain't all bad (SUL, where would I be without you?) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
David, I agree with your observation that in a random test you come up with bunch of one-liners generated by bot. Most of these one-liners are below 50 characters. There are about 14,000 articles that make it to unofficial count[21] (>200 characters)which are not bot generated or further developed by edits from various users. Would you exclude Telugu wikipedia even if it reaches 20,000 mark not taking into account the bot generated one-liners? Please direct me to the discussion about the criteria where I would like to make suggestions regarding these criteria. I respect your subjective judgement. But, if a wiki like mr[22] could make it to the list, I am not too confident about the subjective criteria --వైజాసత్య (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
1. The number of stubs/placeholders would be irrelevant if the number of qualifying articles were to reach 20,000. However, a 200-character threshold is far too low.
2. You can find discussion of the criteria at Template talk:Wikipedialang (where you've already posted) and in its archives.
3. You're quite correct about the Marathi Wikipedia, which was added to the lists in September without discussion. Indeed, it also consists primarily of stubs and placeholders, so I just removed it. —David Levy 22:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you to recheck the entire list again as there are many more undeserving candidates --వైజాసత్య (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't enough free time to check the entire list, but I'll check any specific Wikipedias that you name. —David Levy 05:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Depth is an established metric. If the Telugu and Marathi Wikipedias meet the criteria for inclusion on interlanguage lists, then they need to be included as long as the current policy stands. If you want to discuss changing that policy and requiring a higher number, this isn't the place to do it. Newsboy85 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe this has been discussed before I can't remember where. As has been explained numerous times, depth is an infinitely flawed metric when it comes to trying to measure what we are doing which is measuring. I vemehently opposed it's usage for that reason. However at some stage people started using it and no one objected (to be honest I didn't even notice) so it became policy. Perhaps not surprisingly, wikipedias with largely bot created articles started appearing with a greater depth. Whether this was intentional or not I can't say but at that time, someone decided to keep excluding these wikipedias despite meeting the nominal depth threshold. Personally I opposed this as well (I agreed with the principle of removing crap wikipedias but felt we needed a better method then such an adhoc system especially without any real discussion or explaination) but no one else seemed to care. So the current policy for a long while (several months) appears to be excluding wikipedias with a low depth or which otherwise look like primarily bot create stubs. In other words, this is current policy whether you agree with it or not. If you want to change it, it will be you that needs to take action (elsewhere). P.S. I see that the meaning of depth has been changing as well so it's perhaps not as bad as it was before but still a flawed measure since there is no objective way to measure quality of something of this sort Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
See Template talk:Wikipedialang/Archive 3#Quality requirements (Volapük) and Template talk:Wikipedialang/Archive 3#Volapük (114,588 articles, depth 5) Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Baily's beads

On this day, 1836: should Baily's beads be bolded instead of Francis Baily? Ansh666 (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean Plane Crazy ought to be bolded in 1928? --candle•wicke 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware we generally bold the article which best describes what the OTD item is about regardless of whether it is the most suitable article (I'm not sure if that helps in this case, I didn't check what this is referring to) Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

fair use images on featured...

Okay I remember a discussion back in the day about not having fair use images on the main page for the today's featured article... Yet we do today. Wondering why an exception was made here in this case. I mean if you're gonna use an unfree image anyways, why not use a gameplay screenshot instead of just the Nintendo logo. I would rather have no image at all. (User:Zachary via mobile) 01:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.132.56.156 (talk)

This image, or text depicted in it, only consists of simple geometric shapes and text. They do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.. J.delanoygabsadds 01:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't buy it. Their logo was the work of a graphic artist (or artists), who had to choose a font, placement, shape, color, weight, etc. Making a logo is not just slapping some letters on a shape. I disagree with the no-fair-use-images-on-main-page policy, but if we're going to have it, we should adhere to it. --Nricardo (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct in that someone designed this logo. However, a logo that consists of just text in a font with a simple geometric shape does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. This is not a non-free image, although trademark laws will protect its usage. howcheng {chat} 02:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Irrespective of the above, an image of the video game system is more illustrative of the article's subject than the company's logo is, so I've made the switch. —David Levy 02:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Awww, but displaying their registered trademark made it look like a formal banner ad. We could almost pretend that Wikipedia was getting paid for displaying it! I'd give ten to one odds that somebody is getting paid for it, though I'm not in a position to guess who. Whoever is laughing all the way to the bank on this, I beg you... someday when you've retired at the age of 25 or moved on to greater endeavors, please take the time to jeer at us all in the media. I've said it before and I'll say it again: let's just switch to a pay for play policy and sell "feature article" space as advertising, because that's all it is anyway much of the time. Wnt (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you implying that you would prefer that all commercially available subjects be excluded as Today's featured article candidates? —David Levy 04:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I would only exclude articles specifically about trademarked commercial products. Classes of products, such as side-scrolling video games, I'd have no problem with. But at this point I'm becoming cynical enough about the process that I'd be overjoyed just to see out and out ads and know they have to fund Wikipedia for it. Wnt (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do you object to the inclusion of articles about trademarked commercial products? What harm does this cause? And on what evidence do you base the assertion that "somebody is getting paid"? —David Levy 05:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Would an image of the system with the game loaded be slightly better? — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and there's a good one on Flickr. I considered using it, but that struck me as analogous to displaying a photograph of a child holding a Mickey Mouse doll as an alternative to a drawing of Mickey Mouse. This has been cited as an invalid workaround, as the non-free entity is the primary focus in that context (regardless of how much free content surrounds it). —David Levy 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This isn't an issue for the main page in any case. If you genuinely believe the logo is subject to copyright then you should take this to File:Nintendo.svg and ask for the licensing to be modified to a NFCC license. If not, then it's irrelevant. The main page policy on NFCC images is completely irrelevant when the image itself is not NFCC tagged Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hook deleted in the middle of run

After it had sat on the suggestions page and and the DYK queue for about two weeks with no objections, DragonflySixtyseven unilaterally removed my hook in the middle of its run. I don't think he was justified in doing so, as every part of the hook is quite well sourced in the article, and I don't think it was overly negative. I am willing, though, to remove the first part leaving it as

I'd like the hook to be given another full run. — Jake Wartenberg 20:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Is her lawsuit still in progress? DS (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe so. It was filed in 2002, and my research hasn't indicated anything to the contrary. — Jake Wartenberg 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Since her lawsuit is about whether her dismissal was justified, I don't think it would be a good idea for our front page to flatly state that yes, her dismissal was justified (which that hook pretty much did). DS (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the modified hook, above? — Jake Wartenberg 21:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This woman is only notable for contested allegations that are the subject of legal action? I'd say this is NOT a candidate for the mainpage.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to why you don't feel the hook is appropriate. Are you questioning the notability of the article? — Jake Wartenberg 22:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No, she's notable enough for an article, because of the contested allegations and the effect thereof. But given that this is all still the subject of legal action, it would be horribly inappropriate for us to have a hook about it. And the neutered hook isn't actually very interesting. DS (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur on the problem of it seeming a bit dull. How about, hmm. "...that scientist Joyce Gilchrist provided forensic evidence for over 3,000 criminal trials in Oklahoma?" - means we avoid emphasising the death-sentence issue, since that's contentious, but has a big enough number to still seem interesting. Shimgray | talk | 22:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Her principle notability concerns the allegations, which are under legal dispute. This is simply not a responsible situation that wikipedia should get into.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Width of left and right side should both be 50%

{{editprotected}}

I would like both the "TODAY'S FEATURED ARTICLE; DID YOU KNOW" and the "IN THE NEWS; ON THIS DAY" sides of the main paged changed to style="width:50%" because it looks better with the left and right sides the same width.--Chuck Marean 23:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Previous experimentation and discussion led to a different determination (though the matter certainly can be revisited).
2. Per the {{editprotected}} template's wording, please use the tag only to request edits that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus. —David Levy 23:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've now read the fine print. However, the edit did not seem controversial to me. I tried the edit in a sandbox and it works. This is how it's done: under "IN THE NEWS; ON THIS DAY" it says "class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%;" and above under "TODAY'S FEATURED ARTICLE; DID YOU KNOW" it says "class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%;" If they are both changed to 50%, both the left and right columns are the same width. They are so similar in width now, the difference in width looks like accident. Chuck Marean 01:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of how to perform the requested edit. But you need to understand that any significant change to the main page's layout is likely to be controversial (even if there is consensus for it). Also note that this idea has been considered and rejected in the past. That doesn't mean that it cannot be reconsidered and accepted now, of course.
Personally, I prefer the current appearance. For some reason (perhaps because of the lack of bullet points in the Today's featured article section), making the columns equal in width causes the right-hand column to visually dominate (IMHO). As that column's sections are In the news (whose content typically remains on the main page for the longest duration) and On this day... (whose content is recycled from year to year), that isn't what we want. —David Levy 02:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I cannot remember where the discussion is archived, but I recall that the column with the "Today's featured article" summary is wider because it is all prose, while the other three sections are bulleted lists. And with more space, the prose is easier to read on a low-resolution 800x600 monitor. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I recall that as well. I believe that this was discussed during the 2006 redesign process (and possibly elsewhere). —David Levy 02:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's on purpose, maybe it should be 60:40 so it doesn't look like a mistake. I think the right-hand column dominates because of it's color.--Chuck Marean 07:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that it looks like a mistake (and I don't recall that complaint arising before). —David Levy 10:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC) It doesn't look like a mistake to me. It may depend on your window width. At 1280 it looks fine to me and I expect increasing it will make it worse. With a lower width, I guess it could look like a mistake although it's still a bit of a stretch and in any case it still looks fine to me and I expect making it greater will just make it worse, not better. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at the Main Page again using a low-resolution 800x600 monitor: the 55:45 looks alright, but resetting it 60:40 would make the right column harder to read, especially the first bulleted item next to the image. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
In any case you can't determine consensus without discussion of which there was none at the time and the proceeding discussion demonstrates that there is no consensus anyway. In conclusion, presuming an edit is not going to be controversy because you think it's a good idea without discussing first when it is a significant change to a highly visible area of wikipedia is an inherently a bad idea Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I mean it’s obviously not 50:50 and I’ve always thought it was not intentional. However, after comparing it with 50:50, I notice it does draw attention to “Today's featured article” rather than “In the news,” which to be objective should contain more civilized news than hard news. --Chuck Marean 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"[W]hich to be objective should contain more civilized news than hard news." That point is, it seems, irrelevant to the instant discussion, but I should much appreciate your elucidating it; I don't understand the suggestion at all. 68.249.7.161 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, not so much bad news, i.e. to be better reading and role model and more slice of life. Maybe history would be better if they had reported more of the good things they took for granted. Anyhow, if 50:50 is used, an extra border around "Today's featured article" would also draw attention to it. For example: |style="color:#000;" | <div id="mp-tfa" style="border:1px solid #22AA55;padding:.3em">{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</div> --Chuck Marean 19:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruth Padel

Fellow editors and admins, at BorgQueen's departure (and to avoid talking to myself at WP:ITN/C again), I have come to ask your thoughts on the current image problem at ITN on the Main Page. Would a cropped version of Ruth Padel reading at Somerset House do the trick? The image in her article is no longer on her website so we will have to improvise in our task to oust the repeated flags and symbols syndrome of recent days (what next, maps?)... --candle•wicke 04:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Call me copyright paranoid, but I am hesitant on any website that clearly does not state that it is free content that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. In fact, I would rather this discussed somewhere like WP:MCQ first instead of here, since the first step is actually figuring out the correct license before you upload it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"These below can be used without a credit." --candle•wicke 04:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
A declaration stating that "These below can be used without a credit" does not necessarily mean that the image has been licensed under the GFDL, or any other free content license in which it can be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. Glad to have that cleared up. :) --candle•wicke 06:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Current DYK item query

The source that has been used and verified for British Comedy Guide - currently on the main page - is the subject's own website. As there is no proof of notability, I consider this to be a pretty poor candidate to be featured on the front page. A quick Google search comes up with the British Comedy Awards, which are not the same thing and there is no evidence of press coverage, recognition or quotes by the winners of the awards mentioned in the article. I think this should probably be removed until it can be proven to be a notable article. Howie ☎ 02:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest these sort of comments are posted to WP:ERRORS where they get addressed speedily. I regret I personally didn't see this until now. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Current DYK item query

The source that has been used and verified for British Comedy Guide - currently on the main page - is the subject's own website. As there is no proof of notability, I consider this to be a pretty poor candidate to be featured on the front page. A quick Google search comes up with the British Comedy Awards, which are not the same thing and there is no evidence of press coverage, recognition or quotes by the winners of the awards mentioned in the article. I think this should probably be removed until it can be proven to be a notable article. Howie ☎ 02:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest these sort of comments are posted to WP:ERRORS where they get addressed speedily. I regret I personally didn't see this until now. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Women"

Is there something about them somebody isn't telling me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.19.89 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you having some problems with your girlfriend? --BorgQueen (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a grammatical complaint about the ITN article "women are elected to the...". Maybe the anon is trying to complain that it sounds as if all women were elected, and instead the anon thinks it should be "four women are elected to the..., the first women to be members of the Kuwaiti parliament.". Or I have this completely wrong, which is also possible. The anon could have communicated more clearly. User A1 (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this isn't even a complaint, just a request for more information on women. The questioner obviously thinks there aren't enough women on the Main Page at the moment. Has anyone any suggestions on how we can improve this; I find ITN to be especially biased... have we anything on Norwegian women? That is a topic worth knowing about. --candle•wicke 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
/me wolf whistles :)  GARDEN  14:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we should have more on Japanese women. I don't recall seeing anything about them on Main Page, perhaps except some porn actresses. There are a lot of talented, intelligent women in/from Japan, even though they might not be as globally well-known as Yoko Ono. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There, 69.242.19.89, is your answer. --candle•wicke 15:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I assumed the query was a variant on the geni/fairy godmother/god joke. [Subject wishes for highway/motorway across Atlantic/Pacific to visit mother/brother. Reluctant to grant wish as interferes with laws of nature etc, request to pick another wish. "I want to understand women." "OK. How many lanes do you want on that highway?"] The querist is obviously concerned that there is no article on understanding women. I am working on this article, but I am not sure if there will be enough space on the Wikipedia servers... Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it was because at one point ITN was replete with news items about women - first woman this, first woman that. This has been slightly addressed by the removal of the poet story, following discussion at WT:ITN. The grouping of similar stories was a curiosity and merely a coincidence. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The current ITN trend is all the more worrying - victory this and victory that. A victory for Norway in Eurovision, a victory for the collective forces of Italian and Spanish police, a victory for the UK tax payer (and probably numerous MPs) and the whole section reads as a victory for women in general. And that's before you get to the actual "declares victory" which the Sri Lankan government claims to have had. The trouble with all this victory is that it leads to an overwhelming sense of loss - the demise of the Tamil Tigers, Raffaele Amato and Michael Martin, the suppression of men and the dejection and heartache of most of non-Norwegian Europe... --candle•wicke 00:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Especially Finland... after losing their Eurovision points record. Poor Finland. --candle•wicke 00:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Apa News Item

I don't really see the significance of this. If somebody else were to overtake him in number of summits, that would be noteworthy, but him maintaining his own record isn't all that special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.247.88 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As admirable as the bloke is, I have to agree. If you've survived Everest 18 times, than managing to do it again surely isn't that surprising. --81.157.137.147 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is quite silly. Is he going to be mentioned every time he climbs Mount Everest? He'll be breaking his own record again every time he does... 124.176.20.49 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Also at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Apa. --NE2 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Not if this is his last time. But who is to say that it is not? He has to have some recognition!! Give him some credit! --86.40.209.112 (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I had an exam yesterday. It might be the last one I ever do. Why am I not on the Main Page?! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You didn't break a record (even one you'd set)?! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors - it appears there is already a discussion on whether to remove it. Matty (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Me being pedantic again! but the featured article mentions Hong Kong, talking about how he was the first ethnically Chinese member of the council etc. A modern audience may not understand what is going on there, i think mentioning that it was part of the British Empire would link it in much better (him going to England to study etc). Cheers!Willski72 (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure this is about TFA? It is about a dinosaur... --Tone 11:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It should read "picture" - I've modified the section heading accordingly. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone it makes sense now!Willski72 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this not posted on WP:ERRORS? That's where requests for small changes on the main page should go. --76.64.77.134 (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Because the original poster wasn't discussing an error, but a concern. Other editors shared that concern, and the main page was edited accordingly. In other words, this wasn't blatantly an error - it was a way in which the main page could possibly be improved. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I do wish everyone wouldn't jump down everyone's throats with WP:ERRORS. It's no the be all and end all for the Main Page. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If they weren't able to tell people to go to Obscure Projectspace Page #1924178 they might have to fix the issue themselves, and that is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that everyone apart from you should edit. --81.157.137.147 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Blame the vandals for making page-protection necessary. --76.64.77.134 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

i think wikipedia should have a themed front page

--Wikiapples (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? —David Levy 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Different colours maybe? --candle•wicke 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Like dinosaurs on Monday, food on Tuesday, etc? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And dinosaur food on wednesday! (Although some dinosaurs eat dinousars? The complexity of the position is unravelling!)Willski72 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The journey of food through the digestive system of a dinosaur day? --candle•wicke 00:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well thats the first Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday done! Friday could be the different types of digestive systems over the different dinosaur periods (Jurassic digestive system,Cretacious digestive system etc)Willski72 (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really helpful. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What? Sarcasm? I think not! We have nearly a weeks worth of good stuff here! I think that article you kindly draw us too is very succinct in explaining how helpful sarcasm is so i may begin to employ some myself. If i pass grade one i may even begin to throw in a few puns just to liven up the mood!Willski72 (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire section (and indeed others on this page) are varying degrees of sarcasm if you look closely. This is what happens when someone leaves a completely random comment and we can only speculate as to what it might mean before drawing our own individual conclusions. --candle•wicke 16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

North Korea Conducts Second Nuclear Test

Can this be added to the front page? [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCoolo (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the latest. [24] --LCoolo (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
CNN news article and adjacent video. [25][26] --LCoolo (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Oficial conformation of a 4.7 seismic earthquake by the USGS. [27]--LCoolo (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Go to WP:ITN/C. --74.14.17.47 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Auto Racing

I'm not suggesting any alternative at the moment, but auto racing reads as being very American which isn't great. dottydotdot (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been raised in WP:ERRORS. I can't think of a suitable replacement - "motor racing" is UK English which merely shifts the bias over the pond... perhaps "car racing", although that seems pretty informal. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a shot at making it neutral although it's now rather long - however as the page isn't level anyway it hasn't made that much difference. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Garden, that's better. dottydotdot (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Pleasure :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd recommend changing "American Championship Car Racing" to "the IndyCar Series". The former article describes the evolution of the top level of American open wheel racing, while the latter is the current top level competition (of which the Indy 500 is its most famous race). --Boznia 13:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jenson Button winning the Monaco Grand Prix

So what if Jenson Button won a single race, and some body won an Indy race. It is only one win, shouldn't wikipedia wait until Button wins the Championship (which he will, barring disaster) and Brawn win the constuctors, and the Indy guy does the equivalent before being worthy of the honour of being on 'wikinews'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.65.144 (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because the section is to feature new current events articles, not necessary those that are more newsworthy than others. 86.132.163.34 (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Both the Indy 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix are listed at WP:ITNR as recurring events which should make the front page. This is because it forms part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport and these races are often considered the most prestigious in their fields - Dumelow (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Bolded link should be [2009 Rabat stampede] not [Mawazine]. Stevage 05:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that article is nearly long enough. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I've found a place for it anyways. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It was one line at the time so a bold link would have been extremely questionable. The festival had not even been created. --candle•wicke 19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

The arabic wikipedia has got over 100,000 articles now. It should be moved from the over 50,000 to the over 100,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.82.201 (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

and also please update the main portal of the wikipedia http://wikipedia.org/ "i know that's may be out of your tasks but please tell the foundation that thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogaio (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to bottom of page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫
I've mentioned this on Meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template#Arabic. Looks like someone has already updated the main page here, for future reference, asking at Template talk:Wikipedialang may (or may not) be better. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually looks like someone already did it at www, I didn't look properly. In any case, I've also noticed it's possible for anyone to edit Meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template/temp and in a clearcut uncontroversial case like this, admins should just update the real thing accordingly. If they don't notice, you can try asking at Meta:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat or alternatively ask at the template talk page and attach an {{editprotected}} which also exists on meta Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Expo 67

Expo 67 is mostly about montreal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.118.154 (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. --Dweller (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Essam Alshawali

Essam Alshawali sports Tunisian born on September 25, 1970, is one of the most prominent sports commentators in the Arab this time, the comment on football matches sports channels, radio and television network of the Arabs. He has a great deal of sports information. Comment gives the game a sense of excitement and fun. Is characterized by a high tone voice, is always chosen to comment on the match strong.

Essam Ahawali selected the best Arabic commentator for the years 2005 and 2006, according to a poll conducted kooora site sports —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalunia2005 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Click Essam Alshawali and create an article. You don't need to register an account, but you'll probably find it easier to communicate if you do, and it costs nothing and takes about 2 minutes. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Um you do need to register to create an article... In fact, you need to wait 4 days to be autoconfirmed. You can of course ask at Wikipedia:Articles for creation for one to be created (as your told when you try to create one as an unregistered user) if you say you'll provide the content if you don't want to register and you'll be able to edit it after it's created. Do note that all articles need to meet our WP:Notability requirements which means amongst other things, they need to have WP:Reliable sources (for example newspaper articles) discussing the subject. These can be English or a foreign language. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops, of couse, silly me. Sorry. Just one more reason to register an account! --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Claim or fact?

The main page news section says the nuke detonation was just something North Korea "claims", but then the article says everything DID happen, right there in the intro paragraph. Is there some kind of de facto sense of veracity to their claims that's being employed? 70.90.131.254 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

May 26, 2009: U2

This article for U2 appeared as a Main Page Feature recently. If Wikipedia has over 2,000 feature articles, why would this one be repeated so soon? Ed8r (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When was this? --candle•wicke 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
U2 has never been on the main page. Majorly talk 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I too thought this. I've been observing its state of featured articleness for some time, wondering when it would appear, nearly certain it never had... --candle•wicke 10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe some U2-related stuff got to be on DYK or OTD or TFP. –Howard the Duck 17:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you don't follow the FA process behind the scenes, it's easy to misunderstand it. I used to be under the impression that 'featured' and 'has been featured on the Main Page' were the same thing - maybe Ed8r saw the U2 article earlier, noted then that it was already a FA, and made the same mistake I did? --GenericBob (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Problem

Regarding the featured image- It claims to have been made around 1930 on the main page, but was actually made around 1830. 81.77.28.178 (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's right enough. From the image page: Woodblock made ca. 1930 exactly the same way as they were made by artisans ca. 1830. So perhaps they were first made in 1830 but this particular one was made in 1930. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, oops! And there's me, thinking I know this sort of thing! Oh well. 81.77.28.178 (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It's alright mate ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

New Supreme Court Justice

Obama just appointed a new Hispanic (fist Hispanic) Supreme Court Justice. I think this should be included in the "In the News" section. World (talk • contributions) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It was up for a while, but there's plenty of chat at ITN/C (you will need to scroll down to see it, I probably suck at linking) to explain why it isn't, or won't be, or should be... Feel free to add your input there. 147.72.72.2 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It was deemed not "international" enough. –Howard the Duck 03:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually there are plenty of reasons it was rejected including the fact there is no new Supreme Court Justice, as you must know having participated in the discussion Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no new Supreme Court Justice. She still has to be approved Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There'd be one soon. What the GOP did was like token opposition. The Dems would've nominated Mother Teresa and they'd object. –Howard the Duck 16:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Obama appointed her, the Senate has to confirm her appointment. Its semantics to say whether there is or there's not a new SC justice. –Howard the Duck 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
What's semantics is arguing over whether approved or confirmed is different. What's not semantics is that she is not a Supreme Court Justice currently and that she could be rejected, as candidates have in the past, or be filibustered by the GOP (until and unless Al Franken takes his seat perhaps or if the Democrats decide to do the nuclear option). And she is not currently allow to serve in the Supreme Court. If it emerges tomorrow that she supports the use of terrorism against American civilians, I doubt she'd be approved by the the Senate even by most Democrats. If and when there is a new Supreme Court justice 'soon' we can add it then not before. If I had a 10 cent coin for the number of times people said something is going to happen 'soon'... I would note I'm not aware of any sources which call her a Supreme Court Justice (funny enough they call here a nominee), nor of any sources which say there is already a new Supreme Court Justice (they may say her confirmation is likely, that's quite difference from saying there's already a new Supreme Court Justice), and WP:RS is in fact what we care about on wikipedia, not the word of Howard the Duck or the word of User:World. I do have to say though it will be kind of funny if she dies, is rejected, rejects the position (has she even said she'll accept it) or otherwise doesn't become an actual Supreme Court Justice and then at some stage later you and others come back and say we need to put someone else up especially because s/he'll be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice when according to you, we've already had a Latino Supreme Court Justice. I guess it's the same as the way we've already had Stone-Campbellite Supreme Court justice, haven't we? [28] Nil Einne (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh did you know we had a Catholic marine justice? At least I think so. If someone converts to a religion after they've been nominated and rejected, does that count? Anyway I could look at Category:Rejected nominees to the United States Supreme Court to find out what other wonderful Supreme Court justices we've had (and try to dig up those nominated and who didn't make it but aren't there e.g. because they nomination was withdrawn, the person rejected it, they died, or simply no one added it yet) that no one else knows about but to be honest, I'm bored. Still at least the Supreme Court got Borked justice. Oh and with apologies to Sotomayor I actually kinda hope she somehow doesn't make it, won't that be a laugh... Nil Einne (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GM is done

Probably should be "in the news."--UhOhFeeling (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C. –Howard the Duck 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The courtesy of using the edit button

The top of this discussion (General discussion) has the hidden message: "Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so have the courtesy to use it."

I am aware that the edit button is "important" but what choice does one exactly have? It can either be used or not, I know of no other way to communicate through either courtesy or contempt. Ironically, you can't even see this message unless you attempt to edit and even then it is hidden away in obscurity. If it means something else then it isn't putting its message across very clearly. --candle•wicke 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about exactly?--Metallurgist (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems contradictory. It calls for a courtesy in using the edit button as though not doing so is rude. But then you can't even see the message unless you've already used the edit button in the first place. --candle•wicke 11:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe the point is that it's asking you to use the edit button for the specific section that you're editing, instead of the edit button for the whole general discussion section (except if you are adding a new section, in which case the new section should be placed at the bottom). My understanding is it's important & courteous because it labels the edit summary as to what's being edited. This seemed clear to me, but do you have a suggestion as to how it could be better worded, since it is obviously not clear to everyone? Brainmouse (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I would recommend it not to be hidden for a start... --candle•wicke 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. The purpose of the message is to discourage those who seem to like to add new messages to the top, which is contrary to wikipedia guidelines and normal practice and confuses the discussion particularly in a page like this which has a transcluded error page at the top and other special things and also to encourage those adding new messages to the bottom to use the edit button or new section as appropriate rather then the edit this tab page. The reason it is hidden is because it's not necessary to be seen unless you are actually one of those people. If you are already using the edit button, then you don't need to see the message. Similarly if you are using the new section tab. It is only if you are one of those people who is trying to add the message to the top (or worse are going to delete the whole page) or perhaps are going to add to the bottom or add to an existing section but are using 'edit this page' is it useful for you to see the message. Hence it being hidden is the correct thing to do. Note that contrary to what you seem to have suggested, you will not in fact see the message if you use the edit button or the new section tab, only if you use the 'edit this page' tab. As I've stated, this should be discouraged even if you do add your comment to the bottom since it's easier for you to accidently remove content, doesn't have a useful edit summary unless you add it manually and also probably more likely to generate edit conflicts. In other words, what we're trying to say is the fact that you've found the 'edit this page' tab is good, but it would be far better if you found the edit button or new section tab as well and learnt to use them. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the edit button and the edit this page tab or something, the difference seem obvious to me particularly if you read the hidden comment but whatever. In any case, I've added mention of the new section tab to avoid any future confusion. Tis true if you can't find the edit button, new section tab or edit this page tab, you won't be able to add new messages, and you won't see anything helping you to find them, but to be blunt with a very big header directing you to places to get help, as well as the tabs and buttons being in somewhat prominent locations, it seems to me if you are really incapable of finding them it may be a good thing you don't edit. In any case, you can't be discourteous by not using the edit button or new section tab if you're not editing Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bacon booze in DYK?

Is it by coincidence or design that there are two "bacon and alcohol" articles (Bacon Vodka and Bacon Martini) in the curred "Did You Know" section? Isn't it against the ethos of DYK to have hooks for similar topics on the main page at the same time? -- saberwyn 08:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See Bacon Challenge 2009 and the subsequent discussion at Talk:DYK. You could have seen far more than two bacon items on the update :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong with Portal:Arts

-User:The Transhumanist

Thanks for the warning; temporary fix. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Tip

Just so you know, Meta-Wiki changed their image, so you might want to update the image under "Wikipedia's sister projects".--Cubs197 (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I see the same logo that's been in use since November 2008. —David Levy 02:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Globepage question

With the "first" page of Wikipedia, why, on some computers do several of the language links get superimposed onto the globe? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this page. On most modern browsers (Internet Explorer 7+, Mozilla Firefox 1.5+, Opera 9.0+, Safari 1.0+), the page should appear fine. Any display problems are usually due to a small screen resolution (800x600 or greater should be sufficient, always set your resolution to the maximum possible) or old, incompatible browser version. In future, please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Help Desk. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth should someone 'always set your resolution to the maximum possible'? Modest Genius talk 02:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Library terminals are unresettable by users (and often have strange blocking policies). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Because the maximum resolution of TFT LCD (and other types of LCD) monitors is usually their native resolution, what they should be run at to maximise usable screen-space and prevent eye strain. At much lower resolutions the stretching of the image (1 pixel of the image being larger than one pixel on the monitor) causes it to look fuzzy and out of focus (see this image, ignoring the green vertical lines), which causes your eyes strain, besides just not looking so good. For a CRT monitor it makes less difference. Many TFT/LCD screens will tell you their native resolution if you press the Menu button or equivalent on the front. See also [29] and [30]. If you're having problems with reading text at your screen's maximum resolution, then you can easily increase the text size of your operating system (e.g. Windows, Mac OS X) or your browser (e.g. IE, Firefox, Safari) or both. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's unheard of that that LCD monitors will be capable of a resolution higher then the native resolution particularly if the native resolution is smaller then say 1920x1080 (since it's resonably common a monitor and especially a TV may choose to support the HDTV 1080p for a variety of reasons), downscaling is not vastly more complex then upscaling and while if your using DVI-D in particular, you will have slightly more stringent requirements, it's not actually that big a deal. And of course for CRTs the maximum resolution will usually be with a 60hz refresh rate or worse an interlaced one. So I would say asking a user to see their resolution to the maximum is at best overtly simiplistic and at worst likely to cause more harm then good. It would be far better to say to set your resolution to the native resolution if using a LCD display or optimal resolution for your eyes and preferences if using a CRT IMHO or perhaps just direct users to a page or site which explains how to find the best resolution whatever your display. Incidentally, despite the attempts by some people to ignore it, the vast majority of wikipedia pages including www.wikipedia.org should be fine with a window size of ~640x480 (since window size is what matters, it doesn't matter if you have a resolution of 100000x100000 if your window size is 100x100) which I still consider the minimum we should support. Of course this doesn't mean you shouldn't use a higher resolution if you can but there's no reason to panic if you can't nor for that matter if you want to use 800x600 but can't or don't want to have a full size window or if you use an even higher resolution but due to poor eyesight have a very large text size. Wikipedia should and generally IMHO does aim to be accessible as possible via good coding instead of solely pandering to those with large displays and good eyesight due to poor coding. Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Smaller text

Why did all the text at Wikipedia suddenly got smaller? 83.108.225.137 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold down Ctrl and move the mouse wheel. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That worked for the articles, but the edit text is so small I can berly see it, and the wikipedia logo is smaller. I only have this problem with Wikipedia, no other website. I use firefox. 83.108.225.137 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still thinking it's a zoom problem... Hm.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried View > Zoom > Zoom Text Only ? 79.71.2.215 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, its fixed now. 83.108.225.137 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In the news

Why is the assault on the Indians in Australia not covered in the "in the news" section? I tried adding it to the section but seems someone removed it. The death toll for the same has reached over 6 and certainly compared to Australian population it is a big deal losing over 6 lives. Also it is a concern as I believe its every humans duty to condemn racism. It would be great if someone could add the same.Bmayuresh (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Over 6??? --candle•wicke 06:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, what do mean by Over 6??? Racism should be condemned in the strongest words. 202.79.40.142 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
To be honest Wikipedia is meant to be neutral so it is not out place to codemn or condone the violence. Thus as Candlewicke and others have pointed out this can only be judged on scale and unfortunately six deaths in not enough. If you develop an article that explains the deeper political, economic and social ramifications then maybe it can be considered, but I know that, certainly from my point of view, this is, as of yet, not big enough --Daviessimo (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We see your point but unfortunately it has to have international significance (suppossedly) for it to be put up. That or it has to be really big.Willski72 (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is sending shockwaves in both Australia and India, so there you go. I don't think there's an article on the subject, though. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could update Racism in Australia instead. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggestions for items to feature in the "In the News" section should be posted to Wikipedia:In The News Candidates. That's the place set up to discuss whether or not an item meets the criteria posted at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. (For future reference, there are links to each of those pages in the infobox at the top of this discussion page.) -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkers Speech bias

Did you know...

...that, having never heard of it before, Wikipedian J Milburn now sees references to the Checkers speech all over the main page? J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHECKERSSPEECHCABAL. --Smashvilletalk 21:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
And now, an Obama speech. Hmmm... J Milburn (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

European Parliament election 2009

I thought that the European Parliament election might be important enough to put somewhere on the mainpage. Maybe someone agree's?--SelfQ (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's been discussed over at WP:ITN/C where consensus is to wait until results are announced (which will begin on Sunday night) before posting. It will certainly make it on though - this is the largest trans-national election in the world (electorate of 375 million representing around 500 million people) - Dumelow (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama speech

I'm sorry, but are we going to put every speech by every world leader on the main page of Wikipedia as news? Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Concur. And why is it dubbed "highly anticipated"? By whom precisely? Only because the Americans wanted to check out the reaction of the Muslim world to what Mr.Obama has to say, it doesn't mean it was "highly" anticipated. I'm sorry, but it's a typical POV. KNewman (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I was against this at WP:ITN/C (along with one other person before it was posted). I cannot see what it is about this speech that makes it more notable than any other speech made by a head of state. I am beginning to think that this was posted just because Obama made the speech - Dumelow (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You got to love that cult of personality he's growing, don't ya? This isn't exactly news; I was under the impression American-Muslim relations were already being improved and worked upon. --PlasmaTwa2 07:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I also agree this should go. Lots of big political news in Britain today- I doubt most of it should get on, but it certainly looks more important than this speech. We're just asking for it, putting this up... J Milburn (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would normally agree with this thinking. However, this speeech is front page news in my Irish newspaper today - with a shot of armed and masked Hamas fighters watching it on TV. I think it may be seen in future as a moment of change, when the USA started to reopen communications with the Muslim world. George Bush did incredible harm to the image of the USA in all the rest of the world. However, in particular he created a strong perception that it was heavily opposed to Islam, and sought to destroy it. (PLEASE DON'T FLAME ME. I do not say that perception is correct - only that it is the honest perception of huge numbers of Muslims.) You will see that this may be a watershed moment. Leave it in ITN. Michael of Lucan (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the key here is that it may mark a change in relations - it is just as likely that it may not mark any change. Wikipedia does not deal in speculation on the future. Otherwise we would have to feature almost every speech ever made just in case it does have an effect. All that I are article on the speech says is that he reaffirmed the US's close bond with Israel (hardly shocking news) and recognised the right of Palestinians to aspire to statehood (but did not commit to recognise that state or say that he supported statehood). Note also that our tagline is that "...Barack Obama (pictured) delivers an address to..." seeming to indicate that his mere act of making a speech is newsworthy. My newspaper front pages today are dominated by the hasty reshuffling of Gordon Brown's cabinet, further ministerial resignations and the apparently large number of his own MPs that want him gone, if we are comparing - Dumelow (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see it pulled as well: I don't see any objection to an article on the speech, but an ITN piece seems a bit over the top. We'll get a chance to put Barack on there again soon enough, there's no need to pad it out with half-baked stories. I also midly object to the "delivers an address to the Muslim world"—that's pure White House spin! He delivered an address to an invited audience at Cairo University (which somehow made it into the "History" section of our article on this prestigious institution!). Physchim62 (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, James Purnell resigned yesterday and 'stabbed Gordon Brown in the front' like Hazel Blears has done, but this hasnt been up even though it could lead to the collapse of a government. As interesting as Obama's speech was, unless it leads to Iran stopping uranium production etc it has no significance in itself. We may look back in future and say that that was the turning point, and then again we may not, until we know we can but speculate.Willski72 (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep agreed as well, don't think the Brown stuff should be in there yet either, but Obama's speech shouldn't be. Dotty••|☎ 10:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, it's a judgment call, and every country has heavy news today. The real point is how the speech has been covered - was it ignored as just another speech or was it seen as ground-breaking? In communicating with people, perception becomes reality.
We have elections today in Ireland for all local authorities and the European Parliament, and two important bye-elections. There is a huge scandal about national examination papers being revealed. Yet, the Obama speech is the main front page item in in the paper with the second largest circulation, and top right front page in the one with the largest.
It is front page news on al Jazeera, with basically positive comments. (Well, as positive as al Jazeera ever gets!) A quick glance at France and Spain shows the same, while Google News has a ferocious number of hits worldwide for the speech. Something is clearly happening, and it is appropriate to record its passage. Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I see it's gone, so the discussion is over. Majority rules. However, FYI note the Main Page of Arabic Wikipedia - it's the one just below Simple English in the left column. You don't have to read Arabic to understand what one item is - the picture is a hint. I suspect that (normally justified) fear of Anglo-centrism has actually caused a wrong assessment here. Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to besmirch the work of the ITN team at the Arabic Wikipedia (as I am not aware of their policies) but their news section doesn't strike me as representative of world news. They have the Obama address and items about Palestine, Israel, Ethiopia, Mauritania and Pakistan - all items (barring Ethiopia) relating to the Arab or Muslim worlds. I do see your point though, this story is being covered in a lot of places - Dumelow (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
How many hits a particular speech gets on sites or how it shows up in newspapers is irrelevant if every speech from the person has same effect. In canada Obama getting his dog was featured on front page right above our own damn elections. I am gonna speculate here and say that Obama has a huge PR team that works hard on making sure everything he does becomes notable in entire world. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. so what goes on ITN should not be chosen by how famous a speech got in media. thats why we have WP:ITN/C section where we can discuss all this. Good to see that it was taken down. I opposed to it once before it was posted anyways. Ashishg55 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Jeez, sure are a lot of self-important assholes on here. Guess you guys wish you got to decide what's news, huh? At least the rest of the world has acknowledged the vast importance of this speech, much more than some nobody politician getting shot. 129.170.94.174 (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the correct spelling is arseholes :o --Daviessimo (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Visual edible baloney.
Visual edible baloney.

No no, i think he does mean to call us all donkey holes. It is still my great ambition to buy a donkey and stand in New York with it telling everyone to kiss my ass!Willski72 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What a load of pony... pony and trap... --candle•wicke 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Will they be actually allowed to kiss your ass, if they are inclined that way, or is it just an expression? I am curious because in my native culture the phrase kiss my ass will be interpreted quite literally. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes... my donkey will be smothered in kisses. Unhygenic perphaps but hey ho!Willski72 (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just get him vaccinated and buy him a gas mask beforehand and he'll be ok... --candle•wicke 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bacon?

Is it my imagination, or is it at least the fourth time in one week that the "did you know..." section has an entry about bacon, and at least the second that it is the only illustrated one? Is it International Bacon Week or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Complainer (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not your imagination, but a project being run by a few bacon-loving editors. Take a look at User:ChildofMidnight/Baconchallenge2009 Modest Genius talk 23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bacon fetishists recently gathered in a dark room, thrashed about some wild fantasies concerning their favourite topic and vomited the contents of their minds and stomachs onto the Main Page... this is no porkie pie. --candle•wicke 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh that is giving me some really nasty thoughts!!!Willski72 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article

Is it me or is West Bengal not move protected? M.H.True Romance iS Dead 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's protected. J.delanoygabsadds 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It was protected more than a year ago: [31]. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

More color.

Can we get more color? More color on the front page. For the aesthetic factor. It may delve into the general discussion of the theme, but I tend to think of it for the front page. e.g. a bit of friendly yellow and happy cyan in the mix to give it a more harmonious touch. --AaThinker (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about colours that most match the main news event, such as red for the bankruptcy of GM etc.Willski72 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Lesson #672 of Wikipedia: there is ALWAYS a Main Page redesign proposal in progress. The most recent one just died a horrible death here a couple of months ago, no doubt a new one will start soon. However, constantly changing colours are not appropriate, especially as items/colours may mean different things to different people of different cultures, not to mention that changing them would be nightmare for the section editors and admins. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I meant it truly only limited in colors and strictly presentation. I probably though go more into the realm of themes (for wikipedia overall) so I won't continue it here. --AaThinker (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah, having red colors for the news item about Detroit will be anti-Penguin bias. –Howard the Duck 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Who would have guessed it could have more than one meaning!Willski72 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, the penguins presumably! :) --candle•wicke 23:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

These creatures are getting cleverer, they can swim, walk, almost fly AND play hockey!!! The world is at their feet!!!Willski72 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree 62.92.31.1 (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify, and address my penguin-phobia - are you saying penguins can almost play hockey? 'cause hockey-playing penguins would be terrifying, but I can copy with penguins that can almost fly and almost play hockey... Also, don't forget that these birds of evil invented their own operating system, then blamed it on a human. I use Linux just to placate the penguins... Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Im afraid they can play hockey. Even as we speak they are practicing their evil plans to woo all humans with hockey while secretly attempting to dive-bomb them while they're distracted. But not being able to because they can only almost fly....Willski72 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they can do many amazing things, but they have a weak spot, as they can be caught in a trap Random89 19:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Roger Federer In The News?

Hello, Admins why and what has taken you this long to put this in the news box when Federer won the Career Grand Slam and Record Tying Grand Slam. TennisAuthority 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

ITN always adds Grand Slam events, does it? –Howard the Duck 17:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
there's only few admins that work on ITN regularly? and its up now. Ashishg55 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Good JOB! TennisAuthority 18:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It has been posted far quicker than the typical ITN... --candle•wicke 19:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, things like this annoy me greatly. If you were in a restaurant and order, and in ten minutes are waiting for your food, do you storm into the kitchen and demand "why and what has taken you this long"? Probably not. Please actually read the box at the top of the page and remember that admins aren't psychic. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
TennisAuthority's complaint is particularly perplexing, given the fact that the item was added one hour, fifty-two minutes earlier. —David Levy 22:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Parliament expenses row

I hate to be pedantic but it says the British Parliament, i know that that's what it's normally called by most people but technically it is the UK Parliament as Northern Irish MPs sit there as well. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know im being pedantic but it would give me peace of mind if it was changed and i cant do it myself being no good at these things!Willski72 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou!Willski72 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Although, equally if not more pedanticly, "British" is the adjectival form of "United Kingdom", there being no "Unitedkingdomish". "Britain" is ambiguous and may or may not be considered to include Northern Ireland. The change, though, cleared things up nicely. Bazza (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)








You can see why they left it at British cant you, "UnitedKingdomish" would take far to long to say! Dont ask me why because i cant tell you but for some reason Northern Ireland is not part of "Britain" (UK instead) but the people in Northern Ireland are "British", even if they dont want to be!Willski72 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Britain" is the island; it's been known as that for an awful lot longer than the United Kingdom has existed. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct but Northern Ireland is not on the island of Britain (or Britannia as it was called by the Romans) it is on the island of Ireland. They are both in the British Isles though. Northern Irish people are called British by convention and because it is easier and simpler (and many see themselves as such).Willski72 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt all of the Northern Irish would self-identify as British! I wasn't sure if you realised, as you said "Dont ask me why because i cant tell you". J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I know they arent, in fact its probably (very rough figures) 60% would call themselves British 40% would call themselves Irish. The point of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was to unite all the kingdoms of the British Isles together which was done in the Act of Union at the beginning of the 19th Century. Mainland Britain had been united 100 years before that as Britain. It all got complicated in Ireland with the fight for Independance etc and it was decided that Ulster (Northern Ireland) would stay part of the United Kingdom while the rest of Ireland would form its own Republic. The Republic of Ireland is within the British Isles but is no longer part of the United Kingdom (they would call themselves Irish), by contrast Northern Ireland is still part and its now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Everyone on the British mainland is British, there is no word for "UnitedKingdomish" and yet Northern Ireland is linked with that MORE than with Ireland. So the general consensus (not everyone agrees) is to call them British as well (even if a large minority dont wont to be!)Willski72 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • (Cough!) *Great* Britain. The island is Great Britain. There are other, lesser, Britains. I think Willski72's point about the British Isles is pertinent; it's why the Northern Irish can be called "British" despite not living on Great Britain. And of course, they can also be called Irish, but Ireland is another potential mine-field for Wikidrama. And on that note, I'll slink off before I get embroiled in any drama. Cheers! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright let me put it slightly differently. The people in Northern Ireland are seen in international circles as British, even if they dont want to be. I later pointed out the very rough and simplified percentages of agree and disagree. I see your point and i apologise for not elaborating more clearly on the point.Willski72 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be right. I don't tend to get involved in this type of drama either. However, do you possess a reliable source for all of these statements which are potentially questionable? Or even a source? "Probably" doesn't really work very well here for anything... --candle•wicke 22:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Youre quite right and the main problem with pretty much anything to do with British constitutional matters is that there are virtually no sources that could not be argued against, especially in obscure matters such as this. Its quite funny really when you look how obscure this argument has become, it was originally only about the name of the parliament at Westminster! It then descended into a conversation that i am struggling to keep up with! I propose, with the agreement of others of course, that this somewhat confusing and in depth argument be stopped before it turns into a full blown article of its own! Considering that the reason for the section in the first place has gone, i think this is probably a good place to stop (in a good, solid, no decision made position); we could continue this argument for many year with no decision actually being reached!.Willski72 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really arguing so it's fine with me. :) --candle•wicke 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Phew! Hopefully thats the end and we can all go home.... (cue the hand through the ground, twitch of body, eye opening etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

DAMIT! Ruined the effect by forgetting to sign! Looks like im the one opening the eye, sticking my hand through the earth and twitching!Willski72 (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hand through the ground? Is that a thinly veiled reference to Britain retaking Ireland... oh no, wait, everybody is supposed to go home now, right. ;) --candle•wicke 06:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea! I was thinking more along the lines of a random user coming along and starting the argument again... but it looks like were OK on that front.....Willski72 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So far so good. --candle•wicke 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to argue further about the {Noise of User being wrestled to the floor, keyboard smashing, loud shouting. Silence falls.} Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else want to try!!!!Willski72 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they've all gone home... --candle•wicke 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they have! Its amazing! I think they got the hint after we got rid of Michael of Lucan....Willski72 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Got rid of him? That's a little bit confrontational... what did you do to him? That loud shouting followed by the prolonged silence is rather worrying... --candle•wicke 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Arguments and abuse, eh?
Man looking for an argument: "Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!"
Abuser: "OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse."
M: "Oh, I see, well, that explains it."
A: "Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor....(Stupid git!)"
This joke would have been far easier if wikiquote has more content...
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, room 12A... is that where we go to solve the mystery of the loud shouting and prolonged silence? --candle•wicke 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe.... Look he had it coming i did warn him!Willski72 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh ... hello... why am I lying here surrounded by a crowd of people? Did something fall on me? I just wanted to discuss the [There is a sound of heavy footsteps, and a strange crunching sound. Silence falls.} Michael of Lucan (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Michael, something did fall on you. It keeps falling on you at the end of your sentences. Silence. I wonder if we'll ever find the source of that strange crunching sound though... will that answer be in 12A too? --candle•wicke 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Someones deleted the fact that Michael of Lucan is actually "{Muffled talking along the lines of 'we warned you' followed by a piercing scream and a heavy thud.}"Willski72 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is no such thing as censorship on Wikipedia. As I said, I am L----------------------. So now you know. It's out in the open. Michael of Lucan (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, walked into the talking doors again. It seems their going to extraodinary lengths to stop even Michael of Lucan from admitting his true identity as {a loud bang rings out and a groan of pain is heard.}Willski72 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is the correct term for all the "Islands" that includes Ireland and the United Kingdom. --Spacepostman (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood. We've agreed to put aside our differences on this and are instead preoccupying ourselves with such topics as censorship, falling, reward money and the contents of a mysterious room called 12A. We've discovered that this is much more fun - and there's money involved!!! (well, maybe). Now back to the main business - you are L... Lindsay Lohan? --candle•wicke 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! That was funny! No hes really Lo{ choking sound followed by a faint hissing noise and the crunch of a plastic bag.}Willski72 (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. I had to cover my ears, there was an awful hiss crunch sound there. --candle•wicke 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Sorry about that, my hot air ballon had a whole in it and it fell on a plastic bag which made me choke with laughter.... Anyway Michael of Lucan told me that he was actually Lordi from Eurovision song Contest a couple of years back, all of them! Would you believe it! {whispering in the background along the lines of "what the....?}Willski72 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hallelujah and many congratulations! Everybody happy now that we've made our minds up about who we are (or have we)? Adding further voice to this fairytale, what is that light shining in my eyes now? Love? you say? Hold me now, I believe I wanna go for a bathroom break everyway that I can – Why me? (Etc...) --candle•wicke 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


It would be so much easier if someone could just come up with a term to describe people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Something a little easier to say than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland-ish. UKOGBANIish? (pronounced: You-cog-banish). I can picture it now: "An expenses row forces the resignation of several Youcogbanish MP's". 130.56.86.30 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
UKOGBANI would do I think. The double I of "Ireland" and "ish" doesn't work too well. Several Ukogbani MPs are removed from power following a row over money. --candle•wicke 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If only we had an encyclopedia handy, so we could look up Alternative names for the British...-gadfium 02:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not UKists but only pronounce the U, like UkistsWillski72 (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Several John Bulls, some pegs and some MPs from Wales and Northern Ireland are embroiled in a controversy over expenses? No, the alternatives don't really work I'm afraid... --candle•wicke 16:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

John Bull would of had more honour than to claim expenses in the same way that some of them have! Roast Beef isnt that expensive and he can pay for his own tudor beams, moat and duck house!Willski72 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Um... MPs as farm animals? Is that an appropriate use of valuable Wikipedia paper? Please think of the trees! --candle•wicke 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No the duck house (which is in the mock tudor style) is for his ducks, which are protected from duck thieves by a moat.Willski72 (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you mean the guy with the moat was trying to protect his ducks?! :-O --candle•wicke 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ducks are a valuable commodity highly prized in certain circles. They can swim AND fly AND walk, why they have not yet taken over the world is beyond me....Willski72 (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't think... no, it couldn't be possible... but... no... yet, could it be that the ducks were behind that claim or even all of the claims?! I was thinking those politicians were looking a bit clueless when it came to trying to work out what was going on... --candle•wicke 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes its very clever, the politicians are merely a front for our duck overlords! The politicians are paid £64,000 a year for this smokescreen while the UK Council of ducks is made up of 646 ducks who live off these puppet MPs expenses (on average about £140,000 a year). They can therefore afford to live in their mock tudor duck houses, protected from prying eyes by their moats!Willski72 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick - someone call The Daily Telegraph! They might be able to squeeze this astonishing revelation into their front page for tomorrow! --candle•wicke 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried, they wouldnt listen, not even when i offered to swim across the moat to capture one of the ducks mock tudor houses.Willski72 (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But what can you do? You know what ducks are like for fowl play!Willski72 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cacık, a Turkish cold appetiser yoghurt variety.
In rugby union, the player pursues his opponent through levitation, an art which only the very best have mastered.
In rugby union, the player pursues his opponent through levitation, an art which only the very best have mastered.
It's a neigh-on clucking disgrace at this stage - those quacks moove out of baadness if you ask me... barking mad the lot of them... some of them are right bad eggs, thinking they're the cream of the crop when in truth they're out to save their own bacon after milking the system and scrambling the small fry, but they'll end up with yoghurt on their faces yet... --candle•wicke 16:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

.....er yes, thats just what i was going to say!Willski72 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I got there before you... --candle•wicke 16:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadnt quite finished writing them all down yet! I'll get some of that yoghurt, stand outside Parliament after Prime Ministers Question Time and wait for them all to come pouring out. They'll think its world war 3.... with yoghurt!!!Willski72 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Normal usage is that Britain means UK & is therefore, illogically, bigger than Great Britain. Peter jackson (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What about abnormal usage? --candle•wicke 03:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Or indeed ignormal usage?Willski72 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant ignoble? But we'll not give you any grief over it... --candle•wicke 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake! Very kind of you! Levitating ducks may be a match for our duck overlords some day!Willski72 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of levitation. --candle•wicke 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's going to swing off the pitch!Willski72 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Might be a painful landing... --candle•wicke 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

But funny to watch!Willski72 (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't be so cruel!!! :) :) :) --candle•wicke 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

AH hes had worse....Willski72 (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it's ironic that the reason for starting this, i.e. British political expenses and resignations, is back in the news and might soon be back In the news... --candle•wicke 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They say history repeats itself.... but generally not quite this fast! We've done a very good job keeping this on the talk page since the 13th May, using the clever tactic of talking about some very very strange things. Nearly a month!Willski72 (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes I "forget" to rush my replies thus prolonging this painful agony... --candle•wicke 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To think Purnell, Blears, Flint and Hutton (but Hutton doesnt count!) The original argument seems pretty petty now! To think its been less than a month since this whole thing blew up in the politicians faces, doesnt time fly when your having fun!Willski72 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't Hutton count? I think you did that deliberately so that I'd have to reply! Tut tut... :) --candle•wicke 03:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, the suspense is a killer... :) --candle•wicke 11:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Because............ he declared that he was supporting Brown when he stood down. He was leaving politics altogether, Brown had nothing to do with it (so he says anyway).Willski72 (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And there was me thinking they were all engaged in a plot to bring down their own Prime Minister... --candle•wicke 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If I contribute to this conversation, I guess I'll soon have tens of thousands of edits too. How many times will I have to contribute to get administrator rights on Wikipedia? ;-) Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, I never thought of that... what a wonderful way of adding talk page edits... --candle•wicke 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Nails can be hammered or shot into materials such as wood.
Different types of nails

Wow! You've hit the nail on the head there! Lets all start typing random things (no change there then!) so that we can become administrators!Willski72 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What's a nail? --candle•wicke 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it could also be said, what is a hammer? And why is the hammer being so violent to the nail? All these questions need anwering.Willski72 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the nail getting smaller and smaller and why are little bits falling from the wall? --candle•wicke 02:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are the nail and hammer working together to harm what is being hammer and nailed? Should we be trying to stop them? 04redsox07 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
And what if the hammer is being used to hammer a nail into the handle of another hammer?? :s Its like one of those optical illusions where the stairs go on forever --Daviessimo (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
And do either the nail or the hammer feel the pain of being banged against a wall or the pleasure of being the cause of this unwarranted penetration? --candle•wicke 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope not!!! But you just never know....Willski72 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All those poor little nails screaming for mercy with their inaudible-to-the-human-ear voices... shudder... --candle•wicke 16:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as long as its inaudible to the human ear.... but what if the pets can hear it!? Or indeed if the nails suddenly mutate in order to implement their revenge on the human race!?Willski72 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What I want to know is what is more humane (or nail-ane if you will) - hitting a nail with a hammer or firing it out of a gun?--Daviessimo (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Firing it out of a gun. Compare - hitting a human with a giant flyswatter or firing a human out of a cannon. --candle•wicke 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends what type of gun, for example if the gun uses an explosion to fire (like cannons) then you are likely to get a burnt backside, which could hurt more than simply being hit with a giant flyswatter.Willski72 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"In association football, FC Barcelona defeat Manchester United..."

Why does the purity talibans of Wikipedia persist calling football or soccer a term nobody else is using? Like the kibibyte silliness, this is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what the article is called. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont understand the problem here. u want to call football, soccer? when most of the world actually calls it football. Ashishg55 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There are ~300,000,000 English speakers who would not call it Football. J.delanoygabsadds 18:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

URGENT NOTE I think it is important to point out quickly that there are scores of pages of discussion on the subject of what this game should be called - see discussion at the article Association Football. Angry people should read the previous half million pages there. We all know it's a US/Rest of the world issue, which will never be resolved, unless we get together and nuke the Yanks. Our User team in North Korea is working on this, and hopes to have results shortly. Have patience, comrades. Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

lol J.delanoygabsadds 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well i know this has been discussed quite a bit before. But here is the thing. entire India calls it football. thats 1.1 billion people. That alone should be enough of an argument against the 300 mil from US. Just because US decided to create their own local game and call it football because they suck at the real one, does not mean entire world now needs to change the name. Ashishg55 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As much as I agree with you, India aren't brilliant at football neither ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
How many of those 1.1B are native english speakers? I understand that India is technically bilingual, but I was under the understanding that large portions of the population spoke Hindi only. However, even if all 1.1B speak the Queen's English, there's no excuse for making a sentence confusing to 300+ Million people, and nearly unintelligible to a large portion of that 300+ Million. APL (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Before someone corrects me, I know I said scores of pages of discussion, then a half million pages. In estimating the pages of actual discussion, naturally I have excluded from the half million the totally unreasonable arguments of those based in the United States (which no one else agrees with, of course). However, to save space I also omitted all the utterly fair and reasonable comments abusing them viciously for being unreasonable. :-) Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ashishg55, I don't have a problem with Wikipedia choosing one or the other term ("football" or "soccer"). After all, both terms are widely used. I do have a problem with Wikipedia using the term "association football" - a term nobody is using. Hence my comparison to "kibibyte", another term nobody is using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is clarity. "Football" on its own is ambiguous and confuses people in USA. "Soccer" on its own is unambiguous but virtually unused by non-USA readers. (Does it confuse them? Or just offend them? I'm not sure. Either way not good.)
"Association Football" is clear to everyone involved, just as "American Football" is clear to everyone involved even though no one in America ever spells it out like that. APL (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ya i dont mind association football either since it is proper term anyways. And for my indian argument - India may not be 100% english speaking being developing country and all but they do use football to refer to the sport (and i know they suck too lol). And even if u were to exclude non-english speaking population (ones who do not understand english at all). Even then the number would be a lot higher than 300 million. So making a 300 mil argument is useless comparatively. Ashishg55 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As has been every single time this sport has appeared on the Main Page, "soccer" is not just restricted to the USA; Canada and Australia also use the term to distinguish it from other sports called "football". howcheng {chat} 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is soccer just a made up word to replace football because Americans couldnt be bothered to think of a name for their own game? Which was there first? Who knows!Willski72 (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary says : "Colloquial abbreviation for Association football." That's a rather unsatisfying answer, though. A commenter on the talk page claims the abbreviation was started by students at Oxford. There isn't a cite for either. APL (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
See Football (word). howcheng {chat} 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, one question answered!Willski72 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neat. Wikipedia does have an article on everything! APL (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at everything Modest Genius talk 23:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would appear so!Willski72 (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In rugby union, the player pursues his opponent through levitation, an art which only the very best have mastered.
In rugby union, the player pursues his opponent through levitation, an art which only the very best have mastered.
So in rugby they do what? –Howard the Duck 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont want to know!Willski72 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Famously, rugby players do it with odd-shaped balls. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The better quotation is "Rugby is played by men with odd-shaped balls". Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my Urgent Note at the start of this, this is essentially a conflict between the US and the Rest of the World. The US has an odd local game. It's a bit like Rugby, but it is only played by wimps who wear armour in case they might hurt themselves. Unlike Rugby, it's played almost entirely with the hands, but they do use an egg-shaped ball. Logically, they should call it Handegg but they insist on calling it "Football".

The Rest of the World can see the absurdity of this, but Americans always had difficulties in using English properly. All we can do is keep referring to "Handegg" until they get the point, or start playing a real man's game.

At this point, maybe we should just be practical. Let's nuke 'em and solve the problem. Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wimps? We were playing without pads and people were getting killed until President Theodore Roosevelt intervened in 1905. [1][2][3] Even with today's equipment, people still get seriously hurt. So go up to Mike Utley and call him a wimp, and you'll do the Original Research on the differences between a quad and a paraplegic. MMetro (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Student Handbook, The Southwestern Company (Nashville, TN), 1981, p.167
  2. ^ Lewis, Guy M. (1969). "Teddy Roosevelt's Role in the 1905 Football Controversy". The Research Quarterly 40: 717–724.
  3. ^ Bennett, Tom (1976). The Pro Style: The Complete Guide to Understanding National Football League Strategy. Los Angeles: National Football League Properties, Inc., Creative Services Division, p.20
I think there's a fella called Kim something or other, who lives in one of those pesky communist countries, who maybe able to help us with that --Daviessimo (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
But does he have one of these? ("That's not a nuclear football, that's a nuclear rugby ball! No, it's a nuclear American football!") ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Superbowl Trophy Crop.jpg
The Vince Lombardy Trophy depicts the football as it is about to be kicked.
American football is not played "almost entirely with the hands". I'd reckon it and rugby have the same number of instances where the ball is kicked; in American football's case after every the point after touchdown and most of the time during the fourth down. –Howard the Duck 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
We must agree to differ. However, I gather that you accept that Handegg players are wimps, who wear armour in case they get hurt. Real men play Rugby, of course. They only get substituted if the blood makes the ball slippery, or when important bits of them are falling off. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that they are secretly wearing full body Boxing Gloves to improve the chance of causing long term damage rather than the superficial, egg-lubricating injuries found in rugby. 147.72.72.2 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The igloo.
If we're into real sports, nothing beats ice hockey since they hit each other with sticks, chase a "puck", play back-to-back games, and play in igloos (see "more color" section below.) –Howard the Duck 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As noted above, Australians and Canadians have joined the sons and daughters of freedom in rejecting this legacy of British imperialism. (As a side note, does it ever concern the British that most of their former empire (aside from Ireland) has not done well at international soccer, and in fact seem to prefer either cricket (India, Pakistan), rugby (South Africa, New Zealand) or homegrown variants of whatever forgotten original soccer evolved from (US, Australia, Canada)? Hell, out of those countries the US is (I think) the only one whose soccer team has ever advanced past the first elimination round in a World Cup).

I can see from this thread that I'll have to create an article on Stefan Markovits's Offside (excellent book looking into why soccer never caught on in the US (short version: had a chance in the late 1920s but blew it due to infighting between the dominant league of the time and the national federation (which, it may be of interest, insisted on calling itself the U.S. Football Federation until 1947)). Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, Daniel, but I moved your post down from the middle of my earlier post. Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, note that both the one true sport and that excuse to eat strawberries are both British inventions. Personally, I'm concerned that New Zealand has stopped calling soccer "soccer" and is now insisting it's called "football". On the subject of real-men sports, Murderball is the original name for Wheelchair rugby, which in theory is rugby for athletes with a disability, and in practice is a sport for people who think ice hockey is a game for wimps. I believe that having a disability isn't compulsory, since you'll almost certainly have one after playing murderball. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Which pretty much confirms that ITN is not North American (U.S.)-centric, at least on sports, with 4 recurring sports items as opposed to the aforemention British inventions with 8, plus a few more such as snooker "world" championship. I didn't include the original subject of this thread since everyone plays it. –Howard the Duck 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether Ireland was included in the "only one whose soccer team has ever advanced past the first elimination round in a World Cup" but it would appear that checking Wikipedia ought to confirm that it has surpassed the record of the US since 1990. The US (with all its world might) seems to have managed only quarter-final appearance and a second round appearance (in 1994 when they were hosting the tournament) whereas Ireland already had a run of one quarter-final and two second round appearances in the four World Cups before 2006 (the length of time it took the US to get to get to the quarter finals for the first time since when exactly?) Also, if anything, there seems to be more armour used in ice-hockey than the other sports mentioned - one wonders how these pampered players would cope in a proper death match like Gaelic football or hurling... no doubt they'd demand a pay rise too... --candle•wicke 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I said "aside from Ireland". Read it again.

Actually, I think that ice hockey has rather moderate padding ... certainly the shoulder pads I wore playing football are a lot bulkier than their hockey counterparts (which, in turn, are bulky compared to lacrosse shoulder pads). And you can blame the NHL for mandating that players under contract since after 1979 or so wear helmets ... it's certainly reduced injuries but I do miss watching players like Bob Nystrom skate down the ice with his blonde mane bouncing around. Granted, the elbow and knee padding are kind of thick compared to what football players wear (and elbow pads are optional in football; many players don't wear them, at least when playing on grass), but then again in football you're not putting those elbows and knees down on ice. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean that... gasp... basketball is the toughest sport? They do wear tank tops and shorts only, though. –Howard the Duck 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait, sumo wrestling MUST take the cake on being the toughest sport ever. –Howard the Duck 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're all forgetting Bowls, now that can get vicious! (Not bowling for anyone getting confused!)Willski72 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Basketball... course it's tough - they're not afraid of getting an elbow in the face. And, speaking of bowls, the next World Bowls Championships will be held in Adelaide, Australia from 24 November – 9 December 2012. Any objection to me adding it to WP:ITNR? Once every four years only so we missed last year's... --candle•wicke 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... Isn't everyone glad Barcelona won (that was a not so entirely random football related comment that was needed to keep this thread going) --Daviessimo (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we need to run a sport and politics thread for months together? (came the reply, perfectly aware of the irony that the reply was also keeping the thread going...) Perhaps they should have separate areas of the Main Page, like WP:ERRORS... --candle•wicke 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
ITs quite amazing how we can turn discussion of "association football" vs "football" into a debate that results in basketball being declared a tough sport. Go Leafs Go Ashishg55 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This basketball team has the best team name in all of sport. Better than Total Network Solutions F.C. –Howard the Duck 14:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want funny team names you can't beat these guys, although that may only be funny to the British. Alternatively you have this lot or this lot --Daviessimo (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's important to point out that those "giants" refer to hot dogs. Tender Juicy Hotdogs. Yum. –Howard the Duck 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dont forget bowls......Willski72 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

featured content

how on earth is the fetured content approved please inlighten this subject. i have seen no voting devices or calenders of events to comprehend the featured content at any given time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.143.4.107 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured material is chosen through featured article candidates, featured picture candidates, featured portal candidates, featured sound candidates, featured list candidates and featured topic candidates. For more information, see Portal:Featured content. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, good article candidates if you want to help and valued pictures for more content approval. Plus the procedures for Did you know and In the news on the Main Page. --candle•wicke 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Collectively, articles that successfully go through the above process are referred to as "audited content", although some argue that DYK and ITN articles don't qualify as such. Also note that good topics are a sublevel of featured topics. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I could be wrong but I think the OP also (or even primarily or solely) wants to know how content is chosen to appear on the main page at any specific date/time. Firstly, and obviously, any featured content must be made featured via the processes described above. Once an article is featured it is chosen to appear on the main page by the featured article director User:Raul654 as described at Wikipedia:Today's featured article. People can make requests and vote on a some candidates at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests but Raul654 has the final say. Wikipedia:Featured pictures appear basically in order of promotion and are usually handled by User:Howcheng who you could say is the unofficial director. He does make exceptions for special events etc. The other content is not really featured content, at least not in the way we mean on wikipedia. Wikipedia:Did you know highlights recently created articles and stubs that have been significantly expanded. Several editors work on selecting which hooks appear and anyone is welcome to get involved. "In the news mentions and links to entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event—rather than conventional news items". Again several editors work on this and anyone is welcome to be involved. (In both cases admins of course have final control although they should not overide consensus.) Selected anniversaries and On this day doesn't need so much editing only maintanence and doesn't have much central discussion but before they are due to appear on the main page all days are editable so again any editor is welcome to get involved. With these 3 (DYK, ITN, SA/OTD) although the content is not featured, we still expect resonable quality if the item is to appear on the main page which means it should not have any significant problems. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
To be more accurate, I'm just the TFP/POTD scheduler; I don't participate much in the Featured Picture promotion process. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon

I believe the recently held Lebanese elections should be mentioned on ITN, no? --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please nominate/support ITN candidates at WP:ITN/C, not here. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Main Page script

What and where is the script that makes the tab at the top of the Main Page say "main page" rather than "article", and that hides "Main Page" from being displayed as a header at the top of the page? --AdamSommerton (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On MediaWiki:Common.js, search or scroll down to "Main Page layout fixes". iirc, it is the last three lines in the addOnloadHook function. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I believe this deals with the tab but not the header. Does anyone know what makes the header disappear? --AdamSommerton (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
On MediaWiki:Monobook.css, search or scroll down to "Don't display some stuff on the main page". The "display" CSS attribute of the body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading element is set to "none". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --AdamSommerton (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sections

Is there any page/study/etc that shows wich section on the main page gives more visitors? Thanks in advance. lijealso (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a tough one to give numbers to, really. TFA is fairly straightforward, and gives by far the largest boost (check out the traffic spikes for Astrophysica Data System and West Bengal.) TFP doesn't really have an article, though the bolded item of text does generally get a smaller boost (see Woody Guthrie, for example.) ITN by its nature features articles of topical interest, which means that either the articles linked are newly-created, or people are likely to be searching for information on the topic of their own accord. Likewise, DYK showcases new articles, so there's a limited data set with which to work for the purposes of determining the boost gained by main page exposure. a check of the figures for Whit Monday, featured in OTD on June 1, shows that it has a smaller, but still significant, effect. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember reading somewere about visitors distribution for each section. I've been searching without success. lijealso (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of months back there was an experiment whereby every link from the main page went via its own redirect so the traffic could be monitored. I think it was part of the redesign proposal. Should be in the archives somewhere... Modest Genius talk 23:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Aha, here it is: Talk:Main_Page/Archive_125#Results_of_main_page_traffic_experiment. unfortunately it only counted the 'permanent' links, rather than those from the content sections. Modest Genius talk 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I've just proposed a similar experiment on pt.wikipedia. I'm still searching for the information I really want. All this came from a discussion on pt.wikipedia about whether or not the main page should have certain sections (assuming that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an internet portal or news portal, etc). lijealso (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai pride

The information is not even significant enough to be In the News section, not the top news story of the day, see BBC, CBC, CNN, biased news in favour of homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.182.34 (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. ITN is "not the top news story of the day", you've just said it. It is for events of some significance which have occurred, it doesn't matter how far down the headlines they are as this can vary throughout the world. Shanghai "is the largest city in China in terms of population and one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world". So an event of this type being held there for the first time and indeed for the first time in that country is significant. I can't see any other similar topics on the Main Page so I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it is biased. --candle•wicke 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
wait what do u mean "biased in favor of homosexuals"... every news item technically refers to some group of people, may it be americans or ppl from europe. just because the news isnt for heterosexuals its suddenly biased towards homosexuals? the point is its a first event of type to happen in Shanghai so the news got posted. Ashishg55 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ironically someone who is biased against one thing complaining about being biased in favour of it...? --candle•wicke 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to add the anon user 90.209.182.34 is the one who Vandalised the Shanghai Pride page with obscene remarks. so there is no point arguing about this anymore lol. Ashishg55 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, (one more point), the BBC? --candle•wicke 15:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In case of a need for future reference... --candle•wicke 16:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it's accurate to call that vandalism. More of a case of extreme POV pushing Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a hate comment though. It would not be acceptable in a biography... --candle•wicke 17:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Well the article wasn't a biography although I agree it's not any more acceptable in the article as I thought was clear. However it remains my opinion that it was probably not vandalism. And per our policies such as WP:Vandalism calling something when it's not is discouraged. While I'm sure I've identified something as vandalism before when it clear isn't as have many users, it is important editors appreciate what vandalism is and isn't since because amongst other things, calling something vandalism when it isn't can cause needless ill feelings and disputes and also makes it difficult for an editor to learn (since if you are aware of the policy and are sure it doesn't apply to you then when someone accuses you of vandalism, you may legitimately feel the editor is wrong and therefore will not be any the wiser as to why your edit was not acceptable). Also it distracts from true vandalism and does not WP:AGF since vandalism is inherently bad faith editing whereas POV pushing, even highly inflammatory, is not inherently bad faith but more the case of a person letting their personal opinions and beliefs get in the way of their editing. Such an editor may otherwise make constructive edits and from a look at this editors history, some of their edits have been. If they can be convinced to either put aside their beliefs, or perhaps just stay away from areas where they can't control their POV, then such editors can often make good editors. (If they can't they may be blocked but probably not as vandals.) This is as opposed to vandals who are inherently here to harm and need to be convinced to either go away or start to help. Of particular relevance, it is not generally appropriate to automatically dismiss someone because of their strong POV in discussions (although I agree this particular complaint was probably not worth much discussion) however it is usually acceptable to dismiss vandals. Of course the line is not always clear cut, a user who repeatedly inserts the same inflammatory POV pushing into an article when it's been made abundantly clear it it's not welcome could usually legitimately be called vandalism but that was not the case here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. :-) --candle•wicke 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to inquire how this made the ITN section. ITN usually has worldwide important news like disasters, political happenings (elections, assassinations), major sports wins (I see the French Open there) and major conflicts. Compared to these, a pride event in China seems, well, not notable. At least 2 more notable European events come to mind (the ongoing elections and the continuing scandal affecting the government in the UK), and there's also the recovery of bodies for the Air France flight in the Atlantic. It just seems a little bit of an odd choice for a section that is suppose to be (in my opinion) a place for worldwide important headlines (yes, I am insinuating that it is not a worldwide important headline). -Royalguard11(T) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is mainly supposed to promote new articles on current events that are of sufficient quality and currentness, not how important the story is. If you want a news source, use Wikinews or another news-devoted service - this is an encyclopedia, not a news source. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, yes I already know the boilerplate response. As a sysop at this wiki and as someone who's written for WN, I know all that. What I wanted was for someone to explain why this was so noteworthy that it deserved front page recognition. I'll pick a random day and we'll look what usually makes ITN: major political stories, major conflicts, and a suspected Nazi who's been all over the news for the past couple months. Again, compared to the usual, his seems not very notable. -Royalguard11(T) 01:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I also don't see why it has any purpose as a news item. It's not really that newsworthy. It's like having a headline "First Redhead Rights March in Rio de Janeiro". I would understand if it was something like "Gay rights supporters stage mass protests worldwide", but this is a clear bias and not notable enough to be on the front page. I mean talk about another excuse to push people to Conservapedia. --Metallurgist (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure anyone that would be pushed to Conservapedia by this ITN is already there. --Maxamegalon2000 01:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there anyone who has a problem with it whose problem isn't because of the nature of the event? This doesn't happen in China everyday. China = big population + big country. Shanghai = big city. This is something new to a lot of people. --candle•wicke 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not in any way comparable to redheads marching in Rio de Janeiro or anywhere in the world where they are a rare breed. --candle•wicke 01:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
A "Red Head Rights" march might be interesting to read about. APL (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I was simply using a large city that (incidentally) isn't a capital and a comparable minority. I don't have a problem with news related to homosexuals, but this just seemed of minimal notability. I cited an example of news related to homosexuals that I think would be notable. --Metallurgist (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In order to prevent items such as this, please join the discussion at WP:ITN/C to screen thoroughly items before they are put up. In most cases, the discussion is limited to two people and one support is enough for it to be added. –Howard the Duck 11:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I will do that if I remember. --Metallurgist (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
However, BorgQueen regularly waits for comments from others but sometimes they have to be posted unless ITN is to grind to a halt completely. --candle•wicke 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
No reason for that since ITN is not news. ITN can be stale for days if circumstances warrant it. –Howard the Duck 03:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we abolish the ITN timer then? And perhaps delete the whole Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page#Timer section? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. There's history anyway to determine when was the last time of edit. ITN is not a "timed" template like DYK for example. –Howard the Duck 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not going to happen. ITN has been subjected to massive criticism in the past for its tendency to stagnate. The timer was created out of necessity, not of some fancy imagination. It will take way more than just one voice to get rid of it. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So much for ITN not being news, eh? –Howard the Duck 04:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
But it isn't news... would you rather we posted all the sports results two weeks after they happen? --candle•wicke 14:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You can try that for the 2009 Super 14 season article... –Howard the Duck 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
How do you mean? --candle•wicke 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There hasn't been a prose update for it and it hasn't been added at ITN as a result despite being at WP:ITNR. –Howard the Duck 02:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well that's a shame. I suppose it is a good thing that ITNR doesn't recommend they be posted without updates - although I believe this has happened in the recent past too... --candle•wicke 21:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Year!

The June 10th "Today in History" includes a notation on the Battle of Dong Xai (sp?); this battle was (according to the linked article) fought 10-11 June 1965 but the Main Page lists this as 1964 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavisGL (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please file a report at WP:ERRORS. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 05:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okami Picture

Is there no picture in the Okami page? Why is there not one for the featured article? Fruckert (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No picture on the article itself is free to use on the main page. –  LATICS  talk  17:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why is a Main Page section missing an illustrative image? - BanyanTree 08:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm June 6th, Today in History...Doesn't mention D-Day on the front page

Are you serious. There is no mention of D-day in this section, you have to click on the link, but there IS a mention of the first Drive in theater where you don't have to? Get serious, Lame Wikipedia...really Lame 173.79.159.170 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what is that about? Sure a drive in is great, but a drive in did not free millions of people from Nazi oppression. This is poor. Murgon (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The Normandy landings are featured as today's featured image. It was noted above that when an item is shown in one portal on the main page, it does not usually appear on any others (so something ITN wouldn't be a DYK or today's FA, etc.) MelicansMatkin (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...not sure about this... Dotty••|☎ 14:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is too late to put it anywhere else now. Try again next time. Murgon (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It probably is; the 65th anniversary doesn't come around very often! Dotty••|☎ 15:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Totally a good point Melican. I mean, Heaven forbid Wikipedia make an exception for an event that made sure Mr. Wales didn't grow up speaking German. Bureaucratic red tape.....173.79.159.170 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think growing up speaking german is a problem. There is a german wikipedia and its one of the strongest wikipedia communities I believe! Suppose D-Day was nice for most germans too! Anyways the day is over now, wait for 5 years :-) Jeromeplacec (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You should have seen the Main Page on September 11, 2008. Both the featured article and the featured picture were related to the September 11 attacks. And thus there were complaints on both sides of the issue on whether to also mention it also on the OTD section (see the archived discussions here and here).
The main arguments against repeating an anniversary on two or more sections on the Main Page is that it puts too much emphasis on that particular event, no matter how much that historical event is notable or significant, and that just mentioning it in one section is sufficient coverage. The main arguments for repeating it on OTD include the fact that some readers will immediately specifically look for it on OTD without looking at the other sections, will be puzzled by the omission, and then post here on this talk page, like you did, requesting an explanation.
My preference in general is to not repeat the same information on the Main Page. Only 5-6 events are posting on OTD at a time. There are many articles and topics here on Wikipedia that can qualify for the OTD section, and I would rather not repeat the same 5-6 articles every June 6. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I would rather not repeat the same 5-6 articles every September 11. Murgon (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
...or repeat the same sets of 5-6 articles every year on all the other 365 OTD templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
...D-day is an event which changed the course of history, had it failed, the world would be completely different, such an event is important enough to be featured every year. A Drive in movie theatre is not. When a drive in theatre hands a fatal blow to a facist reigeme, then it can be placed in preference to D-Day. Murgon (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall much in the way of complaints on the 19th of november about the lack of coverage of the Battle of Stalingrad.Geni 09:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ye but not so many Russians on the English language Wikipedia though.Willski72 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I like you Jerome, to deal with such an event so flippantly means you def have to have something else to offer the world than such disregard for such an important event. What a surprise you're french and only 15 years old. I'll cut you a break seeing that you really have no idea what you're talking about. 173.79.159.170 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It's more insulting than that, we rescued Jerome's people, saved them from being shot by nazi's. And he doesn't want to recognize that. I suppose the old saying has proven itself to be true. "Never trust the french." Backstabbers. Murgon (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

D-day

I'm just wondering why D-day is not in the "On this day..." section. It was certainly more important to most Americans than the opening of the first drive-in theatre?

Thanks,

Falconusp t c 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I should have looked at the above posting. Anyway, it is my personal thought that events so important as this should be put two or three times. --Falconusp t c 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess the liberation of Europe just isn't important to many people anymore. I swear, Churchill's rolling in his grave right now.Prussian725 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Along side the hundreds of thousands of people who died for the cause. Murgon (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what the big deal is. It is just one, short single sentence that is basically going to redundantly repeat most of the gist of the caption on Today's featured picture. I am probably just coming more from a non-partial, copywriting, copy editing, publishing point-of-view. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The featured picture is the least visible element of the Main Page. The majority of readers see only TFA and ITN, some of them scroll down for OTD or DYK, and a few down to the TFP. Clearly, many readers will be upset by not founding straightforward mention of it. I think it should be mentioned in OTD, it's a list after all, it doesn't highlight the event especially like TFA would. So the 'rule' that a same event should not be mentioned twice on the Main Page has not so much weight here and could be ignored in this case. If we had an article on the 65th D-Day celebrations (which I'm sure we could have managed), we could even maybe had mentioned it in ITN (then, we could have not mentioned it in OTD). Let's try to do this for the 70th. And before that, an article on D-Day celebrations in general could be valuable too. Cenarium (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That's the point. Truthfully, I'd never even known there was a "Pic of the Day" because I've never even scrolled down on the main page until today. But even saying that, D-Day get's "just" a pic? Granted it's at least something, but that's like putting Obama's pic up there and expecting the gravity of the situation to be explained by a simple picture. 173.79.159.170 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia stupidity. You guys wonder WHY no serious academic takes it seriously?67.76.14.193 (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate your Floridian view, but seriously, academics don't take wikipedia seriously bc it's not peer reviewed, not because of questioning by editors. 173.79.159.170 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Careful or it'll get nasty! There's a lot of resentment in France that the Anglo-Saxon world had to save them, just look at the farce over the Queen not being invited. Of course we had to bail them out in the first world war as well, if it hadnt been for the British Expeditionary force Paris would of been taken within 6 weeks of the war beginning and that would of been the end of that!Willski72 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a lot deeper than that. But I am not at all surprised. Murgon (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the whole idea of being redundant but this event is only going to be posted once a year just like all the other events so is it really that bad to have it included in the main page? (209.6.17.76 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

It is included in the main page. It has an entire section dedicated to it this year! —David Levy 18:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the featured image correct? I meant including it in "On this day..." I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer. 209.6.17.76 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Several users appear to be under the impression that the event's omission from OTD stems from the bureaucratic enforcement of a rule that we'd like to ignore but have instead allowed to tie our hands. This is not so. If there were consensus to include a redundant mention there, we could easily replace the "drive-in theater" item at a moment's notice. But many of us don't want the duplication. This year, the event has been assigned an entire section (complete with the largest image currently appearing on the main page). Aside from some people's unwillingness to scroll, I don't see what the problem is. —David Levy 18:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is its location. I'm sure you've heard the term "Under the Fold" as referring to a story's position on the front page of a newspaper. It's the same thing here. The point is that such an event deserves a much more prominent position than under the fold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.159.170 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a valid opinion. My point is that there is actual disagreement with it, not an attitude that we cannot include the entry because the rules don't allow us to. —David Levy 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's be honest though, even OTD/SA is 'under the fold'. The only way we can avoid the item being under the fold is to have a FA or to put an item up in ITN Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the only reason that some users are making a fuss about this is the comparison between the amount of significance of the Normandy Landings to that of the first drive-in theater. However, the practice of hiding a redundant mention has been done several times this year alone without any complaint. When the Empire State Building was featured on the 1 May POTD, nobody seemed to question why its opening was not on OTD. The next time this is going to happen is when Stand in the Schoolhouse Door will be the 11 June POTD, but it will be harder to make such a relative significance comparison when Thích Quảng Đức's self-immolation also occurred on 11 June, 1963 – which also means there will be additional competition with those users who hate having OTD be frequently dominated by 20th Century or U.S.-centric events. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Your points, while well written, don't really factor into the discussion here. First, the references you gave to upcoming important events fail to even come close the WORLD changing event known as D-Day. Second, "U.S. centric view"? I understand this has become somewhat of a battle cry recently on wikipedia (eg. minimilizing US contributions), but D-Day IS NOT U.S. centric. If anything it is World centric. 151.207.240.4 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You probably misunderstood my point about "U.S.-centric". I was referring to the scenario that if there were the same amount of users complaining about Stand in the Schoolhouse Door NOT being on OTD as there is about D-Day, then there might be more users out of the blue who would say it is no big deal because they feel that there is already too much "U.S.-centric" events like Stand in the Schoolhouse Door on OTD. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why people are complaining. Presumably they knew that day was the d-day invasion, so why not fill OTD with something they didn't know, but might learn? Doesn't that make sense? APL (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
While people might be able to learn, it is also an honor issue. Just my opinion, I think that at the very least some slight honor should be shown to the thousands upon thousands of men who spilled their blood (most of them in a country not their own) for the freedom that everyone here now enjoys.Prussian725 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
But then I could argue that the thousands upon thousands of men who spilled their blood essentially got more honor by having an entire section, a paragraph and a related image, on the Main Page, right? Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting issue

Stand in the Schoolhouse Door is currently number 19 in Template:Popular articles. The highest for a main page linked article (not count more generic stuff like deaths in 2009 and June 11) that I noticed. While it's a relevant date (so is Cherry Springs State Park but in a more roundabout fashion), and it's difficult to know how many people are coming from the main page as opposed to other places either on wikipedia or the internet what does this mean re: the idea that feature pictured is below the fold and so hardly noticed? Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. People are clicking on the article because they want to know whether the thug on George Wallace's right has a gun in his pocket or whether he's really pleased to see Nicholas Katzenbach.
Sadly the article pays only a couple of paragraphs' lip service to historical significance before it moves on to the important stuff (References in popular Tom Hanks culture) so the readers go disappointed. --86.169.77.136 (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
But the fact remains, if people are clicking on the article from the main page, they must be seeing it. Their reasons for being interested in it are irrelevant since that wasn't the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It's always fun to push random article--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Protection

Hi there! Always, the image used for ITN is protected, so nobody can edit it or upload a new one. But all others are not. If I wanted to upload a new version of a file (I am not saying I would), items such as spam or porn could appear on the Main Page. Thanks, CargoK user talk 21:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the other Main Page images or all images in general? --candle•wicke 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Any image that appears on the main page. CargoK user talk
They are all protected by cascading protection, even if not by direct protection for locally-hosted images, so no such images can be uploaded over them. BencherliteTalk 10:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a picture in the featured article. This link will replace the image.. won't it?  Cargoking  talk  13:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean when an image is actually stored on the Wikimedia Commons? It depends on if an admin there has also protected or cascade protected it there too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Which someone is always doing: http://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Zzyzx11/En_main_page&action=history ffm 16:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Not always, I had to upload and protect one locally the other day. There used to be a bot for it, but it seems there isn't now. Unprotected images are usually to blame for the kind of main page vandalism we've seen in the past. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I try to get to it every day, but sometimes I forget (tired, busy, what-have-you). howcheng {chat} 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hah, it's reassuring to know the stability of the main page rests entirely in your hands. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Language

Please add the "Azerbaijani" (language) to "More than 20,000 articles".--94.20.25.95 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't. Sorry. :) --candle•wicke 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 23:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dublin Literary Award

Is this award so important that it has to be at the top of the important news articles section? Seriously, how many people are actually interested in this, compared to a real news story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.164.9 (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The news is ordered based upon how recent it is and not how important. The award itself is the most valuable and widely accesible literary award and is notable in the writing community (and to a lesser extent to those who read books on a regular basis). Its is one of the few awards that is open to books written in all languages --Daviessimo (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"comprised" in TFA lede

Given that this is well known as one of the worst ongoing mistakes in English usage here, why did it fall to me to put it in the passive voice, hours after it went on the Main Page. And in an article where our English should be close to perfect, to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the well-known mistake is in your version, rather than the version you changed. See wikt:comprise. Algebraist 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
If this is going to be contentious, can we just have it changed to "was composed of" to head off the dueling pedantry that's likely to spring up here? — Gavia immer (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted. This shouldn't be contentious, as the correct usage is widely documented. Daniel would have known this if he'd bothered to consult a dictionary instead of scolding the community. —David Levy 16:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Oh, I agree that your present version represents correct usage. However, that has no particular bearing on whether or not it will be contentious, which is why I made the suggestion above. The issue seems to have gone away, however, so keeping your version is best. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As the error report section says, and should also be obvious to anyone with experience in wikipedia, the main page always defers to articles. Indeed most admins will not correct an 'error' if the article has not been corrected (they will either change the article, or mention that the article still says the other thing). Is there any reason then why you did not modify the article, so the actual article contains your 'fix', and the discussion can be held in the proper place, i.e. the article talk page where people with experience with the article will actually notice it? As it stands now, the article still contains the allegedly wrong old version (since I have no idea which one is right, I'm not going to change the article myself) and it looks like we're going to have a long discussion about which one is correct which will be archived in several days and no one with experience with the article will ever notice and someone looking thorough the archives of the article to find out why the article was changed (if it is ever changed) will not find Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I looked more closely at the dicdef and I was wrong. Sorry (although I still prefer it to be used in the passive only and not as a synonym for "include" when you're giving the entire list of what it includes, or in this case included). Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Why? —David Levy 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I've answered on your talk page, where this discussion would belong if it were to be continued. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It's good this discussion is moved off here but unfortunately if the editors of the article could have learnt anything from this discussion or contributed anything, that opportunity is lost because it was held here Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Tritter and D-day

So today's featured article is about a fictional guest character in an American TV-series? Do you actually think this is adequate for the reach of the English-language Wikipedia? Hint: the majority of the en.wikipedia.org readers are not American couch potatos. After not including D-day on the "on this date..." section allegedly because the event already had a picture, I'd say the editorial team of the main page needs to rethink it's priorities. --Ramalho (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The current consensus of the Wikipedia community is that the articles on the Main Page – especially the featured articles – are chosen based more on their quality, not based on how much their subjects are important or significant. Hint: a majority of users on the en.wikipedia.org also write, edit, and contribute to articles, and thus, as a reward for their hard work, they want to see their well-written articles featured prominently on the highly visible Main Page regardless of whatever subject they write about. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification of the current consensus. I can see how such a policy encourages quality contributions, and I understand that Wikipedia is a community-driven effort. But the main goal must be to serve the users, and not cajoling the contributors. In my opinion, wasting the best spot on the main page with such trivia is a disservice to the users. BTW, your assertion that "a majority of users on the en.wikipedia.org also write, edit, and contribute to articles" is not based on real stats, is it? --Ramalho (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll admit it is a very, very rough estimation based on edits/min updated here versus hits per day updated here, so I should have used "a significant percentage" instead of "a majority". But still, Wikipedia is also driven by editors and contributors as well as readers, and therefore that is one reason why there is more of a desire to have the Main Page feature a wide variety of topics rather than have it be dominated by "the most important and significant event of the day". Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
hmm, can u please explain the initial complain a little better? Is the featured article not good enough? not important enough? how does the TFA have to do with the OTD situation with D-day? There is a list of featured articles and although its not random but TFA still gets picked from that list. Which is limited. Not all articles are of "high importance" so i dont if u want the articles to just continously repeat or rather have new articles that showcase the different featured articles that are on wikipedia Ashishg55 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The complaint is basically a common misconception about the purpose of Today's Featured Article on Main Page, or any other article featured on the Main Page. The Main Page's primary purpose is to feature a wide range of various well-written articles on different topics. But some users like our complainer here come to Wikipedia with the assumption that the Main Page should only primary focus on articles about important, significant or core topics. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll bet Tritter never fought on D-Day and has never been in any war. A disgrace! Rar rar rar! Bradley0110 (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I find the TV series House highly intelligent and well-made. (I am neither American nor a huge fan of television shows... and I have to admit that those episodes revolving around Tritter's bullying were not exactly the best House episodes.) I am just glad that today's FA is not something about American Idol or some silly reality show. Makes me shudder to even imagine. :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In essence, this discussion is about the nature and value of knowledge. Unconsciously, many educated people feel that only some knowledge is "good". So, they feel it's good to know the history of Ancient Greece, but not good to know the history of a television show - even if the television show is relevant to more people. We are meant to admire a person who knows the scientific names of ten thousand plants, but not the man who knows ten thousand sports results - even if both are equally boring geeks.

As a hyper-educated person, my instinct was to reward the historian and the scientist, but not the sports and media fans. Now, I see that an encyclopedia is a store of knowledge, not a store of socially-approved knowledge. Many people want to know about sports or US TV shows - no matter how I deplore their taste. They are entitled to find the information, and the author of that information is entitled to be rewarded for a good article. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the influence and subsequent relevance of ancient Greece on modern society, but your point is otherwise well presented. Also, there may be health risks associated with knowing too much about the history of a tv show, but I suppose one could encounter the same problems (couch potatoism) if reading up on historical subjects as well.
As someone with a thirst for knowledge and very little of it when it comes to "House," I found it interesting to read the TFA today. Admins, please continue to present articles in this fashion. 04redsox07 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys better be ready once I get the Georgina Sparks up to FA standard... There'll be revolution and chaos. –Howard the Duck 13:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RedSox - you may have misunderstood me. Inter alia, I studied ancient Greek and Latin, and the associated history of those cultures. So, I do not need persuasion to understand the past. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it - even if it is as comedy rather than tragedy.
I'd prefer any article on Ancient Greece, to almost any article on modern culture, most of which creates Warhol's 15 minutes of fame. However, an encyclopedia is about knowledge, even knowledge that I will never desire. Michael of Lucan (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Michael, I would be more inclined to click on an article and read in depth about ancient Greece than one about modern culture, so I can sympathize. I think we agree. Articles while not of interest to everyone, will still have value and a place on the main page. 04redsox07 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Listen, this is a very nice conversation on the merits of unbiased editorial. But there is a problem with this argument. it follows as editors of an encyclopedia;
1) lets inform people about the esoteric
2) lets inform people about popular culture too.
the fact of the matter is that point no. 1 will always be a more valid because we/users already know about popular culture. That's why it is called "Popular". we see this stuff in magazines in every checkout counter not to mention cable television. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not dredge up information that is not already in the puplic consciousness then it will only inform while failing to enlighten. Some thing (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I assume you have access to some sort of study that shows what our readers do and do not know that was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Because otherwise (and I'm not trying to be flippant here), that's just speculation (or what we like to call original research here). howcheng {chat} 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that the fictional character Michael Tritter existed. Now i do. My life has been enlightened.Willski72 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that the fictional character Michael Tritter existed. Now I do. My life has not been enlightened. Except by the reference to the rectal thermometer (see deep and principled discussion below). Most American TV shows are a pain in the butt, but this is taking the concept a lot further. Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes you squirm in your seat doesnt it!Willski72 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes your temperature rise doesnt it! Then they get a thermometer to check you out and... (faints) --candle•wicke 01:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When the Iranian Elections are over

How are we going ot handle that... I know this shoudl be in at ITN... but it'll spill over here so yah... Just wondering because theres going to be so much surrounding when that guy is announced the winner.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No massive arguments on here so far.....Willski72 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say "incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" rather than just "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"? -93.97.122.93 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
We could always say it is not accepted... since thatas what it is--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No need to go into opinions and what who thinks what of what on the main page. It's a single title to announce the main update to the article- in this case, the fact that Ahmadinejad won the election. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
So they say.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes the Iranian election commission says that Ahmadinejad won and that is precisely what our tagline says as well - Dumelow (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Those rioters... a number of news outelts and many others disagree with the,--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes they do, but the point that I was trying to make was that we don't simply state that he won but it just says that the election commission says that he won. That way we avoid any possible POV statements, if it later turns out to be electoral fraud then the tagline can be changed (it would be much worse if we insinuated that it was not a legitimate election and it turned out that there was nothing wrong about it) - Dumelow (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
We're already being a little suspicious of them. Normally, we would just state who won, not say who said who won. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Given how hotly contested things appear to be, perhaps it would be more NPOV not to have Wikipedia annonce that Ahmadinejad won, but rather simply state that the Islamic Republic News Agency has declared that Ahmadinejad won.
The current blurb mentions protests and allegations. I would say that is NPOV enough. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
So Wikipedia knows that the results announce by Khamenei and the Islamic Republic News Agency are accurate, and the demonstrators are wrong and the allegations of fraud are false? Wikipedia has first hand knowledge of this? If not, Wikipedia should report that so and so announced such a thing, not that such a thing is the fact. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
We don't declare the winners, the electoral commission does. What they say is as good as right until it is proven wrong. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, Wikipedia should say that the electoral commission has announced such and such a result. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Untastefull

I find the choice for today's featured article inappropriate. I personally do not want to read about thermometers in rectums. If I would want, I'd look up a page likely to contain these elements. But I disliked having it pushed into my face by putting it on the main page. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you really comparing David Morse to a rectal thermometer? howcheng {chat} 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CENSOR YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? I did not say these words should not be in an article (the subject of WP:CENSOR). I said that this article should perhaps not have been chosen for the main page. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit harsh on David Morse that isnt it? Comparing him to a rectal thermometer! He's not my favourite man either but still, steady on!Willski72 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

O, would you all please be serious! :) Debresser (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
putting him inside someone's rectum to take temperature... *shrugs* that is one disturbing image Ashishg55 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I do hate to be pedantic (...nah who am I kidding!), but I think the correct word you were looking for, to describe the article in question, was distasteful --Daviessimo (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
That's right. That must have been because of those few percents I fell short of the full 100 on my final exams. :) Debresser (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please God tell me this is a joke... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, if it was a joke, it would go, "What's wrong with him, nurse?" "He's got a thermometer up his ass, doctor." "Eh, that's rectum, nurse." "Rectum? Damn near killed him."[1] Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm.. I'm going to give that 6/10. I had to deduct marks because is was quite obviously not original work --Daviessimo (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
And please keep G-d out of any discussion involving thermometers, recta, and David Morse. :) Debresser (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

6/10! Thats a bit harsh isnt it? OK its not the best joke in the world but come on! A 7 perphaps? It might not seem very different but there is a definite phsycological effect. If you give him a 7 your encouraging him to try again, if you give him a 6 you're letting him down gently!Willski72 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A doctor is shopping. He's at the check-out, and needs to sign the check. He pulls his pen from his pocket, only to find it's a rectal thermometer. "That's just great" he says, "some asshole's got my pen." Contributions/82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Daviessimo, but on Wikipedia we must be consistent. No original research, remember? That goes for jokes too, surely? ;) Michael of Lucan (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well can you cite a reliable source for that joke? --Daviessimo (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am seriously considering to remove all jokes from this post. ;) You are clouding the subject. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the second one. Bravo 82.33.48.96. --candle•wicke 01:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the second one is better. I give that an 8 out of 10. I wasnt roaring with laughter but it was funny nevertheless!. Also who put "citation needed" at the end of Michael of Lucan's joke! I mean come on!Willski72 (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

He brought the issue to my attention. I'm afraid that per WP:OR it needs to be referenced or I will have to remove it. The key issue here is that he has to prove that this isn't a case of his own first hand experience with rectal thermometers :) --Daviessimo (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As the CEO of Rectum PLC I can confirm that this customer satisfaction story is published on our website. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Warning! Previous sentence may be untrue!

My deepest apologies, Daviessimo. Cite is http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rectum%2C%20damn%20near%20killed%20him! Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thats much better --Daviessimo (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Do I get 7/10 now? Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes you do --Daviessimo (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd give him both 8 and 2. 8 for the actual joke but 2 for the theft. --candle•wicke 17:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit harsh on him that isnt it? Im not a fan of people who steal jokes but still! 2 for crying out loud!Willski72 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The content of the joke is a serious matter however. Points must be deducted when the subject matter involves the insertion of long, cold, hard items of various misuse into the rectum. It may be the typical chatter of doctors over their elevenses but many talk page browsers might rather not be reminded. We must remember these when we talk among ourselves - look at them all, cowering in the corner, haunted by... oh, one of them has just fainted... --candle•wicke 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am never going to see a doctor again!!!Willski72 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That won't do! If it spreads you'll put them all out of business! I don't want to have to give my precious pennies and cents to homeless street doctors! --candle•wicke 22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When you get to be my age, [We who are old, O so old, Thousands of years, thousands of years if all were told] you will realise that jokes are like sex positions - there are no new ones. Only new people who have not yet experienced them ... and in each case a lot of groaning and some laughter. :0 Michael of Lucan (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the implication of that statement that doctors have been placing rectal thermometers in unsuspecting patient's 'nether regions' for thousands of years? --Daviessimo (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
We of the Illuminati have been doing this for thousands of years. Recently, we have begun to use Illuminati-trained "doctors" and "nurses" to implement our plans. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, from habit I added the usual fnords to my previous message. Can you see it now? Michael of Lucan (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It was really tough back when all they had were Galileo thermometers. APL (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
OMG I CAN SEE THE FNORDS!! howcheng {chat} 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
And you remember that? --candle•wicke 19:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical Galileo, stealing everybody's ideas! That was mine! It should be the Willski thermometer! I remember people would complain quite a lot back in the day but i said to them, "If you think this is bad you should just wait until they get them rectal thermometers." At that point they would normally shudder and stop complaining....Willski72 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was worried reading up to this point that the Willski thermometer was used for testing rectal temperature, but thankfully, it does not appear so.04redsox07 (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No no, although i was asked to make a rectal thermometer i declined to be a part of such a horrific creation.Willski72 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rectum%2C%20damn%20near%20killed%20him!

Battle of Quatre Bras

I think the phrase "strategic victory" is wrong in describing the Battle of Quatre Bras. The battle was a tactical victory for the French forces, but had no strategic significance because it was simply a preparation for the Battle of Waterloo, which they lost. Quatre Bras did not succeed in splitting the British and Prussian forces in a way which would have allowed Napoleon to defeat the separately, since Prussian troops arrived at Waterloo in time to decide the outcome. 93.97.194.138 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an area in which I specialise, but I would question your view. On the face of it, it is correct to call it a strategic victory, not merely a local tactical affair. It had a positive impact on the progress of a wider campaign, as the French had intended. That wider campaign failed to carry through Bonaparte's strategic intent, as ultimately the opposing armies were not separated and destroyed as planned. However, it is reasonable to call Quatre Bras itself a strategic victory, since it achieved its strategic purpose. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In any case, this is irrelevant for the main page as Battle of Quatre Bras says it's a "French strategic victory". If you dispute this, you should take it to the article since the main page always defers to articles. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I meant to make that point first, before commenting. Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't listen to him - (he steals jokes) Hush! --candle•wicke 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What you mean because I had the 'strategic victory' in this discussion? Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On This Day

How could we have left out the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972 — the beginning of the Watergate Scandal?

Sca (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the featured picture is somewhat related, and we love to trick users into asking exactly this question. Today though, it is especially silly. A picture of the president who pardoned the president who covered up watergate is obviously not the original break in. (also before anyone points out US bias or something, i'd like to call into question the bridges of london theme the main page has today)147.72.72.2 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The image was clearly connected to Watergate, was almost definitely specifically chosen to appear yesterday for that reason and had ample links to learn more, including specific mention of the date "June 17, 1972". So, no it's not silly to exclude Watergate from SA/OTD for that reason. And this has absolutely nothing to do with any bias but simply common sense. Besides that, your answer actually highlights how silly this discussion is. There are lots of days which have some connection to Watergate. The most important is probably the resignation of Nixon. There is no need to mention every single one on the main page every year. This discussion is even sillier then the previous one regarding D-day because there's no way Watergate is even close in importance to D-day. I don't know what 'bridges of London theme' your referring to yesterday, while I haven't looked into the history of DYK or ITN I only see evidence for one mention of bridges of London specifically in the TFA. If you are saying one mention is a 'theme', well I have nothing more to say Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Besides, Nixon's resignation will make its appearance on August 9, 2009. Watergate gets two major placements on the Main Page this year. howcheng {chat} 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean for the theme thing to be taken seriously (the second mention was that banker who got hung off the blackfriars bridge). I also agree that since Watergate was the bolded link in the featured picture it should not have been included in OTD, I just meant that it took a couple steps to get from a picture of Ford to the actual break in, so I could see people being confused. Sorry again, 147.72.72.2 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, it was a bit convoluted, but September 8, 2009's POTD (the anniversary of the pardon) was already reserved for another anniversary. howcheng {chat} 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
On this day items are not chosen strictly based on their importance. Like Today's Featured Articles they are chosen more for variety. APL (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Sca (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Euclidean algorithm on todays main page

I saw POV in the first line "is an efficient way" that shouldnt be on the main page surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.184.222 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not, it is an efficient way, this is something people have been learning for ages. No POV here. --Tone 11:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The efficiency of an algorithm is demonstrable, not a matter of opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know...

... that there is no mention in the Mexico article of the current lead regarding "Charlotte of Belgium (pictured) reigned as Empress of Mexico starting in 1864"? Kilmer-san (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an issue for WP:ERRORS --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Ah, no it doesn't
(edit conflict) So what? It mentions Maximilian I of Mexico; why should it mention his wife? Algebraist 15:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The bolded article is Belgium–Mexico relations, not Mexico. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If that had been an error, it would have been an issue for WP:ERRORS. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can edit

There are two pages that I believe should never be protected. This one, and Wikipedia. Why? To encourage participation. What fun is it to have the two pages everyone looks at first be protected? How about utilizing the form of protection used on WP:Introduction, where the page can be edited but not the content, and use a bot to clear out all edits? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As the most visible and highly visited page on Wikipedia, the Main Page is permanently protected as a result of excessive repeated vandalism. The other reason is that it keeps our welcome mat clean so it gives new users a decent looking impression – free from any shock-value word, phrase or image that would offend almost every person in the English-speaking world. Without protection, it would be safe to say it would be vandalised at a high exponentially rate of speed that it would be realistically impossible for any bot to keep up.
As for the Wikipedia article, it is only semi-protected for reasons you should ask the protecting administrator or ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as outlined at Wikipedia:Protection policy. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There are 86,400 seconds in the day and on the 17th June the Wikipedia article was viewed 49,600 times, or once every 1.7 seconds. Which means that it is a high profile target for vandals, and although the slogan is "Anyone can edit" that comes with a few caveats, one of which is that if a page is being viewed every 1.7 seconds we would be fools to open that page up to vandals. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems like more and more pages are being protected. I'm sure we can all agree on the majority of these protections, but it seems like more pages are being protected than should be. Also it seems like some of these pages were discussed to be protected for a shirt period, yet end up protected for a much longer period.69.129.145.153 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If it seems like more pages are being protected it is because more people are vandalising pages and reverted vandalism all day stops editors from being able to make good contributions. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place for a discussion of Wikipedia's protection policy. Try WP:VPP. Algebraist 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenland

"Greenland (flag pictured) becomes a self-ruling country, taking control of its judicial affairs, policing and natural resources, as approved by the 2008 referendum."

Yes, but its foreign affairs, etc are still handled by Denmark. Greenland is not (at this point) an independent country yet. --RobNS 08:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
So what? A "self-ruling country" doesn't mean that it is an independent country. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but there's nothing wrong with the statement. It doesn't contradict what you say in anyw way. If you think there could be a better wording, try posting at WP:ERRORS 79.71.5.38 (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoops. Hadn't realised there was a reply already. 79.71.5.38 (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If the term is good enough for the BBC, it is good enough for Wikipedia --Daviessimo (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The Beeb article above does not use the word "country" to describe Greenland. It does mention being "treated as a separate people under international law," however. So, is "country" really appropriate here, given that Denmark still controls defense and foreign affairs? Why would the Beeb use such a roundabout construction when they could have just said "country" unless Greenland isn't one? And out of well- meaning curiosity, what BorgQueen said above about "independent" not equalling "self-ruling," can someone elaborate on that, because I don't get the distinction. Thanks! Vbdrummer0 (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, a region can be autonomous, but be legally part of another country. A good example would be the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which is autonomous from the mainland government, but is legally part of China, and thus not an independent country. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
But is it self-ruling in that situation? I mean, Hong Kong is autonomous in most senses, but does it have control over its own defense or foreign affairs? I imagine that the label "country" isn't really appropriate unless it does (no one is arguing Hong Kong is a country; I'm just trying to bring this thread back on track a bit). Of course, the UK calls England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales "constituent countries," but that's a different animal.15:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit?

Why can't I edit the main page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazareee (talk • contribs) 17:33, June 17, 2009 (UTC)

The main page is edit-protected to prevent vandalism of such an important page. Only administrators my edit it. If you want to report an error or request a change that can be done on this page. APL (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I would think that you would easily be able to revert any vandalism. I'm sure there are thousands of users watchlisting this page (and even more would if the protection was removed). Doesn't it defeat the purpose of a wiki protecting nearly every page? I'm not saying the main page needs to be unprotected necessarily (perhaps semi-protection?), but it seems like a good quarter or so of the pages I view are protected. 75.90.144.239 (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Editors have better things to do than revert constant vandalism which is exactly what you'd expect on such a page. JIMp talk·cont 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, absolutely not. Main Page receives, on average, 70 page-views per second. It is unacceptable if even one of those people sees a goatse, because that's what would be there. A lot. J.delanoygabsadds 03:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Really, that better? Yeah, I guess that makes sense. But isn't there some kind of thing that could be done to get edits approved perhaps? Some kind of software update could make it possible to make edits but not have them appear until an administrator approves them.75.90.144.239 (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions which currently has approval for a trial, which is being worked on at the moment. I'm not sure if the main page is likely to be in the trial however. (Actually I'm not that sure what happened to the trial period, the whole situation has been somewhat diverse and looking at the talk pages, it looks ike the issue has been somewhat dead for a while unless there is discussion somewhere else). Bear in mind as well that the main page is compromised of several templates unless you actually have some experience with wikipedia it is unlikely you'd know how to edit it. Also other then for obvious errors, the vast majority of changes to the main page require some discussion or evidence of consensus first. In other words, it's not just vandals we have to worry about. Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I see [32] it's already been requested and developers will implement it when they get to it Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Until Vandalismopedia is created, to which all such idiots can be banished to operate on perpetual iterative loops, and the wiki that is described by Adam Smith's 'war of all against all, where life is nasty, brutish and short' (paraphrase) where there are constant edit wars, some pages will have to be protected at various levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a good reason why anyone without current access to edit it would, in fact, need to edit it. Matty (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Well there are various people with arguably sufficient experience with ITN (probably other areas too but I don't know) to be able to contribute constructively but who are not admins and there are definitely complaints of a lack of admin attention in some instances that I've seen Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of ITN - bit of help anyone? It's a bit dead over there for a weekend. --candle•wicke 04:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of ITN - that can mean a lot of things. Could you spell it out once? Better yet, if you use an internal link, we'll all be on the same page.--MahaPanta (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In the news template? - Matty (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we add "For technical reasons, # redirects here [...] see number sign"

Mabey we should add

For technical reasons, # redirects here. For the article on # see number sign

Adding that would let people who search for # get to the correct article. On the other hand we may want to keep the main page "clean". It will result in vandalism to "number sign" article, and likely protection. But by the same token, probably will result in major improvements to number sign, and thus, arguably, more then make up for vandalism/protection.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We didn't do it for %s, we shouldn't do it for #. Sceptre (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
To be fair though, %s is a lot more obscure then # Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Was there a discussion about %s? If so , please link to it. I did not find one.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
By "I did not find one" I ment I looked for a discussion about %s but did not find one.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
See here: %s, Emmette. Are you having fun, yet? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Jack, you misunderstood. I ment a link to a discussion about %s, not a link to %s.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But it would be worth dropping the developers a note could they do something about the search box pointing to the Main Page if you enter "#". This is confusing. --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be possible/feasible. There's something similar on most websites. I don't know why. However, a hatnote on the main page would not be a good thing- it sounds like a parody. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You're missing that Emmette *likes* parodies of debates. Think we should move Moon to The Moon? Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, Jack. I've learned from my mistakes and won't take this discussion to far. I'm taking Franamax's advice, and, as Franamax put it, "just stating your [my] own idea and leaving it there". My idea here isn't even a suggestion, it's throwing an idea out there. Apart from my first post to this section, I have made no arguments, probably will make none, and those arguments in my first post are on both sides. And I assure you, this is not a parody.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No discussion I started was a parody. Sorry if I implied otherwise in my above post.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Per dab and JM, everything goes through index.php one way or the other, so checking for a plain "#" would be pretty easy. In the Wikipedia context, trying to link to the first anchor in the default site home page is rather absurd, as compared to the likelihood that a reader is looking for the article on octothorpe. It's probably worth a bugzilla request, although it might get prioritised just after "as soon as we're done all the other stuff".
  • Having "%s" redirect here is truly intriguing, and I'd love to see the discussion on the mechanics which force it to happen. If anyone has a discussion link, please do provide it!
  • Jack, can you please back off EHC? Do you regularly edit this talk page, or are you following the editor about? Franamax (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    I have taken an interest in main pages of projects recently that has nothing to do with Emmette; http://www.wikipedia.org/ for example; s:, too. It seems to me that Emmette *wants* my attention; he keeps that thread on his talk page rolling and has repeatedly pinged me on mine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

this could likely be solved by a single line in whatever code powers the searchbox. Just catch "#" the beginning of the search string and make it into a search of actual U+0023 in article text. Fixing wikilinks to # is another matter, here we would have to decide whether we want # to be an exception. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur heartily, my good sir! 24.80.126.107 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ITN order

Why is the Russian gov't appointed president of Ingushetia, Yunus-bek Yevkurov, topping the ITN for the second day? --Hapsala (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Because no free picture is available for the 2009 Washington Metro accident. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that pictured items had to be on the very top of ITN. Mr. Yevkurov is, after all, a light-weight government official, and - according to sources provided - his injuries seem to be based on speculations. I'd only support its inclusion if the assasination attempt was notable as such. --Hapsala (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
When a better news comes along then it will go down. have some patience. Ashishg55 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-centrism alert! As you know, Ingushetia is in the troubled Caucasus area, like Chechnya. The rumbles in that area have been a source of instability for Russia and its neighbours for a couple of hundred years. [The alternative view, less popular in the Kremlin, is that Russia has been a source of instability in the area for the same amount of time. Same coin, other face.] The Caucasus area has huge strategic value for Russia, which has already lost control of much of its former domain on its southern and south eastern borders.

If they lose control of Ingushetia, Chechnya, etc., the barbarians come closer to Holy Mother Russia, and Russian paranoia gets worse. In Moscow, the evergreen "joke" is roughly, "NOVOSTI 2050 - there were further clashes today on the EU/Chinese border." And the Russians aren't really joking - they have been invaded every 100 years or so, and after a while it stops being a joke. Michael of Lucan (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Invaded every 100 years, and it was never successful either!Willski72 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And invade others every 10 years or so, usually with more success. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The order is supposed to be based on the time at which the event occurred, NOT which item is pictured Modest Genius talk 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the case for ITN, is it? --candle•wicke 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It is the case. ITNs are chronologically ordered. The picture is generally the topmost story for which there is a free image available. Sometimes this is the very last item on the list. APL (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah right, sorry. You'll have to ask BorgQueen about that as there's not really anybody else over there these days... --candle•wicke 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes....i wonder were they all went....Willski72 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you care to join the ranks of ITN comment giving people? I have made several nominations in the past few days which were completely overlooked and did not even receive the dignity of being opposed. It's a crying shame. ;( --candle•wicke 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You just cant get the staff these days!Willski72 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bloomin' financial recession thing which makes people lose their jobs makin' people who lose their jobs who would otherwise have jobs and would be people... grrr... --candle•wicke 23:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

NORWAY 

Excellent piece about the Norwegian supergroup. Norway is sadly under-represented on the Main Page nowadays.

Many countries and substates are under-represented on the Main Page - perhaps there should be a "country/state-like eentity/substate of the day" calendar throughout the year. (Tongue in cheek)

Category

Main page without category? 189.7.215.226 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As archived on Talk:Main Page/Archive 111#Category, the objection of having a category was that it spoils the appearance of the main page and that no one needs help finding it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic expulsions

Wording suggests all diplomats expelled. Peter jackson (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It does....people automatically expect the worst....Willski72 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reworded. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yey!Willski72 (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Performance and accessibility

Hi!


What do you think about using a sprite for the Wikimedia project logos? Would this, together with adjustments in the css, improve performance on slow connections saving HTTP requests?

Also, W3C CSS Validation Service and eXaminator may suggests some other improvements in performance and accessibility (here and in other pages of the project).

Helder (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


HELP ME

AND NONE OF YOU DELETE THIS I'M SICK OF WAITING SOMEONE TELL ME WHY [name removed] WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE I DEMAND AN EXPLANAITION PLEASE HELP IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS A STALKER ON WIKIPEDIA

Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You should probably raise this at WP:WQA (deals with incivility) or WP:ANI (deals with serious incidents). Wherever you raise it, you should provide examples - I took a quick look at your talk page, and the revision history of some recent articles you've edited, and I couldn't see anything obvious so you should, where possible, explain exactly what's happening and ideally provide diffs. Good luck! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SHOUTING doesn't help, it's just rude. And rudeness is also quite rude. And I'm removing the name from your post. --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's the same person who tried to assassinate you in Episode II? --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If there was a reputation function on Wikipedia, I'd give you +1. That was beautiful. Gpia7r (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Zam Wesell was killed, so it couldn't be her. Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And what are you talking about, "Reputation function?" Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on how much I liked Sbrools comment. On some internet forums, you can give another user reputation, or "rank them up" for things they say that are particularly appealing. Gpia7r (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering other recent discussions have descended to the use of rectal thermometers in unmentionable areas I would be quite glad if I were you and your biggest problem is a stalker... mind you, when you're royalty and are regularly in danger from attempts on your life it probably pays to look over your shoulder now and again... but if you really want to save yourself I would avoid a guy named Anakin who you may or may not have met depending where you are in time... you're too good for that guy and he is going to be your ultimate downfall in the end so just save yourself all the bother he's going to give you and run... --candle•wicke 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Anakin...I'm pregnant with his baby. He keeps having wierd dreams about my baby killing me when it is born. What's so bad about him? He's not that bad; otherwise I wouldn't have married him. Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... I tried... but I guess you can't change what's meant to happen... you're right - your baby killing you? How can babies kill you? You should tell him to stop trying to scare you with his sick outlandish farfetched fantasies. He should know better if he's going to be a good father and husband. --candle•wicke 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Candlewicke, you should see this. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 15:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Obi-Wan just told me that Ani turned to the dark side! Can it be true? He was so much stress! It could be possible...I'll file for divorce right away! But first, I'm going to Mustafar to find out if all this is true. Her majesty Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yowuza, I am glad you've informed me of this. Your majesty, it shows in clear detail why you are being stalked. However, this material is slightly disturbing (and I'm glad it's not on Wikipedia as it would violate BLP with its horrible claims about the Queen). Can you check your mode of transport before you go to Mustafar please? Just in case you find another stalker... --candle•wicke 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I will now click on said link to find what has greatly disturbed me so. User:Queen Padmé Amidala

That explains very well why I am being stalked. But why do you think those things about Ani? Other than killing those Tuskens, he has never done anything really bad in his life...that I know of, that is. Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He executed a hundred cuddly ewoks who stole his dinner, by chopping their heads off with his lightsaber! I know man, I WAS THERE!!Willski72 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we believe Wikipedia

Mr. Wen said that Wikipedia's articles sometimes are unbelievable. The reason is that everyone can edit or alter an article.

So rediculus! I don't think so, how do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.164.97.76 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You could start by telling us who exactly the mysterious Mr. Wen is... --candle•wicke 10:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's General disclaimer may also help answer your questions. --Allen3 talk 11:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You may also be interested in our article on criticism of Wikipedia Modest Genius talk 11:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the beauty of it is that if someone changes it incorrectly then someone else will come along and change it back correctly. It works itself out in the end.Willski72 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes and you can help too... :) --candle•wicke 21:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While I think Wikipedia is a very useful resource, I have to agree that there are certain articles that tend to get skewed quite a large way, often due to gaming the system. I think that Wikipedia should include a disclaimer at the top of every page cleary stating that anyone can edit it (it used to do this, though I never think it went far enough). The disclaimer should also state not to take information at face value and to always check for reliability of the sources. Far too many people take Wikipedia as fact, without realising the origins of the information - even the media are guilty of this - I've often seen mistakes created on Wikipedia propagated throughout the media. As it stands, I cannot wholeheartedy recommend others to use Wikipedia, but with such a disclaimer I would be more inclined to give Wikipedia my reccommmendation. 80.219.51.173 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of Wikipedia is orders of magnitude better than the reliability of the internets in general. Some people will take anything at face value, even if they googled it on some geocities page. These people only have themselves to blame, and for these people, Wikipedia is a huge step forward. Anyone who actually does have half a clue will know to be critical of their information, not just information found on Wikipedia, but also information from so-called reliable sources or commercial encyclopedias,not to mention commercial newspapers. Reliability of Wikipedia is on par or better than that of commercial encyclopedias (not to mention commercial newspapers) in some cases, and worse in others. It is arbitrary to make this into a case against Wikipedia particularly ("why can't you always be better?").

This isn't an issue in any case, since the proper disclaimer is already linked from each and every page. There isn't anything to add to what it says there. caveat emptor. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is best considered as a point of first resort - and both "caveat emptor" and "there is no cure for deliberate stupidity" apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I always start my research at Wikipedia, and then I follow the sources at the bottom of the page. I then compare those sources, and go from there. But I always back up anything with additional sources.--MahaPanta (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well there you go. Isn't it great when issues are resolved without conflict? :) If you don't trust Wikipedia you trust the sources upon which it is built and if you don't trust the sources upon which it is built you... uh... --candle•wicke 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a 100% reliable source. Tell that to Mr Wen. If he's a historian by training, he may give you a gold star. Especially if you make it clear you've read that link. --Dweller (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. It's that bloke from the pubs, best mate's, window cleaner's brother-in-law. I think his name is Nick and he is 100% reliable :) --Daviessimo (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

True, especially when he's got a few pints down him!Willski72 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's such a terrible stereotype. Some window cleaners are not alcoholics. --candle•wicke 19:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[citation needed] Algebraist 19:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Candlewicke we are talking about the window cleaners brother-in-law and not the window cleaner himself!Willski72 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To draw all these themes together, suddenly I hear a very old crackling recording, and George Formby sings, "Wen, I'm cleaning windows" ... Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, if you google "100% reliable source" most of the results contain references to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I'm afraid many prefix the phrase by unconstructive words such as "not a". Hmmm. Everyone's a critic. Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's okay; that's why we've the ellipsis: "Wikipedia is...a 100% reliable source". 76.230.9.194 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke, don't try to change what I said. I said I start with Wikipedia, but I also look into it myself. NC Live, SIRS, Facts on Files, and other library services should always be used in conjuntion with an encylopedic service like Wikipedia. Besides, if you only use Wikipedia, what ever your writting will basically be a paraphrased Wikipedia article. So basically, I'm saying that I follow though with what I find on Wikipedia instead of half assing it. --MahaPanta (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he was talking about you Blah42b10 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Look at my first comment, it's not that I don't trust Wikipedia. Wikipedia, being as open as it is, is also open to vandalism, unlike a dissertation supervised by a committee of doctors and an examining committee that acts as a jury at the oral examination of the thesis written by the canaditate that is putting their entire time in the program (the past 4-8 or more years of their life) and was guided by a professional primary adviser who is putting their job on the line by supporting this dissertation. But that dissertation makes a great source for a Wikipedia article. The problem is that while most vandalism is reverted in less than 4 minutes, someone can use that dissertation or an article from a peer review scientific journal, and just slighly twist information from it and post it on wikipedia. This subtle version of vandalism can go years un-noticed.--MahaPanta (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you, and I do the exact same thing with my school reports, but the part about the vandalism staying in the article for years un-noticed is not true, most of the articles that students use for papers and research would be some popular pages, and therefore be either protected and/or watched and revised constantly so I'm sure someone would notice that something isn't right, other than that, I pretty much agree with you fully Blah42b10 (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It is true, I think you misunderstood what I mean by subtle vandalism. This is what I am reffering to.--MahaPanta (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, but the ones that were never corrected or took a ling time to correct were probably ones that not very many people read, but if they were, then we have a problem, thanks again though Blah42b10 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem. The problem is that the vandalism could be as subtle as misquoting or quoting the author of a source out of context. The solution is as simple as reading the source of information on Wikipedia for yourself before using it in a paper and never using unsourced information. --MahaPanta (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That is what i usually do when I am writing a paper for a class, and if I see a problem, I fix it. I prefer just reading articles and fixing them once I see vandalism over using tools and checking the recent edits log because of the fact that some vandalism can go unnoticed for a while, but most of the time I catch it within a relatively short amount of time and fix it. Blah42b10 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, most vandalism is reverted in less than 4 minutes. It's only the "most subtle and persistent forms of vandalism" that is over looked, and that was only found in 2 precent of the articles surveyed in the article I linked to previously. That is comparable to errors found in some of the most famous paper encyclopedias like World Book and Encyclopedia Britcania.--MahaPanta (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like to use the printed encyclopedias because they are often either outdated or underinforming, and therefore often unsuitable for my, and others' needs, but I often use them as a "filler source", one to just use so I can have an extra source and I only use information I could have gotten off of Wikipedia, but my teachers make us have a certain number of sources, so I spread out the same information among different sources. Plus, I wonder how much is 2% of the articles, hmmmmmm. Blah42b10 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I know that, I was just pointing out that those printed encyclopedias are not open to vandalism, and have paid editors, and they still contain errors. So I think we can believe Wikipedia just as much as we do printed encyclopedias, as long as we check the sources and don't use unsourced material.
It was only 2 out of the 100 tested.--MahaPanta (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, but how much is 2% of the total amount of english articles on Wikipedia? Blah42b10 (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
About 58500. I would be careful about believing 2% as an extremely accurate number though, since that sample set of 100 articles is pretty weak.147.72.72.2 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thx, I don't have access to a calculator right now and I don't have time to do it by hand, and I agree, plus the study used the random article button, which when I use all I usually get is asteroids, strange European towns and Elvis movies Blah42b10 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that, even if

  1. sources are cited
  2. they're "reliable"
  3. they say what the article says they say

that's no guarantee that there aren't other "reliable sources" saying the exact opposite. There are no 100% reliable sources. The only way to be sure is to look at as many sources as you can, as up-to-date as you can & as specialized as you can. Even then you only get the opinions of experts, who aren't infallible. Peter jackson (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that there are no 100% reliable sources is wrong, if I find a source that states that 1+1=2, and that's it, then it is 100% reliable, unless 1+1 does not equal two anymore (I am talking in base 10, so no base 13 jokes please) Blah42b10 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Reminds me very much of this xkcd strip. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice one lol Blah42b10 (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The question, although it uses the word 'belief', is ultimately about 'truth'. Truth is a slippery concept, and there are a variety of approaches, all of which are approximations. Mathematics prefers the 'tautology' approach: if one makes the standard assumptions (including assumptions about logical reasoning), then statements such as "1 + 1 = 2" follow from those assumptions. (New proofs do have to be independently verified before being accepted by the mathematical community.) Wikipedia relies on 'verifiability': that is, what passes for truth in Wikipedia is a statement that has appeared in a source or sources independent of the writer. Science emphasises repeatability of experimental results, and what passes for 'truth' in science is (something like) not having proved the result false. All these approaches have their weaknesses - for example, hoaxes - and all must develop ways of handling them. Pingku (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I remember the ancient "Definition of Neurosis". A sane person knows 1+1=2. An insane person knows 1+1=3. A neurotic person knows 1+1=2, but it makes him nervous.

Trying to define truth, and trying to verify it, makes me nervous. The only people who know "the Truth" seem to base it on faith, which is seriously scary. "I believe it to be true, therefore it is." The rest of us know that truth is a shifting, amorphous thing. And, yes, even 1+1=2 is not true for every set of premises. Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if you define truth as whatever you believe, everything you believe is true! 147.72.72.2 (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless you believe that whatever you believe is wrong Blah42b10 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't even believe the BBC now... so it would be no crime at all if you couldn't believe Wikipedia. "An earlier BBC report wrongly said that 105 MPs did not turn up. It should have said that only 105 attended." --candle•wicke 17:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
How can we believe that that article isn't wrong, but then that would mean that we can't trust them so I guess you're right either way so nevermind. Blah42b10 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If they're telling the truth about the inaccuracy they're wrong about a right but if they're lying about the inaccuracy they're making a right appear wrong. The BBC has misled itself and cannot be trusted now no matter which way you look at it thus compromising any source which uses the BBC as a source. This includes Wikipedia but also several news organisations and Wikipedia uses several of these several news organisations thus compromising itself. Also, news organisations are using Wikipedia as a source in some cases and may be obtaining information from the compromised sources which Wikipedia contains, reporting it and allowing Wikipedia to pick it up and spread it to other news organisations all over again and these are spreading it to other news organisations and back to Wikipedia via these now newly compromised news organisations thus increasing the amount of inaccurate sources being used by Wikipedia while all this time everybody thinks some of these sources have to be believable so is anything even worth believing at all? --candle•wicke 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say yes, I guess you could say that you believe that nothing is believable, but then that would contradict your belief, so it creates a paradox, unless you don't believe in them either Blah42b10 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is Wikipedia a credible source? Eh. I like to think it is, but we have to work on that. Is it a factually accurate source? Sure. It's as accurate as anything else. You should never trust information without verifying it, and that's why we have references. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What i wanna know is why is this topic being discussed on Main Page Talk? lol Ashishg55 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I don't know lol Blah42b10 (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
People say don't trust wikipedia because anyone can edit it. I say trust it because anyone can edit it. The everyday person doesn't see the amount of discussion that goes on behind the scenes. They don't understand how much it takes to edit something and get it to stay on the page, especially when it comes to popular articles. Zombie Virus (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, there's so much computer red tape on this thing its unreal! (Although in this case some of that red tape is necessary otherwise we'd have some really wacky stuff on here!)Willski72 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do they call it red tape, and why not duct tape, I think that would make more sense Blah42b10 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
See red tape.-gadfium 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it! We should start a wikipedia campaign to pressure the worlds governmnents to say duct tape instead of red tape!Willski72 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria bus accident

Moved to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#ITN candidates for May 28

Sign for archive bot MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of Château-Thierry

The picture postcard attached the the Laurens Shull piece - which is also in the Battle of Château-Thierry article - is not exactly NPOV. This battle was a victory for the combatant allies, who included a large contingent of troops from the US. To put it very politely, the US had finally come off the fence and joined the war, after years of catastrophic slaughter in the trenches of northern Europe.

However, the label on the postcard overstates the importance of the Battle of Château-Thierry in isolation. The battle of Château-Thierry was part of a much wider battle, to which the US soldiers certainly contributed bravely, and in which they were an important factor in achieving victory. And that wider effort was indeed a turning point of the Great War.

The postcard is an interesting object, but it was published later in the US as a piece of patriotic puffing about a victory. It should not be reproduced without a little comment to give it context.

Let me stress again that this is not to demean the bravery of the US troops, whose arrival, however delayed by their government, made a difference[1]. Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You handled that very delicately bravo! If its propoganda then that should be mentioned, is it?Willski72 (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]. For "made a difference" please. You can't go around making such outrageous statements without providing a source. Very uncouth. --candle•wicke 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The postcard is no longer in the Did you know? section of the main page. I was able to view it on on Google's Cache of the main page as it was yesterday two hours ago. The Cache has since been updated by Google ,and the post-card can no longer be viewed in the Did you know? section of the main page. Tip: To find which archive contains the fact that appeared on Did You Know?, return to the article and click "What links here" to the left of the article. When you find "Wikipedia:Recent additions" and a number, click it and search for the article name.:[33]Archive

Stadt (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke - As an over educated person, I know the history of everything (and have learned to value nothing), and do not need citations. However, as you and I must assist the Masses, citation now added. As indicated by my user page, I am too lazy to do any work on this, so I have added the fifth item which came up on Google when I put in "made a difference" and "Great War". That seems to be how "citations" are selected for many articles, so I feel no shame. ;-D Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


  1. ^ http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Scj9Lh_VMBwJ:www.pbs.org/greatwar/chapters/ch3_collapse.html+%22made+a+difference%22+%22great+war%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Yes, it's a terrible pain being over-educated as the under-educated masses all expect so much from us when one is tempted to simply lounge around and commit acts of criminal laziness. This is of course our divine right. But it's so much bother telling them that so I save time by disguising my laziness through regular bouts of back-breaking manual labour. --candle•wicke 18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if i'd taken up that rectal thermometer job i'd be rich enough to agree with you both now....Willski72 (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you inserted "job" in there as the sentence might otherwise have read of an insertion of a more painful kind. --candle•wicke 20:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and we wouldnt want that now would we....?Willski72 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it simply depends... there are those who would be quite excited by the thought of torture or being tortured. There are also those who would request a bucket... --candle•wicke 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I might just go and lie down in a corner somewhere and cry...shudder.Willski72 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that (above) they've managed to turn the alcoholic window cleaner back into a debate on reliability. --candle•wicke 23:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
And we never found out who Mr. Wen is. Blah42b10 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Its just not as easy to descend serious arguments into farce these days!Willski72 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but as far as I can see they do that themselves anyway without much effort - unless you count a fictional character being stalked into the wrong universe as a serious matter... --candle•wicke 19:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is, is the character really fictional? Would she be on Wikipedia if she were not real?Willski72 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe she is from an alternate universe, and by some strange warping of space and time, and whatever other related types of diminsions that we do not currently know about, she is posting on Wikipedia in our universe from her's, or whatever. Blah42b10 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes thats the sort of thing im talking about, maybe a worm hole or something.Willski72 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a wormhole only connect space within the same universe and not a connection between universes? I don't have time to check the article, but I'm pretty good with physics of that sort. Blah42b10 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well its a good job someone is because i dont have a clue! I highly suspect you are correct and i therefore change my phrase to,

"Yes thats the sort of thing im talking about, maybe a TARDIS or something"

Hopefully thats more logical(!) Though im not sure they had them in the star wars galaxy which, we are reliably informed, is far far away.Willski72 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes more sense, and yes of course they had them, until the time war... unless some jedi or sith or something stole the Doctor's TARDIS, which would mean that he is either stranded there, dead OR maybe they didn't steal it but he is actually a jedi. (Runs to write ideas down)Blah42b10 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be interesting, the doctor with a lightsaber. Maybe his sonic screwdriver extends!Willski72 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GENIUS!!! Blah42b10 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you know.... i try not to brag!Willski72 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Iran

Why is the election in Iran not news? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been, most days since the election. I'd guess it's because not much is happening today - the BBC are reporting that there are no protests today. Check Portal:Current events for events in Iran on recent days. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Happy now? :D --candle•wicke 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops, just seen this! I'm guessing that as soon as I opened my mouth, there were protests. Darnit! If I had an embassy in Tehran, I'd be having diplomats expelled right now... Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I meant by the time I noticed this the tit-for-tat exchange of diplomatic expulsion was at the top of ITN. :D And if I had an embassy I would expel and restore diplomats for fun every day... keeps them on their toes... ;) --candle•wicke 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Iran is very confused country. In Iran, they always live in danger and war. Therefore Irans people think that they don't need a news. Because, they know well about their situation. Also, they don't like be know aobut the other country's people 59.3.240.33 (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC) jANG jI hYEON

I think the link "Michael Jackson" in the Michael Jackson's snippet (spelling?) in the "news" section should lead to the "Death" section of the article, not just the "Michael Jackson" article. Or is there a reason it doesn't?G man yo (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's any kind of policy, but section links are generally avoided from the Main Page - they can disorient new readers by starting them halfway down a page, and removes control from them. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that the article is made, maybe link it to Death of Michael Jackson? Dkl1456 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that that article should not exist. But, although it can be disorienting, many of the other links in the news section lead directly to something explaining the news event, and not just the person in the news event, and I am of the opinion that this link should follow suit. But fair enough, if nobody wants to change it, then I'm cool with that. G man yo (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the death article should exist either, and am seriously considering nominating it for deletion. It is nothing but fluff and media speculation.--Susan118 talk 02:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this actually is already linked on the main page. Very disappointing that the main page would link to an article with so little substance. --Susan118 talk 02:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) It should be Pop star Michael Jackson (pictured) dies at the age of 50, after suffering cardiac arrest.. This is In The News after all, and not Featured Article of the day. MickMacNee (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the Death of Michael Jackson page should be linked there. --Evildevil (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I too prefer this version Modest Genius talk 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this too. Pyrrhus16 20:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the two huge sections of junk above, maybe now an admin might notice this section. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is on the Main Page talk and ANI and not one reply for hours. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try on the proper place, i.e. Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors perhaps? 10:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't an error, oh mysterious one. MickMacNee (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Linking to the wrong article or with the wrong word, is indeed an error. If you still don't agree, the simple fact is basically, any change to an existing item is considered an error (this makes sense since if there is an imperfection on the most visible page on wikipedia which is supposed to highlight our content, that seems like an error to me) and belongs in the error section whether it is far more likely to be noticed and dealt with by admins. (Admins particularly those familiar with the rules associated with the main page and therefore willing to make changes do not generally monitor Talk:Main Page because issues that require admin attention rarely come up here instead there tends to be just a bunch of mostly OT stuff like help I'm being stalked even though there's no evidence etc as there are more appropriate sections for them to be dealt with. In particular, raising an issue here which requires timely admin action is pretty much pointless. If you read the very big header, it also makes this clear. "This page is for discussing improvements to the entire Main Page only. This is not a place to ask general questions or submit content." and "Main Page Errors: To report a problem about the current content on the Main Page." etc Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to above, and the post on my talk page [34], it was absolutely not an error, anybody with the most basic understanding can see that, it was a simple adjustment of the wording, which was already correct. And the discussions I removed were absolutely not relevant to this page, so were perfectly removeable as off topic nonsense filling up the page, per WP:TALK. It did not belong here, it should not have been prolonged, and it most certainly has no business being in the page's archive. And admins should be watching this talk page regularly, especially as you point out, people post here when they should be in another venue, regularly. If there are non-standard practices occuring on this page, or basic issues arising from poorly worded instructions, or de-facto bad standards such as ignoring WP:TALK being practiced by the regulars here, none of that is a problem for me to change, or work around. MickMacNee (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation error in Trans March hook

Resolved
 – Fixed by Jarry1250. Shubinator (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be no comma after the word "March" in the hook currently in queue 1. Otto4711 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Reposted to WP:ERRORS. 68.76.156.73 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Events in Honduras

Until the nature of what's happening in Honduras is clear, I don't think it should be labeled a "coup d'état" as is done on the main page. All actions undertaken by the military, the Supreme Court and Congress appear justified in the Hondruan Constitution, especially as Zelaya was not respecting the Court's decisions declaring the referendum illegal. Zelaya was abusing his power, and any president doing so loses his or her status as president, and may be arrested.

[[190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)]]

People from there are sending in messages to television and saying this is not a coup. Why is Wikipedia calling it a coup and being one sided? The people are saying he acted like a dictator. Why is it called a cup d'etat?

Chenzou, China

{{editprotected}} I think that the first "In the news" story should say "Chenzhou, China" instead of just "Chenzhou" since most people probably have not heard of Chenzhou. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 01:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Germananic Flute

I have added information on the Hohle Fels page about the bird flute found. I don't think there should be an individual page created just for the flute, atleast not as of yet. So can we please get a link to the page saying something like "Archeologists confirm the discovery of a 35,000-year-old flute in Hohle Fels cave, the oldest confirmed musical instrument, in Germany.", and link Hohle Fels? We really should have a link to an article where people can find out more information on the subject being discussed.JanderVK (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


You cannot change the link now after all this time. what does it matter anyway? they can still find it caus flute is linked too. 03:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree there should be a link with context. But there's an early link to Hohle Fels on the Flute article, however, which I believe provides readers access to the information. Sure the link can be changed, even after all this time; however, it doesn't appear to be essential. --Mysidia (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the logic on having to scan through the flute article just to find information on this particular flute. Would you scan through the literature article to find information on William Blake's writings, no you wouldn't, you would search William Blake. Yes, it is also relevant enough to change the link! It's still on the front page news section, and people still click on it. I'm glad someone took the initiative and atleast linked to the Hohle Fels cave article, which has to do with this particular flute.99.54.188.157 (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Flute contains more information then Hohle Fels so it remains the appropriate article to link to for ITN. It also seems to me this is the proper thing since the discovery is of far greater significance to flute then Hohle Fels. The information is fairly early in the article, so this hardly seems a big deal to me but if the appropriate thing to request was a link to the specific subsection covering the new development (i.e. history) rather then linking to a largely irrelevant article as the primary topic. Also, as mentioned in many places, this should be reported in errors not here Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the main page?

?? -206.240.26.51 (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why am I not able to edit the Main Page? Algebraist 15:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, this is a wiki, and YOU ARE BREAKING THE WIKI SPIRIT by not letting me edit the main page. 206.240.26.51 (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is not going to work. WP is not run by such pie-eyed idealists that they'll let a known vandal edit the mainpage because he has appealed to the "Wiki spirit". APL (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No feeding, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed [35] Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah i want to edit it too, oh wiki gods.--24.109.201.127 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Crash

Did wikipedia just crash? i was trying to browse some article and a This Wiki Has A Problem page popped up everytime, whats the matter?--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was down. I posted a question over at Commons and got a short explanation from BanyanTree. Newsboy85 (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, i see, thank you for the information brother (= --Josecarlos1991 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
TechBlog entry about this --mav (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson dead?

Sky News, BBC, TZM and CNN are all reporting that Michael Jackson has died, I advise the editing admins for the main page, not to 'jump the gun', per se, he has been known for his publicity stunts. Worth watching though. Murgon (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Most aren't reporting it as "official" yet, but I agree that, at this point, we should take reports with a pinch of salt. Not sure if it is worth the main page anyways, but still... J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Just heard on the radio, the LA Times are saying he is in a coma, I think the 'dust fallout' is going to make reporting this on the mainpage quite hard, leave it for a few hours. Murgon (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
BBC says LA Times and CBS are reporting him dead but CNN isn't so it is very unclear at this time. --candle•wicke 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a messed up situation. Murgon (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
NBC mirrors the LA Times report. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN reports he's dead too. http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson/index.html ESTEMSHORNtalkSign 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, deaths from natural causes don't really go on the main page. There was a fight over it when Sir Edmund Hillary died. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Hillary was nothing compared with the King of Pop, the worldwide popularity and sudden, shocking death of Micheal Jackson should be reason enough to appear on the main page. User talk:Pho3nix-

Could you produce a link to the policy page where that is said please? I have never read it myself. Murgon (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be on the main page, even though he is an extremely famous person, if we put this on the main page then why shouldn't we put Ed McMahon(or however you spell it), Farrah Fawcett and other notable deaths recently? Blah42b10 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ITN is now far more open than it was. This could hit the main page; personally, I have no opinion. Note, also, that Jackson's death was not expected- Hillary's death was less of a surprise. This is an argument in favour of including it. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a news story about Lucas Glover winning a golf tournament. Does anyone seriously consider that to be more important or notable than one of the most famous stars in the world suddenly dying at an early age? Why the hell wouldn't this be considered notable enough for the front page? Zincomog (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's now official: "A Los Angeles city official confirmed that Michael Jackson is dead. The official said he died away at 1:07 p.m. Pacific time."[36] Please update. -- Taku (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not until that comes from a reputable news source should that be considered official. Murgon (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
LA Times, NYTimes, BBC, NBC, Fox News, all confirm his death. I don't think this should be a "reported to have" anymore. Also, maybe we should put a picture up on main page? Mononomic (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe File:Michael Jackson 1984.jpg for the photo? Certainly more interesting than European flags... Mononomic (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we make the picture just a little bit bigger (maybe 80-100px wide)? Mononomic (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#ITN candidates for June 25 Mononomic (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
An example of indescribable irony if you didn't see it or had forgotten. --candle•wicke 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not irony, that's an interesting coincidence. "Irony" is one of the most often misused words on the Internet, and you provided an excellent example of how it is misused. Danthemankhan 18:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it standard policy only to announce the deaths of heads of state on the main page?--24.218.164.106 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He's the King of Pop, isn't he? ;-) Teemu08 (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Wadester16/Smile That made me laugh. wadester16 02:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Without reading the previous discussions, I assume there was consensus that he follows this criterion: "The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such." Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think it broke the record for support at ITN previously possibly broken by an old flute about an hour earlier (that one still hasn't been updated or posted because the internet came down around me and possibly everyone else and ITN was invaded by those mass edit conflict causing types that turn up and are never seen again). The media seems to be verifying Michael Jackson as the cause of this crash - which would indicate that something very unusual happened across several sites, including this one. --candle•wicke 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Video which I thought was a good summary of the international reaction. "BBC reporters on global Jackson reaction". --candle•wicke 15:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And another showing various television coverage - "TV stations report Jackson's death". --candle•wicke 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Any word on when the Heir apparent of the King of Pop, Fresh Prince will take the throne? Vdrj2 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I don't see any evidence for breaking any records. In fact, I'm pretty sure we've had way more then 6 before particularly before ITN became so dead. Indeed, I suspect in the old days admins would easily be yelled at if they added controversial or unclear items with only 2-3 supports. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Well that was then and this is now. That's why I said "previously possibly broken" and linked to a comment by someone else. But for two in a matter of hours to get that much support is unusual for 2009 at any rate. And admins getting "yelled at" for adding items? Where have you been? That's still going on... --candle•wicke 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

After the mourning period.... but before the afternoon period!!!!Willski72 (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

After the sun rises. Or should that before the moon walks? --candle•wicke 03:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it off the front page. Now we can get on with other things. Peter Greenwell (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't moved from the main page, it was told to Beat It ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Surely you can't be serious! Peter Greenwell (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! What have i unleashed!Willski72 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's BAD! BAD! REALLY REALLY BAD! Ahem, sorry. --candle•wicke 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You know i thought better of you Candlewicke, outbursts such as that are not wanted on this encyclopedia! Next someone will come up and start shouting about thrilled zombies and criminals that are getting soft (or some such nonsense!)Willski72 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Careful now, this could get a bit dangerous. --candle•wicke 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with you lot is that you just "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough". There, i have done one, are you satisfied now!Willski72 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't win. --candle•wicke 18:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, this post is a bit of a thriller wasn't it? I mean, I know it's just human nature that we have to cry over his death. He was gone too soon but just be happy. We've just got to leave him alone, and We're almost there. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Right thats it! I asked nicely, i tried to appease you! I tell you know that you are responsible for what i have been driven to! Remember that as they put me 6 feet under! (Sound of rattling followed by a 'click' 'click' 'click', a gulp, a loud bang and a soft thud.....)Willski72 (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No! Just give it one more chance! :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Leave Me Alone. --candle•wicke 23:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Im dead and i cant get away! Oh look i've still got that gun (loud bang followed by a soft thud).Willski72 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'. You Got To Be Startin' Somethin'. --candle•wicke 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if i was in hell before i have no idea where i am now.... and those bloody Michael Jackson song names are still going! (Loud bang followed by a soft thud)Willski72 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep on, keep on... don't stop 'til you get enough... --candle•wicke 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no i havent got any bullets left!Willski72 (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Loss of 3,000 articles

Anybody have any idea why our article count dropped from over 2, 929,000 last night to 2,926,000 this morning? Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The deletionists have won? –Howard the Duck 13:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again the expansionists have been defeated by the minimalists, it is only a matter of time before there is nothing left....Willski72 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a massive exaggeration. Majorly talk 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Willski72, have you actually taken a look at the AfD? I'm someone who can certainly support mass creation of those kind of stubs- I'm dismayed about how patchy our coverage of fungi is, for instance. But that was obviously a sound deletion, due to the massive amounts of major errors within them. J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Knowing Willski72 as I do, I can say without fear of contradiction that Willski72 never, never, never, ever, ever, ever exaggerates. Never ever. Not ever. No sirree. ;-) (I suspect Willski72 may be satirising dramah - they are a bringer of light-relief in general. I did see the AfD, and fully agree with the deletions). In other news, I'm pondering what would be the better name for a (hypothetical) band: "The deletionists have won", or "Anybot's algae articles"? TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The latter, I reckon. "The deletionists have won" would be a headline on an ultra-inclusionist newspaper on the day a known deletionist was elected to ArbCom. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Willski, I bet this goes on all the time. Tomorrow you'll wake up and there'll be 30,000 new articles and the following day there'll be 8,000 less. It all works out in the end. --candle•wicke 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

First let me say i was not in any way being sarcastic (!) and i fully believed that i would wake up one morning to find that Wikipedia had imploded on itself! However i now take great comfort in the knowledge that this was not the beginning of the end but just the normal workings of a somewhat erratic machine! PS "The deletionists have won" would be a far better name for a band than some of the rubbish they come up with, it has my full support.Willski72 (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

PPS "Anybot's algae articles"??? There really is no contest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry!Willski72 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere out there there will be someone with a recurring nightmare wherein they go to sleep at night with millions of articles on Wikipedia, but when they wake up and check the main page's top banner, it says "1 articles in English". They go to Special:AllPages, their heart racing, and all that appears is a single page called Template:Bluelink. They click on it, short of breath by now. All that appears on the page is "Wake up". They wake up in a cold sweat, knowing that won't be the last time they have that same dream. Dreaded Walrus t c 09:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that would be very scary, especially if (for some unknown reason) the page called "The deletionists have won" was flashing bright red or somesuch colour. It would also be even scarier if the article went on to describe the mass murder of the expansionists in the middle of a meeting by gas through the air vents/deletionist indoctrinated man with machine gun etcWillski72 (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The articles deleted were deleted because they were made by a bot an contained factual errors. Wikipedia is better without 3000 inaccurate articles. The deletions were a result of a near unanimous debate. Attempting to make this part of the largely exaggerated "deletionists" vs "inclusionists" disputes demonstrates a real lack of awareness of the true situation. There are enough real issues on Wikipedia, no need to make up ones that don't exist. Chillum 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel like a dog thats just been kicked for goodnaturedly barking at the wrong person! (I was joking... as i have been all the way through... just in case you hadnt already worked that out).Willski72 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now you have pointed this out. The satire was so close to reality I got confused. Chillum 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This gives you more time to join the Wikipedia:Three-millionth topic pool! - BanyanTree 05:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Re astronomer Rolf Brahde, it's heartwarming to see Norway back in the DYK column. Sca (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Has it been absent for long? There are currently several European countries directly mentioned at ITN - Czech Republic, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, Sweden and Russia and Italy but no Norway... --candle•wicke 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Recent additions, this is the fifth Norway-related item in the last week. Algebraist 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the vast population (a fifth of the worlds!) and the large surface area (4th biggest in the world!) this is a shambles! Or maybe i've mixed Norway up with China?Willski72 (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right... people are always talking about Norway here so it must be big. Considering Europe has like 2/3 of the world's English-speaking populations (or something) I'm guessing they must all live in Norway or maybe moved there from other countries to escape all the sudden floods and exploding trains and now they're all celebrating there because Wikipedia has restored them to their rightful place alongside the United States of New Zealand and Zimbabwe. (Did I get that right? No? Oh.) --candle•wicke 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, don't knock Newzlandia. We invented the jet, the atom and Mount Everest (though that last one was a joint invention). Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't even know you were from there. Um... (Inserting other country...) YUGOSLAVIA! Is that one OK? Wait, that doesn't exist right? So nobody can be offended (hopefully). If you're from Yugoslavia pretend it's some other non-existent country like Kosovo... oops, touchy subject. Um... Neverland! There we go... right on topic as well... and if you're Peter Pan you don't exist, OK? --candle•wicke 01:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a statistical fact that Norway once controlled a huge empire and defeated Germany single-handedly in the Second World War.Willski72 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh curses, now our Secret has finally been exposed. We "Europeans" are all really Norwegians. When we are not working on our Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius encyclopedia, we write fake articles on the imaginary countries of "Europe". We warned you not to tell the non-"European" editors. The whole game has been spoilt. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Slip of the tongue, im sorry! At least they still dont know about the Luxembourg's huge new navy thats 3 times bigger than any other. Woops!Willski72 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Keep using code words like Luxembourg for our fNordic state. They'll never guess. Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Careful now. Next thing you'll let slip about the countries of Amenesia, Invisibia and Nonexistencia having never been mapped by non-Europeans. --candle•wicke 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you hear that North Korea has just built 2000 new ballistic missiles with nuclear capacity and that they can fire as far as 10,000 miles in only 5 minutes?Willski72 (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I thought this was a series of jokes but your above comment has made me realise this was an error. My humblest apologies. --candle•wicke 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes well.... always remember never to mess with Russia. Its powers are too mighty to comprehend!Willski72 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Front page is losing its appeal

Put some more bright colors in it. --AaThinker (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a regular suggestion, one that has caused widespread debate but always leads to nothing. See WP:PEREN for more information. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Not only is this a regular suggestion, but it's to be a regular suggestion by AaThinker, apparently. —David Levy 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a rule against it I can't find? --AaThinker (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A rule against repeatedly posting the same suggestion (without even noting this fact)? No, but it's rather unproductive and time-wasting for all involved. —David Levy 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Did You Know

Two of the items in Did You Know are non-compliant as they fail to deal with Canadian subjects. Can someone fix this urgently? Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not something to be fixed. They don't have to deal with Canadian subjects. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've checked, and the Royal Mail article does have a link to Canada Post. So, only the Wiltshire article fails the "Refer to Canada" test. Clearly some error. :-D Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by the "Refer to Canada" test? I know it is Canada Day but it doesn't mean all DYK hooks have to be Canada-related. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your majesty - I am joking. {Bows and grovels, backs from the Borg throne room then, unplugging self from the Hive Entity, enters escape pod. Sound of airlock closing.} Michael of Lucan (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Groan... --BorgQueen (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You really shouldnt have those escape pods within easy reach of jokers, or at least have a guard there watching the thing!Willski72 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, today's TWO Norway-related DYKs are the best yet! Sca (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

News

In the news "Republic of Ireland" should be pipelinked to show Ireland as Republic of Ireland is not the name of the country and the main page should be accurate and reflect this.MITH 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action.MITH 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, knowing next to nothing about the country, I wonder why the article is named "Republic of Ireland"? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's complicated. But I would just like to say that it was "Ireland" all the way from P:CE and ITN/C to posting and as soon as I noticed "Republic of" on the Main Page I moved to point it out before any scene was made... it just shows how quick these things are noticed... --candle•wicke 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Up until recently it was felt the island deserved the name Ireland more than the country of the same name for whatever reason/POV. However an Arbcom case (WP:IECOLL) is currently ongoing and the titles of both article are due to be changed. You will likely see an ad for the upcoming poll on your watchlist quite soon.MITH 17:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Since when was the Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border cow proof? I know it's a secondary consideration to the 'name of Ireland' POV wars, but in the case of this news, I would have thought it was pretty important to distinguish between state and island. Although sadly, neither the article, or even the sources for the news, don't bother to expand on exactly where in 'Ireland' brucellosis was a problem. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the independent Irish State is a source of continual discussion on Wikipedia, because it has emotional issues for many people. Like the name of Football/soccer/Association football, this issue cannot be resolved by discussion. You will not stop the dispute without mass slaughter of one side or the other. Wikipedia aims at consensus, and for that namby-pamby reason rejects mass slaughter as a solution.

I have clear views on both subjects, but have learned not to express them. Peeing against the wind only gets you wet - the wind flows on regardless. Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how an admin posting two words produces a debate on the mortality rates of cattle. At least that might be the best idea if this is to continue. Alas, it was inevitable... I did my best... :( --candle•wicke 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia aims at consensus, and for that namby-pamby reason rejects mass slaughter as a solution".

Is it me or can you just not have fun any more!Willski72 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, some people get so ANGRY when their rights are trampled on... others get angry when their cows trample on them. --candle•wicke 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes.... can be a bit of a bother when one of your cows tramples on you cant it....Willski72 (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about one? --candle•wicke 21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are trampled on by only one cow from Ireland, then its ok, because you are not going to get infected, but if you are trampled on by only one cow from Ireland, its not ok, because you will be infected. Wikipedia (and the Irish newspapers:, making the world dumber, one news item at a time. MickMacNee (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How many cows are we talking about here?Willski72 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A proposal

I'm posting this here because I don't know where else to post this, since it doesn't apply to a single article or even to a specific project.

I've noticed that some of the articles on Wikipedia contain content that definitely isn't appropriate for small children, yet they could still come upon them accidentally by using the random article feature. Clearly, Therefore, something needs to be done. Wikipedia isn't censored, so that's not what I'm proposing. Rather, any articles detailing the processes of human reproduction (with or without pictures) or excretion (with pictures), as well as anything else that may be determined inappropriate in the future, should be moved to a separate namespace, perhaps "Adult:" or something similar. Then, on the page for that subject in the main namespace, a warning template should be placed stating that the content isn't appropriate for children and containing a link that a person can click to go to the article if he isn't bothered by the inappropriate content. --Aruseusu (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPM or one of the other village pump pages would be a better place for this. You'll need a better argument than 'clearly', though. Algebraist 23:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A proposal for further discussion. - BanyanTree 07:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

North Korean launch-imprecise

Shouldn't the item about the North Korean launch be changed to reflect that they were cruise missiles? In its current form the text implies that they were ballistic.--Fireaxe888 (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. I follow the line that people expect the worse, especially from a communist dictatorship that has shut down its borders and is well known for its nuclear ambitions. Its imprecise not inprecise by the way, but i wont hold it against ye!Willski72 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

hi i edited and page and i would like back to normal please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.25.72 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

More information please. --candle•wicke 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Language panel

I cannot see Hindi, Tamil, JKannada OR ANY OTHER INDIAN language on the language pnel..--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main_Page_FAQ#In_what_order_are_the_other_Wikipedias_displayed.3F_Where.27s_my_language.3F for an explanation Modest Genius talk 15:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A little further digging has thrown up some relevant discussion at Template_talk:Wikipedialang#Hindi_Wikipedia Modest Genius talk 16:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Capslock. Cruise Control To Awesome.--74.131.91.57 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Video Game Articles

What we need are more video game articles. A lack of snippets on the front page that link to meticulously written articles about this medium will lead to loss of credibility in the scientific world. Please include more video game articles. Thanks. 84.129.157.23 (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming its safe to interpret that as sarcasm, your complaint is hardly a new one. Bottom line, an FA takes a great deal of work, and people are going to be more prone to do that kind of work on a subject they find interesting. The best way to get the sort of topics you think are "appropriate" for the main page on there is to work on those articles. Complaining here is far less likely to prove fruitful.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The false assumption that our objective is/should be appealing to the "credibility of the scientific world" aside, apparently Wikipedia editors are actually more interested in science than video games, considering that there are at least three times the amount of scientific FAs than gaming FAs. That reminds me: is there some stats tool out there that quantifies FAs and TFAs by general topic? It'd be helpful to know the exact percentage a certain type of article appears on the main page without having to sift through a long list of titles. Nufy8 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

20,000 -> 40,000

Where is the discussion where it was decided that Wikipedias in other languages listed on the Main Page need to have at least 40,000 articles, changed from 20,000? --82.6.52.129 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I asked this question, wasn't logged in. --AdamSommerton (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it was done in this edit. I don't see any discussion for this on Template talk:Wikipedialang, but you should bring up any concerns you may have there. howcheng {chat} 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that I posted a more detailed explanation at Template talk:MainPageInterwikis#Georgian Wikipedia. —David Levy 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I was just curious. --AdamSommerton (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduras and the OAS

The News section states that the OAS has suspended Honduras, but shouldn't it also be noted that Honduras actually left the organization prior to being suspended? AP: Honduras leaves OAS after body decries coup LCpl (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

According to OAS, "an illegitimate government" cannot remove a member nation. [37] --BorgQueen (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To Infinity and Beyond on Main Page

Hi, not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but can one send a page to AFD if it is on the main page? I'm going to assume the answer is no but I'd like confirmation. Thanks very much, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is not on the main page, is it? Anyway, probably you can send it to AfD. More appropriate place for such questions is one of the divisions at Village pump, though. --Tone 09:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, at DYK. Thanks for the tip off about VP - I've still not really figured out what exactly that's for! :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Curiously, I can't find it in DYK, not even the link... VP is indeed useful when you are not sure about something, people there are helpful. --Tone 09:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a bit irritating, it got taken off around an hour ago. D'oh. Never mind then... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:-) --Tone 09:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with you nominating a page at DYK, but, once it is nominated, it should probably be replaced. I think there's a policy against DYKing AFDed articles, but not AFDing DYKed articles. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Independence Day

So D-Day only got a featured picture and was excluded from "on this day" under the "it only should appear in one section per day", but now we have a featured picture and on this day for Independence Day. Are there 2 standards at work here or has policy changed as a result of the d-day discussions? Knowledgeum :  Talk  08:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned as a holiday (because this recurs each year), but does not have an item in OTD. Whilst you have a point, I think the current setup is fair enough. Modest Genius talk 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The other difference is that the main article in POTD is Trumbull's Declaration of Independence, not Independence Day (United States), whereas on June 6, both OTD and POTD would have led to Normandy Landings. howcheng {chat} 20:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It's been explained here (so I assume its true) that OTD is not intended as a list of The Most Important things that happened today. It's not a top ten list. It's been explained that it's intended as an interesting assortment of things that are at least moderately important. If that's true, and I can't find the policy that backs it up, then all these questions of "Why this one, but not that one?" become meaningless. APL (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:OTD#Criteria for listing items on this set of page: "[Basically], a combination of the 'majorness' of the event, the mix of items already listed, along with the relative completeness of the article, are the criteria used, along with the requirement for appropriate 'context'." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, all else being equal, an article that wasn't listed last year (or in recent years) takes precedence over one that was (as a tie-breaker when there isn't room for both). Correct? —David Levy 01:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ideally, yes. If "the most important or significant events" was the only criterion, that would put a tremendous burden on admins since it would be 100 percent subjective. On a day-to-day basis, events that are "the most important or significant" to one person, group or organization are not necessarily felt the same way to another. Thus, it could make the section either purely original research (if picked by admins/users here) or a copyright violation (if it is based on a third party). Therefore, we have other factors that are a bit more objective like listing a mix of topics and whether the articles are well-written. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

7/7 bombing

Were the July 7th bombing in London, 2005 not thought of as notable enough to go in the 'on this day' section? There are no recent items hare either. Sorry for the late comment, not much use. -Finkzizard 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.40.48 (talk)

(moved to bottom) Because such events are generally featured on the 10th anniversary (or 20, 30, you get the idea). Sorry, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Garden, I hate to contradict you, but not a single item on OTD was a multiple of ten years ago. Personally, I would consider the 7/7 bombings more significant than the sliced bread anniversary, but I'm probably a little biased- they were in my lifetime, and in my country. J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Woops. My bad. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for puting my comment in the wrong place, this year was a significant anniversary as today the memorial for the deceased was unveiled. -Finkzizard 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.17.8 (talk)
Our coverage of the memorial is practically nil. We have a brief mention on 7 July 2005 London bombings memorials and services which I just updated, but no article. There's enough coverage to warrant one, I will write it tomorrow if no one beats me to it. J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikinews has an article, if anyone is interested in reading it. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The memorial has been mentioned in Ireland by RTÉ if you need or wish to use a non-British source. --candle•wicke 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Chrome OS

I wonder why the announcement of Google Chrome OS release has not be covered in WikiNews section of WP frontpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.73.201 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The same reason why the latest Twilight book didn't make it there? –Howard the Duck 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Because it's just an announcement, not a release? I'm not sure ITN even does tech news as a general rule, but I'd be highly surprised if Chrome OS had made it into ITN at this stage. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Its absurd to compare Google Chrome OS announcement to Twilight book release. It is the very first time Microsofts monopoly over desktop computer OS market is seriously being challenged and WP readers will appreciate being told about this development. But I agree with TFOWR that release of Chrome would be more newsworthy than the mere announcement of its release. talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC).
Right, well, go make an article on it with suitable sources, shove it at WP:ITN/C and I'll get back to you. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
But Microsoft's monopoly isn't being challenged. It's just an announcement - nothing has been released. And when/if it is released it'll initially be for netbooks only. Look, I run pretty much every-OS-but-Windows and I'd love to see a serious contender emerge - and when one does it will be notable. But right now all we have is an announcement - vapourware, if you like. Google are great, and I do have every confidence that they'll make good on this attempt, and when they do we should applaud it, but until then it's nothing big in ITN terms. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to get all forumy but can I ask a stupid question... don't Apple and Linux make OSes? :/ weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, quite. And various BSDs too. I guess the idea is that Microsoft have a virtual monopoly (kind of like IE compared to Firefox, Safari, etc) and since Google is huge they'll succeed where Apple have failed (I'll unfairly dismiss Linux and BSD for being tiny ;-) ). And when Google is successful I'll concede the point! But 'til then... vapourware! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
apple who?!? Ashishg55 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
These guys ;-) They make computers that run only on love.
I actually came back to acknowledge that 193.175.73.201 did actually respond to my original point, but I managed to miss it - apologies for that! Still, it gives us a good opportunity to make bad puns about the computer industry.
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Such a confusing but WIDE WEB of possibilities opened by the above statement... --candle•wicke 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this wide web of possibilities extends around the world, I would hate to think we where keeping the possibilities for ourselves!Willski72 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... such a shame this will be buried beneath Gropecunt Lane. --candle•wicke 00:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be a newsworthy announcement - when the OS actually comes out. Until then, it's just vaporware. 99.20.114.20 (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

HOax

not sure where to write this, but at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Schmitz_(industrialist) an editor apparently introduced a hoax into article (Hitler was not in power in 1930, the BIS was never a European Central Bank etc.). Maybe there are procedure here at wikipedia to deal with users that introduce incorrect information into articles. I also think that the second paragraph is written in a sensationalist and un-encyclopeadic way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.moritz (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the correct place to ask this question. I will move this question to Talk:Hermann Schmitz (industrialist). I have added a refimprove tag as a start to the article and will investigate to see if I can find any information. Please followup any information at Talk:Hermann Schmitz (industrialist). A new name 2008 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Rhinotia hemistictus is a species in the Belidae family of weevils. The belids are known as "primitive weevils" because they have straight antennae, unlike the "true weevils" or Curculionidae which have elbowed antennae.
Rhinotia hemistictus is a species in the Belidae family of weevils. The belids are known as "primitive weevils" because they have straight antennae, unlike the "true weevils" or Curculionidae which have elbowed antennae.

no insects on the front page please, some of you are just sick sick people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.24.247 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

no humans on the front page please, some of you are just sick sick weevils. Yuck, their eyes and the way they poo and pee and they only have two legs and the way they move on them and their "ears" agh I'm being physically sick just saying that word! Blurgh, it makes me vomit they make baby humans with their own bodies and they have fingers too and hair and saliva and breasts get it away before my guts pop out ugh. (common Weevilpedia complaint) --candle•wicke 18:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
We have a nice, non-objectionable street article scheduled for the day after tomorrow. <grin> Raul654 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, open the betting... longer or shorter section of comments than Michael Jackson... --candle•wicke 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Think it's safe to call it longer at this early stage. --candle•wicke 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Good Lord. There will be Hell to pay... J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! I sincerely hope that is on, please please please may that be on the front page!!Willski72 (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh WOW, I'm looking forward to this one! hilarious! Modest Genius talk 03:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought that article was being considered for April Fool's Day. Guess that's being overruled? howcheng {chat} 16:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom and Malleus Fatuorum (the article's primary contributors) both prefer that article not be run on April Fools' Day. However, Parrot has "volunteered a more suitable article, which hopefully will be FA by that time, in Mary Tofts." —David Levy 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was tempted to join in the discussion of Gropecunt, but I couldn't give a shit...oops, another section banned from colleges. -Michael of Lucan (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

and may I say how nice the insect above is? Not my type, I should stress, but there's certainly something attractive about her. Have you any more pictures of her, maybe posing a little? Michael of Lucan (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please no images of women on the front page, please, some of us object to the unveiled image of a female human being. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Difficulties

Please friends, I can not find pages related to Michael Jackson, I have difficulty with the issues to be beginner, my address to contact for answers is <removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbrazill (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See Michael Jackson. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
or indeed Michael Jackson - Michael of Lucan (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Or even the article about the singer. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Norway in Did You Know

Are we going through this whole ordeal again about minute details on Norway being presented as some curious fact that people should know? I think it puts my country in a bad light, and please save the sarcasm. 193.213.19.176 (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue would be better raised at Wikipedia talk:Did you know rather than here. The Main Page doesn't have direct control over what facts get put in DYK. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've copied this thread to WT:DYK#Norway in Did You Know. Please make further comments there, rather than here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, are we going to get this every time we put something related to Norway? :( weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As a change from Ugandan negotiations' (or whatever the Private Eye term was)? (Linking up with previous subject of discussion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it was Ugandan Discussions, and I love PE too, the most recent addition is another classic. Prokhorovka (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I love reading about Norway - my first real girl friend was Norwegian, and the only genuine blonde I have ever been close to. Yes, dear, I confirm she was genuine blonde all over. So, I want to see more Norwegian articles. My guess for the 3,000,000th article is Norwegian Post Offices 1943 - 1985. I can't wait to be proven right. -Michael of Lucan (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson main page

Please can someone put Michael Jackson on main page. It's the least wikipedia can do for the world's best dancer, singer and entertainer ever. --Forsena (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He was. You missed him. --candle•wicke 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
For close to 4 ½ days, to be specific. —David Levy 18:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after spending 4 and a half days on the main page we thought that people might of got the message....guess not!Willski72 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson was on the main page for the four days after he died .You can see the way this was reported in the "in the news" section here
Portal:Current events/2009 June 25
Stadt (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the moment he made his appearance... --candle•wicke 18:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
And he was knocked off by an exploding train... --candle•wicke 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds painful... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
@ Forsena - note that Wikipedia is not a collection of obituaries, and that Jacko wasn't the only death on June 25 either. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This has absolutely nothing to do with this - actually it might - but is Wikipedia crashing again today? It hasn't been right since he died. I've spent half an hour trying to reply to something elsewhere. And this is the third time I've tried to get this message through. --candle•wicke 20:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Finally!!! It saves! (collapses in tears) --candle•wicke 20:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The European servers were down for a little while, everything had to go through Florida. The secure site was still working fine. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Geez people if you dont understand what i'm talking about don't answer. I was talking about his Featured page should be on the main page. And I really think nobody gives a crap about a Prime Minister from a country they never heard of resigned. Put his featured article on main page please, this is least we can do for him. R.I.P Michael we love you --Forsena (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you meant, why didn't you say it? I'm assuming the article will be saved for an anniversary- perhaps his birthday, perhaps the anniversary of his death. I imagine the editors of the article will want to work on it somewhat for a while yet anyway- it's changed fairly significantly since his death. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You could propose it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise for the ignorance of my fellow editors - when you said "can someone put Michael Jackson on main page" they mistakenly thought you were referring to Main page, and responded (correctly) that Michael Jackson had been on the Main page for some time. In hindsight, we all realise that that assumption was incorrect and we should magically have known you were, in fact, talking about a specific but unstated part of the Main page. The telepathic skills of many Wikipedia editors is sorely lacking. This is being addressed by a top-secret research programme, but in the meantime I ask that you state requests clearly, and not leave us guessing what you really mean. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 10:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Note Requests for assigning an FA to the front page for a certain day go to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, not WP:FAC. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I suspect that given that you regularly seem to contribute to Serbia related articles there is a bit of aggressive POV creeping in here (I presume the resignation you were talking about was the PM of Serbia's next door neighbour, Croatia). Your talk page also suggests that you have been involved in edit warring on Eastern European/Balkan/Yugoslav related articles, which furthers my suspicions. As for Michael Jackson, if you want tributes go to a fansite. This is an encyclopaedia and we don't bend the rules just because one person has died. Also, I would point out that per Relativism theory, whilst you feel Jackson's death is notable, others will not, and likewise, whilst you feel the resignation of the Croatian PM is not notable, other will. All we can do is treat them as equally as possible. --Daviessimo (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To most people Michael Jackson was just a good singer, most people did not "love" him. That Prime Minister you mentioned had far more power than Michael Jackson (although perphaps not skill) and is far more important in his country.Willski72 (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if Micheal Jackson was so minded and had called for a socialist revolution in Croatia, the Prime Minister would have been pretty powerless to stop it. MickMacNee (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Celebrities have far more power than politicians, especially when comparing the likes of Michael Jackson to the PM of Croatia. Look what a former model achieved against one of the leaders of the free world... J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Made Gordon Brown look like a right idiot. Although that's not hard these days. MickMacNee (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was Joanna Lumley alone who changed Brown's mind. I'd say the commons defeat he suffered weeks before on the Gurka issue was more important. I'd also state that whilst Jackson may have more power of persuasion, political leaders have more absolute power, but that is an irrelevant point. Jackson has been listed on ITN so unless there is a major development he's not going back on there. All other sections require a defined process to be followed in order to get on the main page - you can't just demand he be put up because you thinks its notable --Daviessimo (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems anyone can make Gordon Brown look like a right idiot at the moment but thats not the point, Michael Jackson doesnt control Nuclear missiles a Navy an airforce and an army, whereas (for better or for worse!) Gordon Brown does.Willski72 (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think if it was properly advertised then it would be possible for Michael Jackson to make the Featured Article slot on the 1 month anniversary of his death, by shear weight of numbers alone. Go for it Forsena, don't listen to some of the rude people here. MickMacNee (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

PS even if Michael Jackson could of set of a socialist revolution in Croatia (which i doubt) it would fizzle out after a few weeks due to lack of sustained support. If he had tried it in the 80s before he made all those rubbish modern songs then things might be different...Willski72 (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, month anniversaries don't count for much. A year, or, even better, decade or century, anniversary would be your best bet. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, discussion on whether / when to schedule Michael Jackson as Today's Featured Article is already underway here. BencherliteTalk 11:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was quite clear when I said Michael Jackson should be on Main Page you don't need telepathic skills to see that there is no words about news of his death (much different than saying news about Michael Jackson's death should be on main page), but unfortunately I wasn't so I'm sorry about that. TFOWR, spare me of your pathetic humor, I don't think it is very nice to make fun of me especially because we're all going through a very hard period because of death of Michael Jackson.Daviessimo you are assuming that I'm a POV aggressive editor because I contribute to Serbia-related articles? Your suspicions are almost as pathetic as his humor is. I was stating the fact that resignation of a PM of a small country most people never heard of isn't more important then the death of the world's best singer who has ten times more fans than of that country's population and who's one album was sold in 110 million copies. If Serbian PM resigned I would say the same. Most of things you said had nothing with MJ, but I will answer anyway, it was not a Balkan-related warring it was reverting destructive and insulting edits of an albanian editor. No, relativism theory doesn't suggest that resignation of a PM that maybe 1% of Wikipedia's visitors have heard of and death of Michael Jackson should be treated equally, if you think so you misunderstood the concept of the theory. Willski72 based on what do you suggest that one pm of a small country has more "power" than Michael Jackson? Only one Michael Jackson's album (Thriller) sold 110 million copies, that's approx 25 times more than the size of the country of that PM. In opinion of most PM you're talking about has no power compared to such an epic man like Michael Jackson. If so he wouldn't resign. Willski72 I doubt that he is more important in Croatia, but even if so, this is not Croatia's Wikipedia but World's wikipedia. I really don't care that you find his songs rubbish just to see his performance once is a proof how epic he was. The fact he got title for best singer and entertainer of the Millenium means much more than your opinion.--Forsena (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh me me me! (what about me, why was I not capitalised?) I'm collecting misunderstandings and allegations of badness and thought I was on a roll - darn it! :D (Note: This is my attempt to outdo TFOWR in the pathetic humour department - how did I do?) Anyway we're all emotional, it's very sad (there's even a section above which references his songs) and we're all having sleepless nights thinking about the suffering of his family. Our nights are divided between crying about Michael Jackson, the capsized sailors, Pakistani soldiers, lost plane passengers, drowning Europeans, blown up train victims... ;( it's been really, really tough on us all lately I can assure you of that. --candle•wicke 18:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this will appear where I want it to (I have only edited a couple of times)....but what a discussion. Hilarious. I was amazed that Jackson got featured other than a news clip on the date of death. All this affected public grief is ridiculous. Get a grip people, there's genuinely important stuff happening in the world - but this poor messed up kid passing away isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.165.88 (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Me and TWOFR have just been shot down in flames!! You were lucky to get out of that one alive Candlewicke! To Forsena i didnt say ALL his songs were rubbish, just his modern ones. It seems i underestimated the fanatical support he still has, i now realise that he could of probably pulled off a revolution. When you hear comments like "how epic he was" and "world's best dancer, singer and entertainer ever" and "Michael we love you", i now fully believe that many people would take a bullet for him! Nevertheless apart from making anguished fans commit suicide he had no real power over people, he could not raise or lower taxes, declare a state of emergency etc. Cheer up Forsena, at least we didnt mention all those obviously untrue, vile and disgusting claims brought against him over the years.Willski72 (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilski I would gladly take more than one bullet for him, I would do anything so he could live again, anything! He was NOT a politician he was a singer how on Earth would he lower taxes or anything like that? He donated millions and millions to help poor children. More than any/most politicians did. --Forsena (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If I was being harsh I could say that he also spent millions on a fairytale home to fiddle with children in, then run into fantastic amounts of debt. But I won't. Oops! Just because you love Michael Jackson doesn't mean that a website you frequent should erect a shrine to the man. Some PM isn't more (or less) important than Jackson to our Main Page - it's just another news story that happened more recently and pushed him off ITN. ITN has a fixed length, every story will eventually be pushed off the bottom of it. We're not going to rewrite some policy for a pop singer, however good/famous. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
He earned millions of dollars because of his epic songs that are still popular and amazing dancing style. He didn't spend all the money on himself he gave millions and millions to poor people, to many organizations helping poor children. He also performed a lot of concerts for poor children earning no money to himself. But wait you expected him to keep his millions in a bank? What's wrong with a man who earned his money fairly to buy himself a more-than-deserved home? Many celebrities who had less money bought dozens of bigger ranches some even hundreds and weren't criticized and you criticize Michael because of one? I bet you wouldn't live in a small apartment if you had so much money. He was acquitted understand? Acquitted! It was all proven to be lies in which those boys and their parents were to earn money and media cooperated trying to make Michael be the evil guy, Michael wouldn't have hurt a fly, he loved children in fact he was a big child himself with a pure soul, unlike most spoiled celebrities. I wasn't asking anything else but to put his featured article on main page for some time, not because I love him, because he deserves it. The world, the media, his father caused him so much bad things, and still he didn't hate them. I bet most of you who insult him now, tried to imitate Moonwalking when you were little --Forsena (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Careful Vanderdecken! You're mentioning those "obviously untrue, vile and digusting claims" that are guaranteed to wind up the Michael Jackson fanatics to fever pitch!Willski72 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Vanderdecken, have you no honor? How can you say such lies and nonsense about man who recently died. Even if you hate him can't you show little respect and honor from your side? I learned from him not to hate otherwise I would be answering in much worse language. Because of people like you he was in debts, media talked all the worst untrue BS about him which was later proven to be false. You obviously know nothing about him except what you heard in the media so can you please save that crap for yourself? For God sake even his home you are talking about is named Neverland! --Forsena (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

'we're all going through a very hard period because of death of Michael Jackson' wow, are we? Funny that, I never noticed; seems to me that most people actually don't care, or in many cases would prefer the news coverage to just shut up already. I'm fairly sure that more than 1% of our readers have heard of Croatia. Finally, if you're bizarrely accusing Vanderdecken of only knowing things about him from the media, does that mean you have some personal contact or some other information that wasn't conferred through some form of media? This discussion has gone WAY off topic and does NOT belong on T:MP; take it to WP:TFAR (which I notice you have not bothered to nominate the article at). Modest Genius talk 21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here hates Michael Jackson, we just dont worship him as a Prophet or demi-god. He had 4 days in the news and there is a discussion on him being put on the featured article. However the proper channels have to be consulted, no man is so great that they are above Wikipedia rules, not even Michael Jackson.Willski72 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Wikipedia is the new 'measure' of fame, in as much that if John Lennon was alive today, he'd be saying the Beatles were bigger than Wikipedia --Daviessimo (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I just asked a featured article I asked for little respect but guess that some nerd rules are more important. --Forsena (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You asked "Please can someone put Michael Jackson on main page." and then when we failed to understand that you actually meant "featured article" you complained "Geez people if you dont understand what i'm talking about don't answer." Respect cuts both ways. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
More significantly, people explained to you what you had to do if you wanted to get Michael Jackson on TFA. Despite, this, you made NO attempt to contact Raul654 or go thorough the proper subpage. It's unclear if Raul654, who is the only one who could put this as TFA is even aware of this discussion and even if he was, I don't see any reason why he should have listened to someone, who couldn't be bothered to follow a simple system even when it was clearly pointed out to him and instead prefered to do a whole bunch of whining on this page Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I hate him. No, seriously, Willski and Modest Genius are right - some celebrity died, great, but we are not altering Main Page policy just because you like him. His article is not a featured article - work it to FA status, nominate it, get it passed, then get it put on the Main Page. We are not going to fast-track it for you or anyone, so quit your whining. And everybody else, I know this is plain hypocrisy given my last comment here, but enough with the troll-baiting. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, Michael Jackson is a featured article. Modest Genius talk 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All the better, now it just has to be nominated and past.Willski72 (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I find Zelaya far more interesting than some nutjob singer. I spent several months in Honduras and found the lack of admiration for money hungry weirdos quite comforting. Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thriller on July 7

I have a question. Why is the image for the featured article a picture of Michael, as opposed to the actual cover art of Thriller?Tenniru (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The album cover is not free. We no longer use non-free images on the main page. —David Levy 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Generally, we only use fair-use images on article pages. But Fair-Use images should never be used in any other namespace.  Marlith (Talk)  17:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me that finds this selection massively biased? Oh well... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The overwhelming willpower of Forsena and co mean that we are defenceles in stopping the Michael Jackson wave washing through Wikipedia and destroying all in its wake!!!Willski72 (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Willski's actually quite close to the truth here. Unless Thriller was chosen coincidentially, I can't see any policy reason to place this on the main page. Seems to be a case of "consensus" by lots of people wanting something to happen. Not a good thing. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I take that back. I see today is a good date, as it is his funeral today. J Milburn (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
As J Milburn has stated, today's his funeral and this is by no means coincidental, and yes, it's fairly normal to choose articles associated with a person on a day significant to that person (or otherwise associated with a time in some way). This is similar to the way we had two featured articles on last year's American presidential election day, of the two main candidates; and many other similar occurances. There is even a request page for the FA director to consider such requests. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to the picture for Thriller article. I know cover is not used because it is a non-free image but why is there a policy to not have a low res non-free fair use image on main page to begin with? As far as i can tell we are still only referring to the context. Main page is technically still not a gallery... which to my understanding is where we can not use a non-free image. Ashishg55 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why is a Main Page section missing an illustrative image? might answer your question. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This just about sums up my feelings on this subject. I bet this isn't the last Jacko story we see on the main page in the coming months! --LookingYourBest (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you require a facial tissue? Wikipedia is not made of paper so I can only offer you the link with which to wipe yourself... --candle•wicke 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, you can open this image and wipe your eyes across the screen. --candle•wicke 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, sorry, but I take back my "isn't this a bit biased"... first day of the Ashes and we get an English (i.e. not Australian) cricketer... Good luck Aussies? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

South African, I think?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
After reading this, I must say that I don't hate MJ. I hate the people who worship and "love" him 80.123.210.172 (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Pietersen plans for England (including is in this test), even if he was born and grew up in South Africa Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Article about the Main Page

How about an article ABOUT the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.146.34 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

homepage? Modest Genius talk 04:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It's possible he meant about Wikipedia's main page. Dreaded Walrus t c 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Or she. --AdamSommerton (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If it doesn't exist already, I think there should be a section of the Wikipedia article dealing with the functions of the main page. This does not mean to let such a section devolve into subsections like "2009 Wikipedia "Gropecunt Lane" Controversy"...NeutronTaste (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
But we at least need a "Wikipedia Main Page in popular culture" sub-section. --AdamSommerton (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible double-standards on what is and is not appropriate for the Main Page

A month or so ago, I nominated Cunt (video game) for DYK. Hook, source, and everything was verified, but was deemed as "inappropriate for the Main Page"; see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47#Appropriate for the main page?. Fast forward to today, where Today's Featured Article, Gropecunt Lane is proudly displayed in plain sight for the entire world to view. I am failing to see the difference in appropriateness in the two and think that a double-standard is being applied. Perhaps we should nail down more, across the board, what is and is not appropriate for the Main Page. MuZemike 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I see your point, Gropecunt Lane is rather less explicit - referring to prostitution but not sex acts themselves. That DYK hook sailed rather closer to the wind. Personally, I see no reason not to run both of them, but I can also see why a line might be drawn that ran between them. Modest Genius talk 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me now whether or not the DYK is run, just trying to point this out. MuZemike 00:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (twice) I viewed that hook and it appeared to be a lot more explicit that Gropecunt Lane which (in my opinion) handles itself with more sensitivity. But that's just me. --candle•wicke 00:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not always consistent - if seven people weigh in on a 50/50 issue, 1% of the time the "vote" will be unanimously for, and 1% of the time it will be unanimously against. The policy is that it isn't censored. But there's something of a glut of DYK's, and we're often seeing objections like "we just had one like that" that don't usually apply in other decisions. There's a great hurry to pick a few out of the crowd for each new day, and sometimes unfair arguments are used. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • ... that players in the Flash game Cunt take control of a penis that shoots semen at an enemy vagina?
I fail to see how just because they share one word they are equally inappropriate. The DYK hook was explicit, Gropecunt Lane is not. The word 'cunt' was not the issue, it was how it was used. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Double that. If you follow the talk archive link MuZemike gave, you can see that the main objection is not to the word "cunt" per se, but to the graphic nature and bawdy subject matter of the article. We even kicked around the idea of using a piped hook that wouldn't have the word "cunt" in it at all, but even that would not have been acceptable. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While I do not object to having all factually true information available on Wikipedia, there is a question of taste with regard to what is featured on the main page. As mentioned above, you could illustrate the use of words to connote the uses for a street using other examples that do not include, along with a link to its very own page, a word used to disrespect women. Re: double standards: I would object to a featured article that prominently featured a word used to disrespect men as well. (Though the English language does seem to contain few of these words in comparison to the variety of ways to specially insult women.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.163.89 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Or people could just stop being so overly sensitive about absolutely everything. It's a word. It's also the name of a street. We're in the business of spreading knowledge. This article is both factual and interesting. So perhaps people could spend a little more time expanding their knowledge and a little less time crying about things that really don't harm them in any way whatsoever. That's my view of the situation, and this from someone who has a... well, you get the point. لennavecia 18:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to put this front and center before thousands of child readers?

Please note that Wikipedia is not censored and that there is a content disclaimer before commenting in this thread. You'll likely get the same answer. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

appears to have been derived as a compound of the words "grope" and "cunt".

They have to learn some time... --candle•wicke 00:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
chances are they already know those words if they are on internet. Ashishg55 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)...and their responsible parents or guardians won't be allowing them unfettered access to a website that parades WP:CENSOR, surely? Or was the IP talking about those poor children without responsible parents or guardians, but who do have internet access? Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 00:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This is what the article was about, really. In an earlier era these words were just words, vulgar (i.e. common) descriptions of body parts and activities. Then people decided that nice gentlemen and ladies didn't talk about these things. Later they decided that they could talk about those things, but they just can't use those specific words. And now people exposed to more linguistic diversity are coming back to the idea that there was never anything wrong with these words. The good news is that if we keep it up, in a few decades your kids won't be able to find a vulgar word on the Internet... because there won't be any word considered vulgar. See you in the Garden of Eden.  ;) Wnt (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, think of the fictional children! Sceptre (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored ESTEMSHORNtalkSign 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. --Allen3 talk 01:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by the children, I'm bothered by my access to wikipedia. My employer (and I'm sure they're not the only one) blocks websites that use profanity. With all the options available for featured article, I'm bemused that "Gropecunt Lane" was chosen. It smacks a little of "look I can use naughty words and you can't stop me."123.208.72.170 (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ur employer blocks the words grope and cunt... even if they are on wikipedia... u might wanna tell ur employer to find a smarter blocking software or just switch jobs. Ashishg55 (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a lot of people find the word "cunt" offensive. I'm not sure that it was a wise choice for the mainpage. It is fair to say that there are people who might consider the word "cunt" to be the most offensive word in our language.

My personal view is it should not appear without a direct request from the user.

I find it disappointing that those responsible have not considered the feelings of others before deciding to publish this article in such a prominent position. I add that I am not offended by it, however I can safely say that in my experience, most people I know would be. 150.101.154.90 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly surprizing: people who go so far as to create accounts on Wikipedia are less likely to be opposed so fundamentally to one of our core policies. Even if they are, most will know that complaining here will not change anything. Algebraist 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Cunt and vagina refer to the exact same body part. It's just an accident of lexical history that one is considered inappropriate and the other appropriate. --Nricardo (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it is a well-written article that is worthy of its place in WP, I am suspicious that its placement on the main page is the result of a prank to exploit WP policies to get the word "cunt" there. We all know that is a word that is going to be regarded as offensive by a lot of readers -- placing it on the main page goes beyond WP:NOTCENSORED and suggests that slavish adherence to policy or making a point about censorship trumps consideration for readers. Duncan Keith (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AFP - really. Crafty (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Being on the main page is a testament to the amount of work that some contributors have done in order to get this article to featured status. Surely it would be a dis-service to allow hard work to be omitted from the main page merely because some people find the word "cunt" offensive. How can anyone think it is a prank? Someone got this to featured article status and it should have a equal opportunity of being put on the main page as any other FA.Dark verdant (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Duncan Keith. My understanding is that Wikipedia operates, in no small part, upon achieving an agreement. If there were to be a straightforward vote upon whether this is a suitable subject for the Main Page, I would vote NO. Whether it should exist as an article is another matter (it should). When the daily email appeared in my inbox here at work, I involuntarily blushed & deleted it immediately, wondering if it was the work of vandals. I am not a prude, and I find the concept of society's attitudes towards a word quite fascinating, but I do detest this word. I find something altogether immature about using this for TFA, even if it technically satisfies other criteria. Just seems like some fun for a bunch of anarchists. Careful With That Axe, Eugene |Talk 08:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment. Wouldn't normally do this. For me, Wikipedia is about learning. I learned something new today that I doubt I would have learned ever in my lifetime if it hadn't been on the Main page. While I was shocked and surprised (although I'm never one to take offense at mere words), I am also extremely grateful. Thank you. GDallimore (Talk) 08:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least this has had some benefit :) However, there are plenty FAs that likely will never get onto the main page: 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) is one example. This was a pretty controversial one too, but it's quite amazing how people are so ignorant of WP:CENSOR - it's not like we don't flaunt it. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have issues with WP:CENSOR since it is irrelevant in light of the all-pervading principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and unhelpful in muddying the waters when people want to include objectionable/offensive but otherwise unencyclopedic content. Maybe one day I'll have the courage to challenge those aspects of the policy I disagree with and objections to articles like this can be a positive "see WP:What Wikipedia is" rather than the negative "see WP:What Wikipedia is not". GDallimore (Talk) 09:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to go back to that point about only people without accounts have complained. Thats because the first reaction of everyone with an account is "HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!" and then "This is even funnier than when they had the nudey lady on the front page!!". Personally i think it was a good idea naming the streets occupation, to stop "the children!" wondering down there at night!Willski72 (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm 12 years old, and what is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.152.4 (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Marble cake probably.©Geni 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I had imagined, perhaps incorrectly that it didn't matter if one had an account or not to make comment. I feel my comments have been constructive in nature and were made to further debate on the issue. Some of the other comment has been great I must say. If someone feels I'd be better of making my comments as a user please feel free to say why on my talk page. 150.101.154.90 (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I know wikipedia is not censored, but it seems pretty hypocritical that Jenna Jameson has been vetoed from ever appearing on the main page while links to cunt are deemed ok. For that matter, see the featured images Howcheng has vetoed from appearing - is a picture of a defaecating seagull so repulsive but this is not? 82.28.130.10 (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Further down this page there's a comment that a video game called "Cunt" was blocked from appearing in "Did you know?" on the main page. I think there's a reasonable difference between, on the one hand, a pornographic actress (or a provocatively titled videogame) and, on the other hand, a street name from antiquity. I suppose the benchmark I apply might be how I would treat the subject with a 10-year old relative - I'd have no problem discussing "Gropecunt Street" ("a street named after two very old Anglo-Saxon words, which are now considered very rude but back then were simply normal, everyday words"), but I would prefer not to have to discuss Jenna Jameson or "Cunt - the video game in which a penis fires at a vagina".
Picking up on 150.101.154.90's point, IP comments are welcome and I personally don't think you should feel obliged to register a username. I think this debate has highlighted that most regular editors take WP:CENSOR for granted ("everyone knows about it!") but the reality is that many readers are surprised at the things you sometimes find in an encyclopaedia (any encyclopaedia, to be fair - I can remember looking up all kinds of "dirty" stuff in school encyclopaedias many moons ago). There does tend to be some degree of self-censorship when it comes to main page images: there are in-jokes referenced further down this page about insects - these refer to the controversy over a main page image of an insect devouring its mate, if I remember correctly. So I suspect the guano-spreading seagull image was never going to make the main page ;-)
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some computer systems have crude filers that block certain combinations of letters. This is very inconvenient for the Lincolnshire seaside resort of S****horpe. Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: said town is nowhere near the sea. Sceptre (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Can this please be removed from the front page? This website is an excellent educational tool for children but there's no way i'm allowing mine to access it whilst there are very strong swear words on the front page. Did someone think they were being clever and controversial selecting this as a front page article? Grow up. --Rcclh (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It is grown up. Read the article. I did and learned things I didn't know before and, as a previous poster has also stated, would not have were this not a featured article. This website is an excellent educational tool for adults, too, and I don't see why I should have what I can learn dictated by others. Bazza (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Spectacularly missed my point. I didn't say the article wasn't grown-up. The article is quite interesting and educational. I was referring to the selection of it on the front page. --Rcclh (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • No need to be quite as sarcastic: you missed my point. If excellent articles such as this are not on the front page, how do I know they're there? I don't go looking for information like this - it comes to me via featured articles on the front page. That's what it's there for - to draw people's attention to deserving articles rather than have them tucked away. Bazza (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Come off it, this article is only on the front page because it's got swear words in it. It's like Wikipedia' front page selection committee was taken over by year 9 students for the day. It is an interesting article but not that significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting you allow your children unrestricted access to websites? Any time my (10-year old) niece is online at my house I always surf for her. Having said that, I'd have no problem with her reading this particular article, but then I'd be more than happy to explain what "cunt" meant in Anglo-Saxon times, and it would be a good opportunity to explain that the word's meaning has changed and it is an entirely inappropriate word to use today. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No i'm not suggesting that, but carry on making baseless assumptions if you want. I would suggest most parents would not want their children seeing or hearing this word. Putting on the front page, knowing it would cause offence is just being controversial for the sake of it. Congratulations on alienating a significant percentage of your readership. --Rcclh (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Which part of my reply do you consider to be a baseless assumption? Is it a baseless assumption to assume that responsible parents/guardians don't allow minors to surf without supervision? Supervision prevents children seeing this. I have no concerns about alienating our readership - those readers who want to learn can continue to do so, and we may just have highlighted some important parenting issues for some (ex-)readers too. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The baseless assumption was that i allow my children unrestricted access to the web. I'd have thought that was obvious as I didn't say anything of the sort. --Rcclh (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You said "there's no way i'm allowing mine to access [Wikipedia] whilst there are very strong swear words on the front page". I must be missing something here because I can't see why "very strong swear words" on the front page would prevent the rest of the site being any less educationally valuable than before - if you are monitoring what pages your children view. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 10:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
So i said nothing of the sort then. Thanks. Anyway i've read further down and the user Geofferic has put it in a nutshell ie the article is fine, in general wikipedia shouldn't be censored, but that article was inappropriate for the front page. Someone thought they were being clever and oh so controversial. Next time, just apply common sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs)
That's not what I said - I quoted you verbatim, yet remain without an answer. What prevented you allowing your children access to Wikipedia's content - if your children's access was being monitored by a responsible parent or guardian? A fear that the "contamination" on the main page might, by osmosis, leak through to articles while they were being read? Really, I'm struggling to see why the featured article would cause you concern about other content. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 12:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If Rcclh has a problem he can always take it up with Raul, and where is the evidence for "alienating a signifincant percentage of [our] readership", the page had less than 1,000 views a day, which will increase for three days but Wikipedia is not responsible for the parenting of children, parents are. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Bit late now isn't it. You're all missing my point. I never said anywhere it wasn't my responsibility for what my children read. Wikipedia can put what it wants on the front page. But putting obviously offensive articles on the front page for shock value is just childish. It's not big or clever and i now (or rather yesterday) have to stop my children reading it when previously it was educational. --Rcclh (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Ummm, the mainpage gets around 6,000,000 pageviews a day[39]. The TFA gets a large bump: Gropecunt went from 300/day to 200,000 pageviews yesterday, the cricketer Pietersen went from 600/day to 30,000 on its mainpage day. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Its seen as "risque", pushing the boundaries into a new dimension, seeing the wild from a new and fresh perspective, and a lot of other modern art crap.Willski72 (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What is worse is that the IP posted this topic at the top in an attempt to get attention. If you have a problem talk to Raul. Also this is going to be on the front page for the next three days, so I'd get used to it. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares of course, but I'll just add that I'm offended by it and will not be visiting the front page of Wikipedia again. I'll only Google in to specific pages from here on in. Maybe I'm an old fuddy duddy, but I don't watch modern TV for much the same reasons. There is no reason to put such a thing on the front page of a top 10 in the world web site. It's disgusting. Oh, and the reason I'm posting an 'anonymous' comment is because I see no reason whatsoever to create yet another internet based account to (heretofore) correct spelling mistakes/whatever on Wikipedia pages. If you think it makes my views less important then that's another point against Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.150.13 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We will miss you, those two edits you made in January 2007 were such an important part of Wikipedia. But if street names offend then don't go to S****horpe, and nearly every street sign has a **** on it. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
@the IP - your views are valued as much as any. Someone has worked incredibly hard to get Gropecunt up to the status it is at the minute, and that achievement has been honoured to the extreme by displaying the article on the main page. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
what's disgusting? it's not talking about anything offensive. it's historically accurate. 86.139.209.179 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Those with children should remember that ANYONE can edit Wikipedia. While the front page may be protected, once you click on the article, you're at the mercy of whatever people choose to put into it. It could be filthy, it could be disturbing, it could be a guide to doing something troublesome, and it can include links to a porno site, a virus-infected site, a phishing site, pedophile site, etcetera. If this one word reminds parents that Wikipedia is not a neat little thing under the control of some responsible adult, so much the better. Your kids should be prepared to deal with four letter words long before they are ready to handle the other threats. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually if there are bots which will catch those types of links and most outgoing links to pornography sites are already blocked. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Innocent children need to know which streets they can and cannot go down, there are now many instances in Britain of quite nice sounding streets being ruled by thugs and chavs etc. If we followed the old custom children would understand not to go down these streets "hmm scumbag avenue, i might pass on going down this street". Its the same with prostitution, to a small child "red light district" seems enticing not offputting.Willski72 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Using Scunthorpe as an example, we'd have "Handbag Theft Street" (handbag-carriers should avoid), "Mattress Lane" (children should avoid) and "Not Changed In Thirty Years Avenue" (useful for students of recent history). It occurs to me that names could convey dual meanings - for example Glasgow's red light district could contain "Smack Street" - perfect for punters seeking corporal punishment or heroin. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I use the word cunt. I have no issue with others using it. I do not find it objectionable per se.
However, I don't expect it to be the first word I read when I come here.
I think the decision to place the article on the front page is both unproductive and purile. A bad decision that does Wikipedia no credit. As another contributor has already said, it smacks of "look I can use naughty words and you can't stop me". leaky_caldron (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The way i see it its more of a "wikipedia gives equal merit to all well written articles w/o objectionable content". denying this article to appear on main page just because it has words that some ppl dont like is just pure censoring and nothing else. And it has already been mentioned a 100 times that Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED. Ashishg55 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored; when we censor something like the penis/vagina game we call it appropriateness; when we censor something like racial epithets the question doesn't even come up. By the way, tomorrow's featured article is John Calvin; I wonder if he would have us burned to the stake? Art LaPella (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read this whole string, and the most offensive thing I've read is that Jenna Jameson has been banned from ever appearing on the main page. Is this true? If it is then it's an outrage! Rreagan007 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually fully agree with Rreagan007. I did not know that there was some ban on Jenna Jameson. Can someone verify that or point to discussion where this ban was made. Because banning a person based on their profession is a absurd. That will just show that wikipedia has something against adult film industry... Ashishg55 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson#Jenna Jameson featured? Raul subsequently asked for some feedback on this talk page on the possibility of TFAing it. I have seen nothing more recent. - BanyanTree 22:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There was this comment in November 2008 and this in January 2009. Search for more. Also, it has been suggested that 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) is unlikely to see the mainpage, but nobody has nom'd either of them, afaik. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple observations from an ex-newspaper editor whose current job includes listening to and processing sexual-harassment complaints:
• From a linguistic and historical point of view, the article was interesting — I had no idea these slang terms had been around so long in English.
• It's placement as the "lead story" was surprising to me and I'm sure shocking to a significant proportion of readers. For a website that speaks to a very broad, general and multicultural audience, such placement was inappropriate. I am not in favor of censorship, but I do think the information could have been presented in some less prominent way.
• In the U.S., at least, a majority of females would find the word cunt offensive if directed at them. Of course nearly everyone knows of it and its meaning, but it is certainly not a term for polite conversation.
• Gropecunt, the earliest known use of which is in about 1230, appears to have been derived as a compound of the words "grope" and "cunt."
— Ya think?
Sca (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"For a website that speaks to a very broad, general and multicultural audience, such placement was inappropriate." This is exactly the point. We speak to such a broad audience, we can't remove everything that would offend some of them. To quote Steve Hughes- "I'm offended when I see boybands for God's sake. But what am I gonna do? Call the cops?" J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am noticing a pattern from most complainants which is very low mainspace contirbutions and very high talk contributions, if these editors have such concern for the encyclopaedia they may want to contribute to it, rather than talking about contributing, then they will have a better chnace of shaping what happens. As it stands this page is on the front page for 24hrs, then on the previous list for 48hrs, and it's not going anywhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"For a website that speaks to a very broad, general and multicultural audience, such placement was inappropriate. I am not in favor of censorship, but I do think the information could have been presented in some less prominent way."
The time to make such an objection would have been before the decision was made.
"In the U.S., at least, a majority of females would find the word cunt offensive if directed at them."
So what? GideonF (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, shall we start to make other generalisations? What's going to offend the majority of men in Iran? What's going to offend offend the majority of men in the Vatican City? J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think most English speakers would be offended at being called a cunt. That's why the main page does not, and never will, say "Oy! Reader! You're a cunt!" Algebraist 14:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
When I was a child the first thing I'd do when I found a new encyclopedia was look up "vagina". Presumably today's youth have similar interests and will not tarry long on Vagina Lane when they can go straight to the Real McCoy. --Sean 14:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Ashishg55 has an excellent point. Think about it - there are literally millions of articles to choose from and the staff of this website SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to put this as the MAIN article obviously showing the world how important it is to flex your first amendment muscles. How crude can we go here people? I'm sure the people deciding to put this as the main article don't have 7-10 yr old children in their family. If so - how would THEY explain to their kids what those definitions are? I'm sorry, but you need to draw the line somewhere, and this article is simply tasteless. I think the national news needs to know about what's going on here. Come on people - grow up.Zul32 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There aren't millions of articles to choose from. An article must be a featured article to be on the main page and there are only a little over 2500 of those. Plus, articles that have been on the main page before are no longer eligible, so there are actually less than 2000 articles to choose from. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
OEZ NOEZ! People are using naughty language! On the internet! Sounds like Zul32 is the one with growing up to do. GideonF (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Here we go again...
  • The list of articles to choose from is limited to articles good enough to have achieved "featured article" status.
  • I'm sure I have no idea whether the person responsible for choosing this particular featured article has 7-10 year old children; speaking as a responsible guardian of a 10-year old I (a) have no problem having her view this particular featured article, and (b) never allow her to surf the Internet unattended. Wikipedia is not a free child-minding service, and isn't censored for the benefit of irresponsible parents.
  • What national news? I doubt the Scottish news would be that interested. The English news maybe - "Groupecunt Lane" was a common placename in England.
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
whoa, my point was never against the article or it being chosen for main page... unless u were being sarcastic (then its ok.) Ashishg55 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If Zul32 was being sarcastic then I should apologise - but the same issues are coming up again and again. It's almost as if people aren't bothering to read the responses before posting their "OMG! Won't someone please think of the children!" missives ;-) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, it's inappropriate. It's an interesting fact but anyone responsible wouldn't put it up front like this. To do so lowers Wikipedia to the tabloid standards we have to endure in the uk. ---Rodge500 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Think of the children? Rather fallacious, I must say, given that there are much more serious things children are browsing on the internet. At a young age, if they don't know about it, they won't understand it; at an older age, they're bound to know about it, so censorship is like putting a bear trap in a deciduous tree. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If you think it is inappropriate then you should take it up with Raul, or even Jimbo. And even a tabloid wouldn't call the "uk". Darrenhusted (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of any tabloids in the UK that don't asterisk the word cunt. The only newspapers I've ever seen it printed in are broadsheets.GideonF (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am one of the biggest supporters of WP:NOTCENSORED but I'd just like to point out that this article rendered Wikipedia unavailable to anyone in our college today (the filtering system scans text and links on the target page) unless they go to the page they want by typing the correct URL in. Given that our Internet provider - who also provides the filtering - serves seven English counties, that's probably a couple of thousand schools and colleges that mostly couldn't use it as a resource today (and of course I can't speak for the rest of the UK, or any other country for that matter). The fact that no-one actually considered this is astounding (and to be honest, pretty incompetent). Black Kite 15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You may want to take that up with your college, not us. Wikipedia is not your college admin. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
...you could refer your college's ISP to Scunthorpe problem which documents this very issue ;-) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but that's exactly the point. Just the title wouldn't have triggered the filter (Scunthorpe problem avoidance). However "cunt" was used on its own later in the lead. If that had been in the main article but had been omitted from the main page leader, there wouldn't have been a problem, and that's what I'm amazed no-one thought of. Oh and Darrenhusted, don't you dare fucking patronise me. This is a serious point for what is supposed to be an educational resource. Black Kite 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"don't dare"? I already did. And my point is that it is not Wikipedia's problem, it is your college's, take it up with them. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Patronising and unable to grasp a point that wouldn't unduly tax a five year old, that's quite a combination. Well done. It is completely Wikipedia's problem in that it didn't consider how putting such an article on the front page might compromise many people's ability to actually read the encyclopedia, which I would have thought was the idea of it, wouldn't you? Black Kite 16:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
BK, take it up over at FA, and talk to Raul. Clearly your college does not trust its students, that is not the fault of Wikipedia, it is an issue for your college admins and your college's students. Nothing can be done here, and whining won't change it. Gropecunt is on the front page for sixty more hours. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You go to a college that censors words? I'm glad I never studied there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I teach at one, and whilst I'm in no way a supporter of censorship, this isn't censorship - filters that are triggered by keywords are used in pretty much 100% of educational establishments in the UK - in fact we're legally obliged to use them - because otherwise we'd be in serious trouble when parents find out their kids have been surfing porn all day. And surprise surprise, "cunt" is one of those trigger words. Black Kite 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
So complain to your service provider, who may be blocking access to an educational site. My access isn't blocked, because I understand the meaning of personal responsibility. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Myself and 99% of my students understand it as well, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to use the filter, for the reason mentioned above. Anyway, it's a moot point now. School's out for the day, and the link will have vanished tomorrow ("Gropecunt" will still be there, but as I said above, since the link to cunt will have vansihed there won't be a problem). Black Kite 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Lets not turn this into some street fight... and again WP is not Censored so censoring a word (that is simply descirbing the aricle) so wikipedia does not get blocked will probably never be accepted. That is same as deleting articles about democracy so china doesnt block wikipedia. Ashishg55 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not the article title itself that's triggering educational filters, it's the link to cunt later in the lead. Without that, there wouldn't be a problem. Black Kite 16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, why is it a WP problem. The project is working just fine. Your complaint should be to your ISP. They're the ones preventing you, an adult, reading things on the Internet. --WebHamster 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, since this page appears to have turned into St.Gropecunt's Home For The Terminally Unable To Grasp The Point, I think I'll give up. Black Kite 16:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • You are saying that by having cunt on the front page then your college won't let your students view the front page of Wikipedia today. We are saying, not our problem. Wikipedia (and those in it) cannot be concerned that your college may not allow your students to view certain pages because they have naughty words on. Your college needs to find a better way to filter its pages, it is not our concern how your college stops your students looking at porn, but if the only method they have is blocking the letters c-u-n-t in that order then they need to find a better way. It is not our concern. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Should we refrain from using the word 'democracy' in case that triggers filters in, say, China? It is not Wikipedia's job to ensure that its content passes your filters. Modest Genius talk 17:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The concerns here are pretty silly given that a high proportion of visiting kids look up "naughty" articles on here anyway. Just check out the top 100 searches. And this isn't even a "naughty" article. Cunt is a very offensive word to many but we are not censored and the article has historical significance. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see anyone explain what actual harm could come to a child upon reading the word "cunt" in this academic sense. Especially as they can simultaneously learn the etymology (also learn what etymology means) of that word. So can someone please explain to a father of two girls what the actual harm is when caused by this word (or any word for that matter)? --WebHamster 12:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit break

Would you people kindly calm down? Running an article on a historic curiosity does not mean the main page has become Page Three. Come on.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


I’m amused that I’m being painted as favoring censorship. I actually have posted at my work station the text of the First Amendment (which, by the way, applies to laws limiting “publication” in its various forms; public speech by individuals is another matter).
I was trying to inject a calm voice of reason. What’s so threatening to free expression in suggesting different placement of a text that some, perhaps many, people undoubtedly will find offensive and off-putting?
Again, personally I found the article interesting, but I think it’s placement was someone’s idea of how to grab attention. And it is entertaining to see how people bring differing views with such vehemence to an issue like this. Chill.
Sca (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You should really take that up over at TFA and talk to Raul. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just wondering about how many of the closed-minded complainants also wrote to the FCC complaining about Ms Jackson's nipple?
All I can see is lots of people deliberately looking to be offended. I wonder what the statistics are for the number of people killed or maimed because of the use of "Gropecunt Lane" on the main page, or even how many minors have become irretrievably damaged mentally by seeing a 'swear' word. Grow up people. It's just a word. In this case an interesting one. Sheesh. --WebHamster 16:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought I'd replied to your previous post, above, but it turns out I didn't so I'll repeat the broad thrust (ooh er!) here. Amongst all the "won't someone please think of the children!" posts there are a few that raise serious issues in a thoughtful way - yours was one of them. Except the part about how the compound phrase evolved - that caused a coffee-keyboard-impact-issue... but that's another matter entirely ;-)
In particular I thought your point about placement was well made: I happen to disagree, but mainly because I can't yet think of a way to advertise excellent articles like this without placing them "front and centre". Black Kite touches on a related aspect of this - ISPs crudely filtering based on "cunt". I think these ISPs deserve brickbats, but it's something we as a community should be aware ISPs will do badly - and we should plan accordingly. Maybe something replacing the featured article's "teaser text" with something reading "Today's featured article contains material that may offend. It has been chosen on the basis of interest and educational value, but some readers may find some of the content offensive." Just thinking aloud here, how we could handle similar featured articles in the future...
Anyway... this issue seems to polarise people more than it should. I don't consider you an evil-wielder-of-the-blue-pencil, any more than I'd consider myself a corrupter-of-youth ;-)
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this issue would be very complicated, if it weren't for one particular guideline called Wikipedia:Profanity (which someone already mentioned soon into this discussion). You don't even need to read past the first paragraph, which is as follows:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. (This is also found at the last paragraph of WP:CENSORED.)

Is it then too farfetched to extrapolate this guideline to the Main Page, and realize that this article should not have been used as a Featured Article since there are almost 2000(?) Nominated Article alternatives? When I saw this article on the front page, I wasn't offended myself, but I thought "I'm sure there'll be a whole bunch of people who will be offended by this!". Considering the Profanity guideline, shouldn't the admins have thought the same thing, that someone out of the "typical Wikipedia readers" would be offended? I myself do not agree with censoring of this type (particularly denying featuring Jenna Jameson's article when it's a high quality article worthy of being featured), but it's an official guideline, so admins should follow it. Right? Kreachure (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is too farfetched. The guideline applies to articles in and of themselves only. The main page is not an article. Even if it did apply, by removing the link we are making the main page less informative.--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, there aren't any guidelines specific to the Main Page, so what do you suggest the admins follow, then? In fact, the Main Page is probably the most important page in Wikipedia (per visitor count and whatnot), so the guidelines already existing should apply especially to the Main Page! The admins should know by now to be particularly careful with the Main Page, so why shouldn't they use already existing and relevant guidelines for it? I don't see any other viablr choice until actual Main Page-specific guidelines are made. And obviously, if you removed the Gropecunt article, it would be so it's replaced by another featured article, not so the Main Page is left blank and "less informative"... -_-; Kreachure (talk)
As for educational filters, I did a DYK hook a while back that contained the word "shit" as part of a quotation (by Nixon, if you are wondering). Not a single complaint that filters were seizing up. The article, Checkers speech ran as TFA about a month ago, complete with obscenity (though not in the main page blurb).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of censorship, but of common sense selection of how you want your public face to be seen. There is nothing wrong with the articles on the female anatomy - but would a picture of the clitoris really be a front page item? Really? This article is inappropriate for the place it has been posted - not for its content or value. Wikipedia's editors should be chastised for not thinking clearly. --Geofferic (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly correct --Rcclh (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant idea. Call up Jimbo Wales and see if you can swing him to your side. Good effin luck.--WaltCip (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
See that's a strawman right there. No one is suggesting that Clitoris be on the front page, but if it was an FA then you would have to make a very good case to keep it off, and "please think of the children" is not a good enough reason. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear. This is not be about WP:Censorship. The article is fine. Not putting it up as an FA would not have constituted censorship in any way. But making it an FA does treat the Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule with contempt. leaky_caldron (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Not putting it up", as you put it, might not have constitued censorship; but excluding it, once it had been put forward as a candidate, on the basis of taste and decency would. Removing it, once already in place, would constitute censoship and cowardice. 94.193.241.76 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This article went through WP:FAC just like any other FA. The community had every opportunity to look at it, comment, and even oppose. It passed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Couple points:

  1. I suspect that when Black Kite mentions their "college" they're talking about a secondary school, not a third-level college as Americans would assume.
  2. The discussion about featured article is separate from the discussion about putting on the main page. I don't actually see any debate about the latter either on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gropecunt Lane/archive1 or in the archive of WP:TFAR between making FA on May 19 and Raul scheduling on 24 June. Where is it? jnestorius(talk) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

jnestorius(talk) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't one at TFA/R, this was a selection directly by Raul. A very good one, IMHO.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Strange that no one's commented* on my suggestion that it could have been presented in a less prominent manner. Here's a thought: An article about pictaresque English street names, in which Gropecunt Lane would have appeared farther down in the text, after what in the U.S. newspaper biz is called "the jump" — the continuation of the story on another page. The "hook" in this case could have been some other pictaresque street name -- maybe Threadneedle Street — ?
_____
  • Perhaps all the Brits have gone to bed at this pt?
Sca (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thought Please understand that the Featured Article of the Day comes from the 2,500 or so Featured Articles which Wikipedia has, minus the about 1,500 which have already appeared on the main page. We do not have such an article as you suggest, and they are not written "to spec". Thanks for the idea, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Now that that filth is off the main page, I feel like I can say this...Thank you to all who participated in this debate for entertaining me for nearly an entire afternoon. To those defending the choice of Gropecunt Lane for FA, you are true crusaders of the free dissemination of accurate and thoughtful information, some of the few people in this world who are really trying to use the internet's power to make this world a better place (no sarcasm). To those who feel that it was a poor choice of FA, I understand some of your concerns, but I have never for a moment believed that Wikipedia should consider the sensibilities of any reader or group of readers to outweigh the gravity of its mission. With that in mind, we should always expect that articles pertaining to human sexuality and possibly vulgar language are going to crop up on the main page from time to time. We should celebrate the diverse wealth of information Wikipedians have access to and not argue over what is and what is not appropriate. Arbitrary morality makes for closed-minded individuals. In the end, I would gladly explain to my 9-year-old what "gropecunt lane" is all about, and the words that constitute its name. Teachingg children these things in the proper context gives them a great perspective; you shouldn't be uncomfortable discussing sex with your kids. I would actually be less comfortable having to explain the Jedwabne Pogrom to my children then some silly street in England known for prostitution. Why do people always complain about even the most tangentially sex-related articles but not the violence-related ones (Military history, etc.). Holocaust-related articles could be construed as offensive to some people's sensibilities, but no one complains about that. It's such a double standard. Millions died during the Holocaust, just like millions "died" (in the shakespearean sense) on Gropecunt Lane. Why are Americans so puritanical? Just read and learn, and enjoy! Life's to short for such bickering...Antimatter--talk-- 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
How dare you be so sensible. I'm offended by your post, and I'm going to make an official complaint. I should not have to read such eloquent and well-considered thought so early in the morning! Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And if there were a 'Click here for "adult"/medical/peculiar political subject/other topics which generate much discussion on the Main Page Talk Page ane which are likely to cause much discussion between curious children and their parents or get entangled with institutional blocking policies' with a 'Yes I am over 18' filter button, the discussions would still arise - and every child would investigate when parents are not looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wanted: an easy to remember bypass URL

I do believe that institutions of ostensibly "higher" education need to be broken of the stupid idea of blocking pages because they include some objected word. Nonetheless, Wikipedia exists to be helpful, and however much moral self-satisfaction we might be tempted to enjoy when colleges block their students from accessing Wikipedia on account of something stupid, the mission of the organization urges a conciliatory solution. Therefore, I ask that the Wikipedia site administrators set up a domain name, http://search.wikipedia.org, which redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=&fulltext=Search. This allows people searching for articles in the English Wikipedia to use an easy to remember name to get past any content objections to the Main Page. It also would allow those of us who consult or edit the encyclopedia to avoid bogging down the server with so many page reloads. (For other languages, use translations of the word "search") Wnt (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.wikipedia.org has a search bar and is unlikely to be blocked. Algebraist 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected! The things we forget over the years... Wnt (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Slightly different issue

Just to bring about a slightly different objection to those posed so far, since June 29, we've had as TFA a British sitcom, a British military operation, English castle, an English queen consort, Scottish wildlife, an English international sportsman, and an English street name. So seven of the previous nine TFAs have revolved around the UK. I'm sure it's unintentional, but it is a bit excessive. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking ahead, there's a fair break between the next UK-based TFA (Talyllyn Railway next week). Still, might be worth avoiding too many more this month. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Pietersen's South African. Anne was Danish. Pastry?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Pietersen's famous for being on the English international cricket team, Anne is famous for being queen consort to James I of England. It's hardly a stretch to call either "UK-related". GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Seriously though, please feel free to bring up your concerns at TFA/R. This is not the right place for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't see that anyone has requested an English article for the rest of the month, and Raul tends to shift things around.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that wiki admin chose to put this article there. They knew it was going to evoke a response and debate at the very least. I thought one of the principles of wikipedia is that it's an encylopedia, not a soapbox or debate hall. Sandman30s (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Britian and england have rather a lot of well documented history. It is not unexpected that a fair number of featured articles result.©Geni 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking issue with England/UK articles being promoted to Featured status, nor with them appearing on the Main Page (I'm British myself, so I'm more than happy to see such good coverage!), it's just that I'd rather see them spread out over a longer period of time, rather than a "British week" once a year or so :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that cunt, queen and gynecologist all derive from the same root word? Maybe we should ban all of them, too. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating! Really? Do you have a link or is this WP:OR? (Not sarcasm) Careful With That Axe, Eugene Talk 08:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit of maze on Wiktionary, but Proto-Indo-European *gʷḗn seems to lead to Proto-Germanic *kwēni- (“‘woman, wife’”) -> Old English cwen -> Middle English quene -> Modern English queen and *gʷḗn -> Ancient Greek γυνή (gynē), “‘woman’”), + -λογία (-logia), “‘-logy, study’”) -> Modern English gynecology. There does not appear to be a direct link to cunt from *gʷḗn. The root word is listed as Proto-Germanic *kunton, with the root "ku" meaning "hollow place." The proposed connection between cunt and Latin cunnus, which may be from *gʷḗn, seems to be disputed by many linguists. - BanyanTree 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What about Norway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people's inability to understand that WPs refusal to make moral judgements on the topics of its articles extends even to things that they, persaonly, find objectionable amuses me every time it comes up. When I saw this article had been on the front page, I just knew that this talk page would be an entertaining read. Thanks. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to reread the contributions. Nobody has suggested that the article be removed from WP, but several people have questioned the judgement of the administrator who made the decision to place it on the main page. TFA articles are not randomly selected and the decision to place this article on the main page was a result of a judgement by a human being who indicated that they had considered the likely consequences, and hence was a moral judgement. The suspicion remains that this was done to make the point that WP:NOTCENSORED is an ideological imperative rather than a pragmatic measure to avoid content disputes. Duncan Keith (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite certain that the article wasn't selected to make a point, but it's true that we shouldn't allow the threat of ideological controversy to dictate our site's content (including that of the main page). This was a case of "despite," not "because of." —David Levy 20:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't selecting TFA's for their content rather than their quality and variety be a "moral judgement" of precisely the sort that 72.10 was making fun of? Why do you assume that everyone that disagrees with you must have somehow misunderstood your point? APL (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to put this front and center before thousands of child readers? (2)

I'm no prude but can't someone at Wikipedia think more carefully about the articles on the main page? Now I have to explain to my children the thoughts of John Calvin, and all about the religious tensions that provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France in 1536. Does nobody think of the children any more? Darrenhusted (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a shocking lack of judgment. I try to shield my children from this stuff, which seems to be all over the internet, and everywhere else too. Just last month, one of our local clergymen, apparently a decent man, was accused of having Calvinist tendencies. Then Wikipedia just splashes it all over the the Main Page. Shocking. Is nothing sacred any more? Michael of Lucan (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Now there's a ghastly section about...s-e-x! Canadian s-e-x! I'm typing this with one hand to leave my other hand free to cover the eyes of any child that happens by. (I don't have one, but you can never be too careful.)
Whoever decided to put up this filth should go back to Canadia and leave Wikipedia alone for responsible, G–d-fearing Americans to enjoy. Until then, I'm sticking with trustworthy encyclopedias like Conservapedia and Christopedia. May the Lord save your souls. —David Levy 02:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't want an encyclopedia to display a well-written article on an important and influential historical figure, would we? If your children are old enough to actually ask you about an in-depth summary of such events, it is probably about time they started learning about history. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, are you talking about Brownlee or Calvin? Algebraist 03:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
[40] –Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
See, now this was truly educational. I had no idea Canadians had sex. I thought they just rubbed their noses together. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Sex is back above the fold! Well, the Brownlee story is certainly an interesting one, even though it's told without recourse to the F-word (or the C-word). As to Canadians not having sex, what do you think they do all winter in Edmonton, Alberta, where the average January temperature is 45 below Fahrenheit? Play gin rummy?
Sca (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Drink Molson's? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What about all the violence on the "On This Day" section. Bloody revolution, war and mass ethnic cleansing? My fictitious children do not want to be reading this. Can we not have something more peaceful? Such as the making of the first teddy bear.Willski72 (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I--

"This page is for discussing improvements to the entire Main Page only."

Oh, sorry, I must have hit the wrong button. Excuse me for interrupting your "trivializing delicate and complicated subject discussion with jokes" thing. I'm sure it's improving the Main Page a lot. Carry on... 186.80.207.10 (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing improves the main page than smarmy holier-than-thou sarcasm. APL (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Even worse is how terribly unclever people have beaten the "argh think of the children" joke into the ground. Mercilessly. Not only is it no longer funny, it reflects badly on all who propogate it, now, simply because they've killed it. Danthemankhan 16:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall this entire section just smacks of WP:POINT. Now for the obligatory "go-and-do-something-useful-like-edit-the-encyclopedia" comment.--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, this smacks of a lack of understanding of satire. Each of us is pointing, very gently, to the absurdity of the objections made to the Gropecunt Lane article. Anyone who objected to it does not understand the nature of an encyclopedia. By definition, a complete encyclopedia will contain material that you or I do not like. Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
This comment I am making now is not sarcastic. Chillum 17:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes.....Willski72 (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you are a prude Darren, in spite of your denial. After all a non-prude would have no difficulty explaining the article to a child. --WebHamster 20:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think my college must have a filter that blocks out any page with the word sex on it because I keep having problems accessing the Wikipedia main page. Oh wait a tick, I think it's just the servers going down again. Nevermind. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely your servers can't be going down on "cunt"? --WebHamster 20:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps as well as all the "assorted language Wikipedias" there could be a "Vanilla WP" - which contains nothing that could possibly alarm the "theoretical child who would be distressed by the topics complained about" - who seems to be the sprog of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. (g) 213.120.20.35 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The term "Vanilla Wikipedia" sounds racist to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Christopedia's the way to go on both counts; it has the delightful censorship and bias of Conservapedia (the real one, not the far superior parody) with a dollop of racism (see, e.g., today's featured article, Barack Obama, which includes the line—and you can't make this stuff up—"Ann Dunham would continue her miscegenationist lifestyle by marrying an Asian"). 76.229.234.43 (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In this context a contraction "vanilla version" as used elsewhere on the web for plain without adornment - see various WP entries under that term.

A regular Wikipedia tradition - main page articles that cause offence to DoTW's sproglets. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Another addition to the List of Wikipedia Front Pages which generate much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The problem is - Wikipedia is not censored internally, but (a) some people find issue with "certain categories of topics" (eg "adult", "violence", "medical images" and a few other groups) no matter how well written the article, and (b) some computer blocking set-ups have similar problems - usually with reasonably innocent topics (everybody can think of examples).

This discussion will be continued indefinitely - and might well be the last Talk:Main Page thread on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I love this word, and use it often in a variety of circumstances, but am always careful to modulate my usage by those circumstance. THAT SAID, if your kids don't know the word, they won't know that it is offensive, and if they do know it then THEY ALREADY KNOW IT. Making a fuss and bother is ridiculous, because the simple fact is noone who doesn't already know the word will find it offensive. If your kids constantly repeat the names of random articles of the day as pejoratives, they have bigger problems than wikipedia. WookMuff (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested adjustments to Main Page HTML

Hi. I'm a developer, and I recently committed an experimental change to the software to output HTML 5 by default. Currently there are a bunch of validation errors on the main page, and while some are in the software (fixed on trunk), some are due to the markup used here. It would be nice if, should we end up deploying HTML 5 after all, we had a main page that validated. I've worked out the changes that are necessary to get this to work. I've tested in a few different browsers, and as far as I can tell, it should render pixel-for-pixel identically. (I wasn't able to test on IE as extensively as I'd like, but I'm pretty sure it will render identically there too; or at most a pixel or two off.)

The changes are as follows:

  1. Change Main Page like this
  2. Change Template:WikipediaSister like this
  3. In Template:TFAfooter, replace align="right" with: style="float:right"
  4. In Template:-, replace clear="all" with: style="clear:both"

    If this is a little too scary, then instead, you could replace {{-}} on Template:Did you know with: <br style="clear:both">

  5. Change Template:POTD row like this

That's all. As I say, I did try to test these, but I can't test them myself on Wikipedia since I'm not a sysop here. They don't change anything other than whitespace, so at worst I might have messed up and caused several pixels of whitespace changed somewhere, which could make things look a bit ugly. Ideally this whole layout would be redone using CSS instead of tables, but I'd appreciate it if at least the main page would validate as HTML 5, since we're probably going to be testing that out soon. Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this actually isn't a good idea. I forgot, the new CSS won't show up reliably for a month. So it won't look right at all. Bleh, I'll have to revise it to not require MediaWiki:Common.css changes. I'll do that later. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Couple of notes- firstly, you can copy the main page code to your userspace for fiddling, even if you aren't an admin. Secondly, main page changes need to be fairly heavily tested- various browsers, various resolutions or even various devices (palmtops, mobiles, etc) could potentially be negatively affected by a change. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Even if HTML 5 becomes stable in a month or two, don't expect all Wikipedians to download compatible browsers overnight. The code on the Main Page should still remain backwards compatible for at least several months or perhaps a year. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I think every page in Wikimedia validates now as XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Wow what a website. Thanks a lot! I agree HTML 5 validation would be good. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
iirc, HTML 5 in its current version is not 100 percent fully backward compatible with XHTML 1.0 Transitional. That is the problem. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
We will obviously not be deploying any features of HTML 5 that break current or older browsers. There are many that do not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize. I did not examine your proposed changes closely. It appears that you mostly want to replace all the deprecated HTML attribute tags like "cellpadding" and "cellspacing" with the equivalent CSS elements. Theoretically, it should render it identically even XHTML 1.0 Transitional browser too, right? Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's the idea. It should render identically in every browser, and have no effect whatsoever on viewers. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Currently we validate as XHTML 1.0 Transitional in almost all cases (modulo some bugs; try this page). The changes I propose are valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional as well, they simply avoid deprecated attributes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
All the code I've provided is valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional as well, and will work in existing browsers. HTML 5 is in some ways more restrictive than XHTML 1.0 Transitional, more like XHTML 1.0 Strict. The changes do nothing but replace attributes (cellpadding, cellspacing, border, align) that are deprecated in XHTML 1.0 Transitional, and removed in HTML 5, with ones that are not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I've revised the suggested changes. All of the changes can be deployed and tested separately now. Is there any specific procedure for testing Main Page changes before deployment? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Minor point: in the non-scary option for (4), it should be <br style="clear:both" />. Algebraist 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
MediaWiki will add the extra / anyway, so it makes no real difference. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, no. In general, I would suggest copying the entire contents of the modified main page to a test page (i.e. Main Page/test or something) and asking people to look at it to make sure it looks sensible in whatever browsers they are using. If there are no complaints after a reasonable time, it can be loaded on the live site. Dragons flight (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I've done this. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
For the benefit of those of us who know little on the subject, can someone please explain the real-world advantage(s) to the proposed changes? I understand that the code would comply with HTML 5, but what would that do for us from a practical standpoint? Thanks! —David Levy 02:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Basically in-browser support for videos/sound replacing slow Java applets, required form fields and it uses less bandwidth. See wikitech-l for more. MER-C 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Are these benefits directly applicable to the main page? —David Levy 03:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The "real" answer is that this would be public relations move to support a developing web standard that is friendly to the open source community. If done correctly no one will see any immediate change to the main page, and it will probably be quite a while before any of HTML 5's extensions actually because common here or anywhere else, though eventually we will benefit from them. However, in the mean time WMF can issue a press release touting the virtues of HTML 5 and becoming the first major website to say they embrace the new standard. Dragons flight (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I doubt even slashdot would get excited by such a press release, certainly not any mainstream media. Laudable as standards compliance is, the standard does not yet exist in a finalised form. I share David Levy's concern that this does not seem to benefit the Main Page in any way. Perhaps we should wait until the standard is finalised before embracing it? After all a standard is, by definition, not 'standard' until it is finalised. Modest Genius talk 16:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see the (rather lengthy) discussion on wikitech-l, which addresses this line of reasoning multiple times. As for Slashdot, it's run multiple stories on HTML 5 lately, so I'd be surprised if this didn't make it to the front page if we end up deploying it; but that's neither here nor there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there are a few immediate (minor) benefits to switching to an HTML 5 doctype. See the wikitech-l thread, and mw:HTML 5. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Changing the Main Page will have no direct effect on users, positive or negative. It will just cause the page to validate if we switch to HTML 5, and will be harmless otherwise. At most, some whitespace will be slightly different in some browsers for a little while. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Eventual compliance would be nice. It's disappointing to see something that would mean very little (if any) change for users is resisted. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to put this front and center before thousands of child readers? (3)

Okay, joke is old, move on. weburiedourdramainthegarden 16:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An article about murder, suicide, execution, and illegitimacy! The Beauchamp–Sharp Tragedy makes Gropecunt Lane look like a Sunday school picnic. The Wikipedia main paige has become a gutter. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, this joke is getting old Modest Genius talk 01:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
making jokes is useless. as soon as some other sexually related article shows up there will still be "think of the children" posts. violence is considered OK for kids in "unnamed" country its only sexual content that kids should not see. Ashishg55 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The teachers at Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' children's school are complaining about the adverse effect on teaching.

Still, we could be having a discussion about "a certain prisoner" among the seven released in the storming of the Bastille on this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The comte de Solages? Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I belive he probably means the Marquis_de_sade Dark verdant (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
oops just noticed they are one in the same, silly me. Dark verdant (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh my god shoot me now, I wish I would actually read things properly, obvioulsy they are not the same person and just noticed sade was released 10 days before, oh well. Dark verdant (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"Shoot"? Far too revolutionary! The good Maquis would much prefer more imaginative punishments ;-) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose having a permanent "Think of the Children" section for people to place their gripes in. I for one love the material crossing the front page and hope stellar articles like today's continue to be featured. Not sure if it's possible, but perhaps when a person clicks on edit for the proposed TotC section, we can have it just turn their computer off and do us all a favor, I think that would be best. 04redsox07 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Main Page layout?

Why is the featured article in a column, next to In the News? Why is such prominent placement given to a wp sister project, and not to something on wp itself? (Avoiding any self reference, so I'm not suggesting that it's replaced by "wikiproject X wants volunteers").
87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The "In the news" section is not a sister project, Wikinews is. Please don't confuse the two. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the "In the news" section is designed to showcase articles on events currently in the news. It is not a direct feed from Wikinews. I can see however how you may be confused. weburiedourdramainthegarden 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This sort of confusion arises far too often. I've even seen people refer to the section itself as "Wikinews."
I wish that we could come up with a decent alternative name lacking the word "news." —David Levy 06:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't there a proposal a couple of years ago to revise the Main Page? I seem to remember various options being available to comment on. Was that only formatting and what happend to it? leaky_caldron (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The most recent main page redesign proposal was made last year. It was poorly conceived and eventually fell apart. —David Levy 08:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks all for clarifying my confusion. Still, it raises another point: Some people (I am one of them) think that 'recentism' is a problem for Wikipedia. Having links to articles to controversial real world stuff right up front is, perhaps, leading new editors to contribute to areas that are best left alone for a couple of weeks.
Also, about page redesign: It'd be lovely if there was some user-selectable choice. I'd get rid of columns. I understand how many people would hate hate hate my design. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You might like one of the options at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. Or you could create your own. Algebraist 17:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

SACREBLEU!

A French "Featured Picture", a French "Did You Know", a French "On This Day" AND a French "Featured Article" (well, maybe not, but the guy has a French sounding name!) ... how come we don't have anything French "In The News" to complete a full house?! Are the French storming the Wikipedia Bastille?! Oui oui! --LookingYourBest (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets analyze this shall we. featured picture is there because today is Bastille Day. The OTD is recurring (similar to US independence day it is still displayed). Featured Article is actually about americans. There is an american DYK and a non recurring OTD item too. So if there was a US item in ITN right now would that be a full house? will u complain then? Ashishg55 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, if you remind me when it's coming up, I'll prepare something better for that event! --LookingYourBest (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no French ITN because Marat's been dead for over two centuries.--WaltCip (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Breaking News: Jean-Paul Marat is still dead. 208.120.96.170 (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Bastille will never fall to a bunch of treacherous, petty and filthy revolutionaries!!!! If they have cyber cannon we have even better cyber cannon!!! Vive la Wikipedia!!!! Death to the traitors of Wikipedia!!!!Willski72 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, France is somewhat in the ITN section, it is a part of the European Parliament and that is mentioned in there Blah42b10 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Which means there are currently... 27 different European nations currently mentioned in a single ITN story! Talk about Eurocentrism! Dreaded Walrus t c 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I know, isn't it HORRIBLE‽‽‽ Blah42b10 (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia logo doesn't appear anymore on my computer (no picture in top left corner). 92.149.150.173 (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been a problem with the servers, and apparently the image server is still having trouble. J.delanoygabsadds 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
it's back up now 99.130.201.148 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be down again, at least for me this morning. Master z0b (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It has been on and off for me, it vanished for a long time on the 15th July. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

little flag of spain

i have noticed that the flag next to rafael alberti at the end of the page, it is not the current one, but the franco regime one. I don't know who to correct it, but i would like someone to do it!

If you're talking about {{svplaureats}}, then firstly the flag there is correct. Secondly, this has nothing to do with the main page. Any discussion should take place at Template talk:Svplaureats. Algebraist 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics

Special:Statistics is buggy. The left hand 'wikipedia tool bar' is way down. 92.149.128.113 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It is. --candle•wicke 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Algebraist 21:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

K-Bob's pic

I'm afraid it isn't a free image since it is entirely given over to reproducing a copyrighted corporate logo (as opposed to de minimis use of copyrighted material), and as it's in the US freedom of panorama doesn't apply. Can we find another image for this flight of DYKs? Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mandela Day

Why's there no mention of this? It's a notable event today.--Part Time Security 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The article was created from a redirect only about two days ago,[41] and nobody maintaining WP:OTD was notified. It still would not qualify on the Main Page anyway since it still currently tagged with {{Underconstruction}}. And at a glance, it appears to consist of various copy-and-pasted passages from a variety of sources, so I just tagged it with {{cv-unsure}}. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Wording doesn't make clear whether this is the coat of arms of

  1. Gabon
  2. the office of Prime Minister
  3. this particular PM personally

Peter jackson (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Rampart

How much longer is that Rampart Dam article going to be the FA? I won't join what I imagine are calls for a moon/NASA-related FA, but I feel like that things been up there for like 2 days now. I must have read the article 3 or 4 times through by now. NeutronTaste (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's up for a day, just like every other TFA. Algebraist 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Jeez. Must be on the computer too much...and there is no humor in that. NeutronTaste (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is partly the cause of the confusion but just for clarity. The main page follows UTC therefore anything on the main page that follows a daily schedule (like TFA, TFP, OTD/SA) changes at 0:00 UTC. If you live in some other time zone, content will appear on 2 different days but still only for 24 hours. And as Algebraist has stated, we never have a TFA for 2 days, while technically there is WP:IAR I can't imagine any reason why we'd ever have one for 2 days and expect if you ask User:Raul654 the TFA director he'd say the same. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Solar eclipse animate (2009-Jul-22).gif

Can any commons admin protect this animated image please? I tried to upload a c-uploaded copy here but when I saved the image, it did not animate anymore. The image is going to be used at ITN. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I have it set to expire in 3 days. howcheng {chat} 15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Solar Eclipse July 22 2009 Varanasi.jpg

The uploader, User:Rajithmohan, claims that he has created the image himself, although the image looks highly professional. Will it be okay if I assume good faith and use it on ITN? --BorgQueen (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of July 22, 2009

It would appear as if this article is now blocked within Mainland China. Please fix the gallery errors if they are still present. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 07:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently unblocked. ~AH1(TCU) 08:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On this Day

The entry about the Polish Committee of National Liberation should be qualified by the phrase, "Soviet-backed and -controlled." It was Stalin who decided that Poland should annex prewar German territory up to the Oder-Neisse Line — in "compensation" for Soviet annexation of eastern Poland in 1939, under terms of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Sca (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should, please.Willski72 (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Charles de Gaulle's comment, perhaps his original French phrase ("Vive le Quebec libre") should be used with an English translation given in brackets. (The French phrase was headline news in every major newspaper in Canada.)Guinness323 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

eu:wp on interwikies?

Moved to Template talk:Wikipedialang#eu:wp on interwikies?

21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tons?

"Did you know ... that with a total weight of over 100 tons ..."

It's amazing that this should appear on the main page. What tons, long, short, metric? JIMp talk·cont 18:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Metric tons are spelt Tonnes so its definately imperial.Willski72 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Not according to the US Department of Commerce. In USA, "With regard to the metric ton, this is the name to be used in the United States for the unit with symbol t and defined according to 1 t = 103 kg.".[42]
If you look at the actual article (Campo del Cielo), you'll find it's spelled tonnes there, with other units being in metric, so it's probably in metric ton(ne)s. I've made a note at the "Errors in Did you know?" section above. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the OP, ton should be linked to the relevant unit. Modest Genius talk 23:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In Britain an imperial ton is spelt ton and a metric one is spelt tonne, but in America they're both ton. But America still uses imperial whereas Britain uses metric, who is right?????Willski72 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone! APL (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Nota bene: the US does not use imperial units in general, and it doesn't use the imperial ton. It uses its own units including a curiously small ton. Algebraist 14:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yey!!!Willski72 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

wiki addons

https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/search?q=wiki&cat=all

are any of these anygood ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeturn (talk • contribs) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You should ask this at the Village pump. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Links on the main page

The link Sea_dragon is a link to a disambiguation page. I don't think this is intended. Because of former encountered restrictions to unregistered users like me I won't even have a try on the main page to correct it just to discover I am not allowed to. 95.112.148.241 (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is said link? Also, you are correct to assume IPs cannot edit the main page.  GARDEN  says no to drama 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've found it and corrected. Thanks,  GARDEN  says no to drama 20:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, but as it says at the top of this page, reports of errors on the main page should go to the 'Main Page Error Reports' section, editable by registered and unregistered users alike. Algebraist 20:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Once Wikipedia was free. Now you're suffocating with all those isnots and shouldnots and formal rules. Don't want to have to read the complete manual before making a small and obvious change. Wish I could have back the old times. 95.112.148.241 (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately those times are past, and due to people doing things they perhaps shouldn't the rules you are degrading have been implemented. If you don't like them, feel free to ignore the site completely.  GARDEN  says no to drama 21:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I sound offensive (I probably am), you are taking possession of things anonymous people like me have contributed to. But if the owners of wikipedia decide that I shall go away. So, all, tell me what to do. 95.112.148.241 (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok then, if you insist : Continue to contribute to the encyclopedia and don't worry about your inability to directly edit the mainpage. APL (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
@ 95.112... we are not deciding for you to go away. If you do not wish to adhere to the rules and guidelines set out here you are not obliged to edit here. It's not our decision to simply tell you to stop (unless of course you do something blockable).  GARDEN  says no to drama 22:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, thank you for pointing out the incorrect link. Someone has seen your friendly helpful post, and has corrected the information for you. It's a shame some editors here seem hostile, especially to someone who has taken the time to report something that man other editors missed. They're right that there is a notice board where these things can be reported, but I have some sympathy for your point - IPs (and new accounts) used to be able to make small corrections like this but now cannot, and the rules and regulations and patrolling and guidelines have grown to incredible size. People did put a helpful link at the top of the page, but the www is accessed using very many different devices nowadays, and those clear directions aren't always seen. (And, on some pages, they aren't very clear at all.) Kind regards, and again, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As a point of curiosity, when was the Main Page open to anonymous editing? APL (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
There were some in 2002-2003; the last ones I can find are at Special:Contributions/145.254.57.216. Unfortunately, diff viewing appears to be buggered for revisions that old, so it's not easy to see what the exact change was. Also, the last incident of IP vandalism is here. Unfortunately (again), old protection logs for the Main Page seem to be missing, so it's not clear exactly when after that it was protected. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The Main Page wasn't completely protected until February 2005 - see this Signpost article. Before that, the actual Main Page was protected but the templates transcluded on it were editable by everyone. According to the Signpost article, the use of templates in the Main Page in February 2004 made it more open for non-admins to edit.
The old protection logs before December 2004 are at Wikipedia:Protection log. Archive 1 of that log shows that the Main Page was briefly unprotected then re-protected in March 2004. This might have been a mistake; in those days, the protection tab didn't have a confirmation screen, so admins would often accidentally protect or unprotect a page. The protection logs only go back to November 2003; the only way to check if a page was protected before that date is to go through the history of Wikipedia:Lists of protected pages (previously known as Wikipedia:Protected page), which was edited manually. Graham87 04:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Drini briefly unprotected the Main Page for April Fool's Day 2006, resulting in 208.96.80.103 changing a column by one pixel. Drini explained that he did it attract editors to featured article writing, so one can make of the legitimacy of the unprotection what they will. - BanyanTree 05:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I did try to find IP edits, but I couldn't find any. (Main page transclusions confuse me.) I'm somewhat amazed that the main page content was unprotected as recently as Dec,04. Thanks. APL (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I would point out that if you are unable to find the error report section because the guidelines are too complicated or whatever, it is highly unlikely you would have been able to correct this error yourself even if the main page and templates were not protected since finding the precise template is not easy if you don't understand the syntax used and can't be bothered doing a bit of reading. So while your report is welcome, please understand that in reality even without protection you would still need to spend a bit of time to be able to correct an error like that, likely significantly more time then it would take to find the error report section. Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Like he said, your report is welcome. It's true that for next time, the top of this page would have been the more ideal place to report it, but we fixed it, and thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK

... that airline pilots in the 1930s and 1940s flew with their ears when visibility was poor?

— Like Dumbo? Sca (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1941? So that's where the inspiration came from... --candle•wicke 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Clearly they were simply piloting an airliner by operating the controls with their ears. APL (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That would make for an interesting news item, in order to cut costs Ryanair has decided to use flying elephants rather than planes!Willski72 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like something that belongs in a Discworld novel... --candle•wicke 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So the elephants are flying on the back of a giant turtle and holding up the earth!Willski72 (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


OK, today on a serious note: ...that Nazi German regulation of Polish forced laborers intentionally created and supported discrimination on the basis of ethnicity?
— I should have thought this would be obvious, and indeed an understatement. The Nazi Reich was all about racial/ethnic hatred. "Discrimination" is too mild a term for the savagery visited upon Poles and, of course, Jews and others.
Sca (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, anything greater would be POV, regardless of how horrible the Nazis were.  GARDEN  14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I should have thought this would be obvious depressingly not. Try www searching for surveys showing X% of under Y year olds don't know what "The Holocaust" was. (See how many think that Auschwitz is a beer.) 82.33.48.96 (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a link with details of a survey, carried out by movie company before they launched their new film. And that's in a country where teaching about the holocaust is a compulsory part of the curriculum. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
In England it might be but it sure as hell isn't in this part of the UK at least. Anyway, this is getting offtopic.  GARDEN  09:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I am incredulous. Sca (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a fundamentally flawed survey. They surveyed 11-16 year olds, despite the fact that WW2 is taught at age 14. Take a look at Ben Goldacre's article discussing it (about halfway down). And yes, this is getting way off topic... Modest Genius talk 22:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

HTML5 Adjustments

As previously suggested here, several changes have been made to various pages to help get closer to HTML5 compliance. The changes are listed below:

  • Change Main Page like this (remove cellspacing/cellpadding, use margin/padding instead)
  • Change Template:WikipediaSister like this (same)
  • In Template:TFAfooter, replace align="right" with: style="float:right"
  • In Template:-, replace clear="all" with: style="clear:both"

Please keep all discussion centralized here for easier watching. Thanks. ^demon[omg plz] 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if this sounds ignorant in anyway, but I, unfortunately, posses only a very basic understanding of any kind of coding. These changes are strictly code optimization and compliance, and invisible to the end user, correct?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much. It's not so much optimization but using appropriate attributes. Some things like cellpadding and cellspacing have been considered deprecated for years, and are completely banned in HTML5. Instead, we're using appropriate style declarations that render the same. To the end user, there should be no visible change at all. ^demon[omg plz] 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming it's been widely tested? It's not going to really shake things up for some obscure browser, is it? J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I personally tested it in IE8, FF3 and Chrome 2, as well as Safari on OSX. Simetrical (who originally brought this up) also said he's tested in IE6, and it's fine. FWIW, the worst that this could break would be a few pixels different here or there. Edge cases will get reported and can be dealt with at that point. ^demon[omg plz] 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I wrote the changes by testing in several browsers, including IE6. I don't think it will change any browser's display by more than one or two pixels. Since it only changes padding/spacing, the worst that could happen is that there might be too much or too little whitespace around some boxes, so the page would look a bit ugly. There's no possible way I can see that it could even significantly impair readability. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
As I am also a little technically challenged, I'm in no position to support this, but, based on your assertions about the worst case scenario, I do not oppose :) J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I never voiced my opinion before but I support the changes and any similar ones on the condition they don't break anything bad. And I do consider it intrinsic on editors proposing changes, particularly ones which we have established are largely theoretical to ensure their changes don't break anything and this would include in various browsers (probably at a minimum IE6, IE7, IE8, Firefox 1.5, Firefox 2.0, Firefox3, Firefox 3.5, Chrome, various versions of Opera, various versions of Safari) and various screen resolutions and based on actual testing, rather then theoretical ideas (since it's not uncommon for browsers to be broken, and we should ensure wikipedia is widely accessible rather then then tell users they can blame their browsers when we are making changes that don't really improve anything beyond making us standard compliant) Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to second what Nil Einne just said, and ask if the proper browser testing was done (eg. in user space) before the changes were made? If so, all well and good. If not, why not? Standards compliance is a good thing (though as I noted previously, HTML 5 has not yet been finalised so isn't actually a standard yet), but only if it doesn't adversely affect appearance and usability. Modest Genius talk 02:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, these changes should have been made a while ago. The align attribute has been deprecated since HTML 4.01[1] and clear has been in CSS since, well, at least 2005.[2] As for above, if any browsers don't support these, they shouldn't be being used. They're not cutting edge changes (like HTML 5 is), just the tactful removal of things which don't follow good syntax and don't make sense in the markup. If a reader is using a browser that doesn't support these changes, nothing on Wikipedia (or the rest of the Internet for that matter) will be displayed properly. Greg Tyler (t • c) 16:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I tested the changes in multiple browsers before I ever proposed them. And HTML 5 is a standard, just not all parts have been set in stone yet. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia just crash?

i was trying to browse an article, and this message appeared

This wiki has a problem

Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.

(Cannot contact the database server: Unknown error (10.0.6.26))

And well, im just letting you know--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes (so it's not just me). It appears to be on the blink again... I really wish they would sort this out... editing is a pain when this happens. --candle•wicke 00:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there are problems. Brion (a developer) recently added "DON'T REPORT DB FAILURE IT'S IN THE CHANNEL TOPIC Lots of sleeping DB connections on master, something needs to be killed" to the topic of the #wikimedia-tech IRC channel. Meaningless to me, but at least it shows it's being worked on. J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
See sleep (Unix) and kill (Unix). DB is database and master presumably refers to the master database/server. Modest Genius talk 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes." and so on... experienced error messages all day today every time I tried to access Wikipedia just to note. And yes, I did try again in a few minutes. Several times. Over several hours. I've only accessed this page now (this is getting a bit ridiculous at this stage). I take it everyone else experienced similar. Sorry if it sounds like I'm being confrontational or negative in any way... I had a free day and am a bit frustrated that so much editing time went to waste. Hopefully this stops soon. --candle•wicke 16:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, all is explained in the tech freenode channel on IRC. Nevertheless, this is a temporary problem and not related at all to the main page, so there's not really any point in needlessly discussing it. Maybe take it to a village pump if you're really concerned.  GARDEN  16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my immediate reaction and I found this section easier to access then. Everything's fine now. Apologies for any inconvenience! :) --candle•wicke 17:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was terribly perturbed. I thought something might have happended to you all....Willski72 (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Centennial, California - Wikipedia, please and only give me acesss to edit this page Quentin

I don't understand your request, but only administrators can edit the main page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Might it be typos hidden on the Main Page by any chance? Tut tut... I would say WP:ERRORS but it seems to have been abandoned so I don't blame him/her... --candle•wicke 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the main page, the OP has issues with what others are doing to Centennial, California which he/she mostly created and appears to want to be the only one to be able to edit it (see also his/her comments at User talk:Quentinwllcs#Centennial, California 3). Regardless, while WP:Errors has its problems (response can be slow particular around the late morning to early afternoon UTC, basically when the Americans are sleeping and the Europeans are busy with work/school/etc), it appears to be fine now. All the issues there appear to have been addressed. Bear in mind, as mentioned in numerous places, it's only really intended for simple errors that are easy to fix. If there's some sort of language issue which is not obvious, there may be some discussion but generally speaking that should be avoided, and for that reason, it's wise to provide clear references if the issue isn't clear and also ensure you consider WP:Engvar issues. If the admins aren't clear if you change is warranted, they're unlikely to act. And admins are oftern the only ones who watch it, because that's really it's purpose. If a discussion has been going on for a long time, there's a good chance no one is going to notice if you've achieved some sort of clear consensus so in that case, it may be wise to make it clear you have. In particular, using Errors to complain about sloppy admins, is not going to achieve anything fruitful, take that to the admin's user page or a more appropriate subpage. If you wish to request something be removed from ITN or whatever, that's fine provided it's clear to the admin this is warranted and it's clear to the admin it's what your requesting, however complaining about most unrelated issues is only likely to result in you being ignored. One thing I would emphasise, as with much of wikipedia, for better or worse admins are reluctant to get involved in wheel/edit wars and therefore to remove existing content, in other words, if you wish something to be removed from ITN, or DYK or whatever once it's been added it can actually be quite difficult and you may need some clear evidence for if not consensus, at least strong support for removal even if the thing should never have been there in the first place. This has little to do with problems in the way WP:Errors works but all to do with the way wikipedia works and while it may benefit admins and users who are willing to completely ignore consensus or ordinary rules, there's a reason why wikipedia works that way. From personal experience for perhaps 3 years now, I can say this is particularly the case for ITN, once something is on ITN, it can often be quite difficult to get it off it's one of the reasons I think why we tend to be quite strict in what we put up on ITN. Also, the problem of admins with little experience with ITN, completely ignoring normal procedure when something big comes up has been going on for a long time, even before we had templates thanking editors etc. Indeed it's not unheard of you can come to some sort of super consensus about something, e.g. the wording or when it should go up (for an expected event) except of course when it actually does come up some admin will come along, completely unaware of the discussion and do something else. It's frustrating, but something you learn to live with Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if that doesnt answer your question i dont know what will!Willski72 (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was a long and great reply. Yeah I know, it happens all the time. I just noticed it quite a lot today. Complain? I wouldn't have thought of requesting changes or asking questions in that way. But what can be done, just get on with it I guess. --candle•wicke 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

LaGuardia shutdown

Newsworthy? They're not allowing flights in or out, and the terminal's been shutdown. Maybe wait until the suspicions are reported? 98.239.166.251 (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please go to WP:ITN/C. I warn that the people there are... "allergic" to U.S.-specific stories. –Howard the Duck 12:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I'd assumed this was the place to post such things. Alas, as I write this, the story begins to appear more and more un-newsworthy. 98.239.166.251 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The 1980 "Terrorist Bombings" in Bologna, Italy

Moving to WP:ERRORS. --candle•wicke 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Cory Aquino

Moving to WP:ERRORS. --candle•wicke 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Replace/remove picture of Gregor Baci in "Did you Know" section

Moving to WP:ERRORS. --candle•wicke 22:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone looking at In the News?

I would imagine that something happened in the world since Corazon Aquino passed away on 8/1/09. --dashiellx (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:ITN/C. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
All the more reason to allow non-admin long-time users to edit protected pages such as ITN. –Howard the Duck 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I am an admin and I am here and ready. It is just that we need more contributors who would update articles on time. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The gay center shooting spree was rotting there, even after the AFD was closed. The Chinese one is more recent I dunno how long it stayed there. –Howard the Duck 16:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said, please read WP:ITN/C. I and Candlewicke were waiting for support from other users. You could have helped a lot more by giving supports there than complaining here. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh well. Lack of support for borderline nominations was the problem, not updates. Sorted for now. --candle•wicke 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the Pneumonic plague article wasn't properly updated and I had to work on it a bit myself before posting. The HIV article needs voluteers now... --BorgQueen (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That's because I wasn't certain of its international significance and wanted further opinions. It is still only one town. I have updated HIV now too. --candle•wicke 19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No. The nominations were too borderline for me to give an opinion. It's like (pardon my language now) a nominator throwing used underwear and seeing which one sticks. I'd only oppose if there is a stream of support and I think it is not suitable for ITN. For items that are borderline or are good enough I usually don't support. –Howard the Duck 06:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your position. You regarded the proposed items as too borderline to even support, but you fault administrators for failing to place them on the main page anyway? —David Levy 06:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No, if the items are suitable, I don't usually support since they will be well-supported. Several potential blurbs had supports already, dunno though if they were up to standard.
The not suitable items won't be posted anyway, and if borderline items have supports but I don't think it's suitable, that's the time I'd oppose. –Howard the Duck 07:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
1. I'm confused, as you stated above that "the nominations were too borderline for [you] to give an opinion."
2. If everyone had the attitude "there's no point in bothering, as plenty of others will do it," nothing would get done. (It's this sort of assumption that can leave a neighborhood in darkness when everyone takes for granted that someone else reported the power outage.)
If you don't wish to participate in that manner, that's perfectly fine, but I agree with BorgQueen that it's unhelpful to then complain about the lack of progress. —David Levy 07:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There some potential blurbs that had no opposes but they rotted there. They don't need my supports already since there were sufficient supports already, but again, I dunno if they were adequately updated. The Pakistani blurb has had 2 supports but it was added at least 28 hours after the 2nd support. Even BorgQueen herself already supported the HIV item, and there was overwhelming support by August 3 but it was only added on August 5. –Howard the Duck 08:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you seriously think "there was overwhelming support by August 3" for the HIV item? I checked again, and I see only one support, from Cargoking. My support doesn't count since I was the nominator. Candlewicke did not support, although he did not oppose either. Just one support besides the nominator—Does it look like "overwhelming support" to you? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Two supports (including yours), a neutral comment and no opposition looks like a 100% winning percentage in ITN standards. –Howard the Duck 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought HIV item was awaiting updates the whole time. cant post it without proper update Ashish-g55 14:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The term "insufficient data" comes to mind.
Please either express support for items that you want to see on the main page or refrain from complaining when they don't appear there. —David Levy 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
As I've said before, I don't really express any comment unless when I the blurb is on its way to be added but I feel it doesn't make the cut. If that is an invalid excuse for complaining then so be it. –Howard the Duck 15:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why Clinton?

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.

Why is the In The News picture of Bill Clinton, instead of the journalists who were released? Doesn't seem like the focus should really be on him, you know? 98.239.166.251 (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't appear to possess any free photographs of the journalists yet. (We don't use non-free images on the main page.) I switched to the Clinton photograph because that seems preferable to sticking with the bacteria image. —David Levy 08:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Even though Clinton always looks bloated to me, I appreicate the change in image. Bacteria images all look like the same black, white, and grey blobs to me. Thanks for the change. Dismas|(talk) 08:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Clinton is know icon.yousaf465'
Whatever a "know icon" is, and however much of a "know icon" he may be (alright, pointing out the typo twice is just rude...), his involvement is only peripheral to the actual story, and he shouldn't be the image. That's all I meant. 98.239.166.251 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It's quite common that images on ITN are only peripheral. Do you actually have a solution? Bear in mind that unlike WP:TFA, there's never been a time, as far as I'm aware where we've accepted non free images on the main page, because it's always been possible to have an image for one of the items, so theres limited dispute about this area of policy Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
We occasionally used non-free images for the TFA section until Jimbo performed this edit in April 2007.
As you said, there's never been justification for using non-free images in any of the other sections. —David Levy 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
but u should also take into account that its his involvement that got the story up on main page. If the journalists were freed without him i doubt there was any chance of it making it on ITN. Ashish-g55 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that, but Clinton's involvement certainly added to the noteworthiness. —David Levy 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
While the full series of events certainly centers on the journalists, the current news reports do seem to be focusing on Clinton's visit to North Korea (widely regarded as a major occurrence with significant political ramifications, both in North Korea and elsewhere) and his intervention that led to the journalists' release.
Nonetheless, I'd gladly switch to a free image of the journalists if one were available. —David Levy 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
And now we've moved on to a photograph of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (accompanying the newest item), so the above is moot. —David Levy 14:57, 5 August 2009 (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.

Main page not displaying

As of this post, the main page is not displaying (I hit refresh just before posting). All that appears is the following message: "Override this function." It doesn't appear to be vandalism because the MediaWiki interface isn't displaying either, but it does on other pages (including this talk page). 174.49.77.138 (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

According to brion, this was a temporary error during software update. Should be fine now. Algebraist 22:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I got that on Special:Watchlist a couple of times, then it went back to normal for me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good to hear it's a known problem. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Umm... still happening intermittently - happening for the last 30 minutes with the article on Phagocyte as linked from the main page as featured article, only to just start working 99.224.119.68 (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Still happening. Why is it only the English Wikipedia? German Wiki is fine. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 08:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor thing but could the sidebar navbox titles (navigation, search, interaction etc.) start with an upper case letter to match the contents of the boxes? Just looks 'wrong' to me! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Beta version of the new UI to Wikipedia, the navbox first letters of the titles are indeed capitalized: e.g. "navigation" --> "Navigation". --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Opera featured article

How much did wikipedia get paid for this advertisement?71.85.104.22 (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One hundred billion dollars. Nothing: Opera is free, Wikipedia is free. Neither of them pay anything to anyone. You may want to look up featured articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
See WP:FA; featured articles are displayed because of the quality of the article, and not for any other reason. It is not an advertisement, but rather a celebration of how good of an article Opera happens to be. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

*GASP* More Featured Article inappropriateness

My kids just got on the Wikipedia main page and now they are running around the house yelling "Fag - o - site". Someone please censor Wikipedia so I don't have to do my job as a parent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.39.41 (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I seriously laughed out loud at this one! I can't believe I never made that connection before... J.delanoygabsadds 03:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
O: How did they know how to pronounce it? It's lucky they put the "phagocytes" at the start or you'd never get them to sleep after they made it to the true obsenities detailed at the bottom, the ones which describe in hideous detail the invasions of harmful and abnormal objects and the nightmares of elderly "dead and dying cells that have reached the end of their life-span" choking, wheezing and gasping on their last breath as their eyes pop out. I think I'm going to have to sleep with the light on after reading that. --candle•wicke 04:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont know for whatever reason todays article reminds me of Leonidas going This is SPARTA! Ashish-g55 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So when is 'Not work/kid/proverbial granny/disgusted of Tunbridge Wells/other proverbial unsafe Front Page version Wikipedia' going to be set up? (Could include 'list of places and persons etc in which computer search and block programs find rude words.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Homophone error. Perhaps, so parents like this don’t suffer from shock and awe over potty-mouth from their children, we best not have a featured-article on Homophone; you never know where kids might go with that one. I do hope we don’t censor that article from Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly i turn my back for a week max and look what vile and disgusting featured article we have about peoples insides and rude comments. And now theyre thinking of doing one on homophobic phones! What do they do for crying out loud! Have a more insulting answerphone message if your homosexual? I think this whole front page needs closing down.....Willski72 (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, biology is a very unencyclopedic topic. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I sometimes have my doubts when i read the paper and it says that "scientists have discovered that eating dark chocolate can make you live 10 years longer" and "pomegranates that can prevent heart attacks" etc.Willski72 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually quite surprised this many people have posted in this section so far, and no one has mentioned WP:NOTCENSORED. ;)   JJ (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Nor has anyone mentioned WP:Advice for parents, another obviously relevant page. 95j (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats mainly because almost, if not everyone, here is just having a laugh:)--Willski72 (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone should set up a 'Digusted at WP Main Page Featured Topic' disccussion group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Main page offensiveness is getting entertaining. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Today's one involves a murdered duke... (complain, moan, royalty dying out, grumble, children with knives, scissors and funny ideas, etc.) --candle•wicke 04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the section on Sotomayor be changed to 'sworn in' from 'confirmed'?

She's been sworn in now, perhaps it should be rewritten? 72.88.53.149 (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I hate it when errors on the main page got reported in the wrong place and they got fixed pretty quickly, then my properly placed error reports on WP:ERRORS get ignored. --76.64.78.175 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I think an obvious issue is it depends who sees your message. BorgQueen is heavily involved in ITN and is likely to correct any errors with ITN. I suspect she? may not normally correct errors in DYK, FA etc. Obviously the error report section is not perfect and there's likely to be sometimes someone sees something here but not there. Remember however that errors are commonly removed as soon as they are fixed, so a lot of errors that are fixed there editors just don't see. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

News not of international interest

"Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, making her the first Hispanic American named to the position."

This may be important to people in the USA, but it is really immaterial to the rest of us. It's not even that ground breaking, not in the days of Obama. The first Samoan American to become US surgeon general etc is not of that major importance to the world.--MacRusgail (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Complaints about what should and should not be included on ITN should be directed to Template talk:In the news or to appropriate section on WP:ITN/C. Specifically, this event was discussed at length on WP:ITN/C#ITN candidates for August 6. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
some of us tried... trust me. with so many US users making sure every item from US makes it to main page its just hard to avoid these kinds of items. See WP:ITN/C for discussion on this particular item. some admin just came in and posted it without proper consensus. happens all the time. -- Ashish-g55 01:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Only one third of the items are USA related. (And half of those is international in nature.) APL (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Sotomayor Puerto Rican? So that makes it two countries already so... –Howard the Duck 09:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait... huh? When did Puerto Rico become a country? Kachyna(talk) 02:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I sometimes make that mistake too, although that's probably due to them having their own national football team. No idea what Howard's excuse is. ;) Dreaded Walrus t c 03:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Could be sarcasm, that's what I took it as. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I was going to point out their national basketball team (I'd reckon they'd be BAD in football), plus the fact they are a signatory to some treaties, like any other country. –Howard the Duck 04:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not American and I have no problem with Sotomayor being ITN. This odd anti-Americanism does no one any good. No doubt the Australians will win the Ashes soon and that will be ITN. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How is that "news"? ;-) Bradley0110 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not anti-American, but I do think that there is a tendency for items which are newsworthy within the USA, and to a lesser extent, Canada, the UK and Australia, but not to the rest of the world, to be overemphasised. (I have no interest in cricket, but I suppose it is a worthy comparison since it receives an inordinate amount of coverage in Scotland. I would like to see how people England would react to wall-to-wall shinty coverage!) I'm not sure this is that earth shattering, but the first "Hispanic" (whatever the precise definition of that term is...) American president will be major world news. --MacRusgail (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_133&oldid=307882819"