Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.154.147.245 (talk) at 21:18, 5 March 2010 (→Main Page error reports). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

07:29, Friday, January 10, 2025 (UTC)

Main Page error reports

General discussion

Shortcuts

Euro-centric?

Does anyone else think this page is pretty euro-centric? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.73.136 (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone somewhere will, but no, I don't. We currently have items related to the UK, Niger, Pakistan, the UAE & Israel & Europe, Afghanistan, Guam, Libya & Europe, India, Peru, France & Spain, the US, Vietnam, the UK again, and Africa (discounting DYK which changes every 6 hours). I think that's a pretty impressive geographic coverage actually. Modest Genius talk 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no mention of the euro anywhere in it. And it's not Euro-centric either. Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the main page can be accused of too wide a focus, not too narrow.  f o x  (formerly garden) 21:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What??? It's an international encyclopaedia! 82.32.238.139 (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the Martians... --candle•wicke 13:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
love how you used the British spelling of encyclopaedia there 86.184.84.67 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 82 looks up to the UK, so using the British spelling may be natural to 82 Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, so does 86.184.84.67 Modest Genius talk 21:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedia is of course the original, correct, spelling of the word. The American spelling with "e" not "ae" is a neologism (like "fetus" for "foetus", and "honor" for "honour". When Americans can't spell something, they just drop letters. Unfortunately, their poor spelling is taking over, because Americans dominated the early internet. Michael of Lucan (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Unfortunately" is a polite way of putting it. All too often, I see Americans accuse non-Americans of illiteracy when they use their local spelling. Most people recognise that people from other English-speaking countries spell a few words differently. In stark contrast, too many Americans seem to think the non-American spelling of any word must be a mistake that needs to be corrected. That is, assuming said American recognises the spelling "error" in the first place. Yes, we spell "recognise" with an "s" in New Zealand. Deal with it. BlueRobe 08:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much a non-argument, as I see it. Taking a narrow slice of the articles on the Main page depends on several factors; in particular, we have little control over In The News; the editors of Did You Know select, as far as I can see, to give broad and balanced coverage of new articles; it is nobody's fault that these may, from time to time, be biased in one direction or another; that depends on what is available and how interesting the hooks are judged to be. But over a longer time period, I think the balance evens out. One caveat is that writers in English-language countries might well be biased towards topics familiar to them, and that is the pool from which we draw. Nothing to do with spelling, or language preferences; it's just an epiphenomenon of those who are most involved here. Rodhullandemu 01:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Michael of Lucan Fetus is the original (latin) spelling of foetus so Brits added the O 86.143.205.87 (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"fetus" is the etymologically correct spelling, as was accepted by the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. The œ grapheme only came into Latin in Medieval (or Mediæval) times, and is incorrectly used in this case (correct usage is for words that came into Latin from Greek, such as œsophagus, œstrus; also œnology). On the other hand, it was already written "fœtus" in the 16th century, so the spelling "fetus" has obviously come about from ligature simplification in American English. Checking the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary [1] we can see how: Noah Webster used the incorrect Latin "fætus" as his root, and simplified it as with other æ words. The spelling "fœtus" was listed as an alternative spelling in the 1913 edition of Webster's. Physchim62 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well just to quote from our very own articles here on Wikipedia:
  • From Encyclopedia [sic] (:P)- "Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, "enkuklopaedia", with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word "encyclopaedia"
  • From Æ - "In the United States, the problem of the ligature is sidestepped in many cases by use of a simplified spelling with "e""
--Daviessimo (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a modern, non-elitist point of view, the British standard spelling of any word is no more or less correct than the American standard spelling. Two different dialects need not be labelled "correct" or "incorrect." From an academic/etymological point of view, "encyclopaedia" and "encyclopedia" both represent altered spellings, as British English simplified the alphabet by converting "æ" – a letter in its own right – to a pair of letters, and speakers of American English preferred to convert it to a single letter "e." Food for thought: any living variety of English is as far removed from its Anglo-Saxon roots as any other. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can't help myself. Having been amused by the mixed-up spellings of "fetus," I checked the etymology of "hono(u)r." Wiktionary gives it as "From Anglo-Norman honur, from Old French honor, from Latin honor." Michael of Lucan's fallacious observation, using his own examples, suggests the (equally fallacious) observation that when Britons can't spell something, they add letters. It's a good thing all standard varieties of English are equally valid, or we'd all have eyren on our faces. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, looks like us Britishers have been well put in our place by our American overlord friends. Clearly time to go back to our castle to have a cup of tea, a cucumber sandwich and then decide what country to invade next --Daviessimo (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC) N.B for those without a sense of humour (or humor), this comment is supposed to be a joke (albeit a pretty bad one)[reply]
Oh, no you don't! Invading random nations is our job now! Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC) There, now by comparison, your joke looks hilarious... ;)[reply]
The Colonials are welcome to the job, IMHO. Back in the Mother Country we're still having problems with places we invaded hundreds of years ago! Physchim62 (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) This is original research to see how gutter-level the humo(u)r on this page can get! ;)[reply]
I don't think it is accurate to say that
<quote>
British English simplified the alphabet by converting "æ" – a letter in its own right – to a pair of letters, and speakers of American English preferred to convert it to a single letter "e."
</quote>
My understanding is that in (British) English 'ae' as an alternative to æ became acceptable, probably hastened (if not caused) by mechanical printing and typewriting - both with limited character sets. Whereas in American English a single 'e' is the only correct usage.
Personally I still use the 'æ' form, in handwriting it has always been easy and as computers have (all but) replaced typewriters & mechanical typesetting it is now easy in printed matter as well.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oversimplified a bit... a bad habit I have. Still, I wouldn't necessarily say that the single "e" is the only correct usage in America. Any time we pretend that British spellings are "incorrect" in America, we are oversimplifying the situation. Americans are perfectly capable of reading British spelling (most of the time, heh) and no American with enough education to correct another American's spelling fails to realize/realise that encyclopaedia and encyclopædia are spelled/spelt correctly. It's more that "encyclopedia" is the preferred spelling in the U.S... at least the way I see it. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it nice to see today's TFA? Ordinarily, the Main Page is far too terra-centric.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I do not care if the Romans spelt the word fetus. I take that kind of argument cum grano salis, as those people were talking Latin, not English.

We are not talking about Latin, but the original English spelling of foetus, which I believe is late mediaeval. No, dear, it's not spelt medieval. That's USAian, not English.

I am old. (We who are old, O so old, thousands of years, thousands of years if all were told.) However, if I remember my schooldays correctly, the ancient city of Rome was a melting pot of peoples, and the lingua franca of ordinary people was Greek, not Latin. So ordinary folk in Rome would have said something like βρέφος (brephos) not fetus, anyway.  ;-D Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - can someone tell what was going on in these people's lives 2000 years ago that they needed to talk about foetuses/fetuses/brephoses so much? Did they eat them, juggle them, draw them or just sit on a park bench and have a good old random natter about them? --Daviessimo (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's so long ago now, I forget why the subject used to come up ... Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly they were most interested in writing about f(o)etuses in their encyclop(a)edias. Random89 10:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an American who has an awareness and fascination by the spelling differences (and also the zee/zed difference), I must say this is an aesthetic encyclopedia. Are we debating anything anymore? Metallurgist (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgist, we frequently pronounce the letter "z" as zed here in New Zealand. I have always believed that this linguistic quirk was uniquely peculiar to New Zealand. Are there any other countries where zed is used? BlueRobe 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs)
Certainly Britain, I thought zed was used everywhere in the commonwealth. Modest Genius talk 23:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious answer is check out z Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, I chuck in a throwaway (and perfectly spelled) comment about this being an international encyclopaedia and come back a few days later to find all this. All I can say about WP:ENGVAR is Vive la difference!

Now, on to my favourite bugbear (or should that be insectbear?). The wording of these two tags:

Why can't they have the same wording? And surely for the Br Eng one, it should read 'This article is written in British English, from which American English differs in some ways. As Am Eng is derived from Br Eng, Am Eng differs from Br Eng, not the other way round, and it should be phrased that way? The way it is phrased at the moment it makes Br Eng seem subservient to Am Eng. Br Eng is the subject of the sentence and so Am Eng should be relative/compared to it, not the other way round.

Sorry I can't use all the correct grammatical terms but the way it is phrased to make Br Eng - the mother tongue - appear as a comparison/offshoot of Am Eng really gets on my goat. 82.32.238.139 (talk)

You have a good point, and those two really should be phrased identically. However, isn't this all a bit off-topic for Talk:Main Page? Modest Genius talk 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yep, I guess it is. Just going with the WP:ENGVAR flow above - so where do I raise it? 82.32.238.139 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine Template Talk:American English, if that's the one you want changed. Or you could be bold and just make the change, see if anyone objects. Modest Genius talk 19:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a little more nuance to this conversation...linguistic evolution is very much like biological evolution. It's more of a branching tree than a direct line. So just like humans didn't evolve from chimps (we merely share a common ancestor), modern American English did not evolve from modern British English. They both branched from English as it was hundreds of years ago ("English English"?). So the above statement that "Am Eng is derived from Br Eng" is a little misleading. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's right. In some cases American has retained earlier English usage while we've departed from it. Sometimes the other way round. However, this doesn't apply to spelling. Shakespeare didn't even spell his own name consistently. Spelling was only just getting standardized when they rebelled against us. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's wrong. English in any form is derived from English that originated in Great Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.142.32 (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong? RR and PJ are correct that the English that originated in GB is quite different from modern English. And they're also correct that some of the differences between American English and Commonwealth English did not originate because American English changed from this older English but because Commonwealth English did. I'm normally willing to defend CE against AE but in this case, they clearly have a point and I don't see anything wrong about their statements. The place of origin of something you'd call English is not in dispute but arguably not particularly relevant to the point at hand anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The out-of-sequence insertion of the above coment has altered the apparent meaning of the following comment, which referrrd to the one before that. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, there was no out of sequence insertation. An ec occured which was automatically resolved by the software. The fact that you happened to click save first, means yours is technically before mine, although as both are referring to the same comment and were made with out reference to each other, ultimately it doesn't matter and causes no confusion or altering of meaning provided you use proper indenting which you did use for your comment below, but not for this comment since it looks like you're referring to 94 as being out of sequence when in reality, I'm pretty sure you're referring to my comment. Just to repeat that, anyone capable of following a thread should easily see both your comment and my comment are in reply to 94 since you did use proper indenting for the below comment so there's no altering of meaning so there's usually no need to make further comment unless confusion does arise. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that's true. But it doesn't imply that the British usage on any particular point came first. Hence Rreagan's statement that it's misleading to say that AE is derived from BE. Not false, just misleading. Peter jackson (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody else noticed that nearly everything in the OTD feature has to do with English speaking countries? Bias, anyone? What about the rest of the world? 158.158.240.230 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the word bias gets thrown around so much that its lost all meaning. -- Ashish-g55 15:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Day

I'm certain the subject has been brought up numerous times before, but I'd like to offer my support for a Collaboration of the Day link or feature on the Main Page. As mentioned here (by me), which in turn received a response linking to several other requests for a similar interactive feature, I am wondering if there are any additional thoughts or concerns relating to this idea. Much like the DYK feature, articles could be nominated for a daily collaboration in which registered users could work together to improve an article within a short period of time. I see the point made that the Main Page is for readers, as opposed to editors, but I think even a simple link or small box would allow readers AND editors access to the article to see just how collaborative, interactive, and efficient Wikipedia can be. Each day, readers and editors could see an article jump from Stub class to a much high class within 24 hours. Any thoughts, ideas, or concerns? --Another Believer (Talk) 07:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed here. See also Wikipedia talk:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive, which describes why that similar idea was abandoned. It was linked from Wikipedia:Community portal, not the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the spirit of this proposal is good. I know it has been previously discussed to death as it relates to individual articles. Has anyone ever proposed a daily task-oriented drive? E.g. today is add references to unreffed BLPs day. We'll have a how-to, and a category of pages needing references. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not going to do anything about the readers not editors objection Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just think that objection is BS. I think Wikipedia needs to step up recruitment, and there are no easily visible ways for interested readers to get involved in tasks well-suited for newbies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you're welcome to your opinions, it's clear there's a large majority who don't agree with them. And so it remains unclear to me why or how this proposal of your is going to be any different from previous proposals. In fact, the 'unrefed BLPs' likely isn't even a task well suited to newbies. If you genuinelly believe there's some way to change minds, I'm not sure just coming up with another random proposal is going to help any since the strength of the proposal was never a big factor. Instead concentrate on convincing people there's merit to change the very long standing consensus and start strongly imploring readers to become editors by adding a section 99.9% of readers are still not going to care about or find useful. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TOO MUCH

The first season of Smallville? get real! what waste of a stupid show and this is second fiction in 2 day! Oh + Brooklyn's greatest arcitect Frank Freeman too that breaks one of wikipedia' core rules of neurality and he is at the top so everybody can see that too for sure also have MAJOR problem with 1947 – Civil disorder in Taiwan was brutally suppressed by the Chinese Nationalist military in the 228 Incident. brutally suppressed is breaking the rule again and is OBVIOUSLY anti-china. if wikipedia is going to change its rules and have more fiction and be anti and pro whatever its wants can it just say this in its rules and not be so BLATANTLY hypocriticle all over its own "Main Page"? also want to know if the roach paralyzed and kidnapped by the female emerald cockroach wasp is female or male itself if nobody is too buzy choking on that and i have no more time now will check later for ansears but this not my computer and someone else wants it and I'm being told to go to bed now anyway so bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.222.102 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC) p.s. i love wikipedia but really gotta make less mistakes.[reply]

Full stops are your friends. Just reading that block of text gives me a headache. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how only the IP addresses make posts like these.--WaltCip (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, though, that a registered user can log out and make such a comment, such as not to blemish his or her name. 79.67.246.166 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A registered user would also do well to assume good faith and remember that not every IP is a vandal. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as one would assume good faith in not presuming that I assumed that every IP was a vandal.--WaltCip (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we should simply avoid presenting suppositions as fact (see: "only the IP adresses" (emphasis mine)). If this is in fact a fact and not a supposition, perhaps you should present the supporting data as well, so as to avoid these unfortunate misunderstandings. 67.252.127.81 (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather a long and meandering comment for a registered user - and most people accept that there is occasional 'clumping' of topics - whether country/continent specific, 'things that annoy Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells and relatives thereof, fiction etc etc. 'Brutally suppressed" can be a neutral term - defining a level of state-sanctioned/police/military activity against a particular popluation (eg the Hungarian Uprising). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see (in response to the original post). I am assuming you are talking about the placing of the article on the Smallville season on the main page. The Featured Article is not specifically for articles of especially important things - indeed, that would make it incredibly complicated as many different things are important to different people - but is a showcase of articles that have become, through a process that you can look up, Featured as very well written and designed articles. Some people spent the time and looked up the resources, etc. to make that article a very clear and informative description of its material. So, this is no mistake. It simply happens to be a well made article that deserves to be represented in such a way. Sure, things could perhaps be better spread out at times, but with all the various articles put in the place, it becomes difficult to fairly space everything out to everyone's satisfaction. If you would like certain things to be better represented, go help articles about those topics be balanced, informative, and well written. There are even groups that focus on specific topics which might be able to help you.

On Frank Freeman, perhaps the wording is somewhat vague and unscientific. I would guess that it is intended to mean "Brooklyn's greatest architect, according to a specific group" (perhaps some notable news source, or an expert on the topic), and is worded that way because my more elaborate way is long and boring sounding (indeed, I now see that in the article it now states that he "has been called "Brooklyn's greatest architect"" - the fact that he has been called this is notable and factual). If this is incorrect - you know that the sources are poorly chosen or used, and perhaps he was never called that - please go and help out that article and the subsequent information noted from it on places like the Main Page. On "brutally suppressed" - descriptions like that are often used as a technical term. The suppressors used force in great quantities - whether for good or ill reasons - and probably came off as overusing force (whether they did indeed overuse it or not, for good reasons or bad). The method used can be factually noted as generally more dependent on force tactics than many other options, and "brutally suppressed" gets the message across in a more clear and simple way than writing ourselves into contortions trying to define the point in certain different ways. As for the wasp and roach, I do not know. I would assume that in general the species has no preference (unless perhaps there is some necessity for certain biological capabilities in the paralyzed roach).--76.195.210.125 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian PM visit?

I don't think that Manmohan Singh becoming the first Indian Prime minister to visit Saudi Arabia since 1982 is important enough to make the headlines. It should be included on the Indian main page. The picture of Manmohan Singh should also be removed. RG104 (talk) 22:50, March 1, 2010 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that it would be helpful to know the significance of this event. It's kind of a so what? situation. For example, I'm sure the President of Dominica hasn't visited...Moldova since ever. Clarification would help. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 23:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section in the bold article India – Saudi Arabia relations should clear this up for most people but here is some context. Apart from 1982 to 2010 being a considerable length of time, this is only the third time in history that the Indian Prime Minister has visited Saudi Arabia (the previous time was 1955). The following is from one of those who commented at the nomination:

It is also clear from reading the article now that it has happened that the visit was not particularly normal, several agreements were signed, an honorary doctorate was given, a female diplomat was permitted to be present without wearing the abaya or the hijab, and so on. This combination means this visit was notable enough in my opinion and the opinions of others (nobody actually opposed). --candle•wicke 15:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should mention some of the treaties, agreements, etc. that were made there so that people can know how important this visit really was. Right now, it does sound like a So what? situation, like BobAmnertiopsis said. RG104 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is limited space. Reading the bold article should clarify the importance of most things posted on ITN. --candle•wicke 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Bias?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is only mention of canada olympics gold record but no mention of the USA overall medal record which is universally seen as a more important record? DWood 00:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

"Universally"? Please see Olympic medal table#Medal count ranking: "The gold first ranking system described above is used by most of the world media, as well as the IOC. However, newspapers in the United States primarily publish medal tables ordered by the total number of medals won..." Let's use the system used by most of the world media. --PFHLai (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could put our nationalistic egos on the backburner and honor individual athletes? 69.129.145.181 (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We had Canadian speedskater Cindy Klassen and her 5 medals on ITN for the 2006 Turin Games, but we don't have anyone standing out like that in Vancouver this time around. --PFHLai (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a world where blatant pro-American bias is the norm in the news media, television, music and literature, I'm a little gobsmacked to see someone complain about a single example of alleged bias in favour of another country. Dear DWood, welcome to OUR world. BlueRobe 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs)
American bias, Canadian bias, video game bias, sports bias, and on and on and on. There is no way to make people happy. J.delanoygabsadds 03:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 04:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<snort> Great. Now I have to clean coffee off my monitor & keyboard..... -- MarcoTolo (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why not mention us medal record then..also its an obvious shot at america mentioning canada hock gold..whats with eh anti-americanism on wikipedia...after all americans founded wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I mean its not really a big deal to me...no one cares about the winter olympics anyway...just want to be fair DWood 11:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) [reply]

The Olympic Charter says in Rule 6, "1. The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries." In the Fundamental Principles of Olympism it says "5.Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement."

The games are about sportsmen seeking excellence, not about the nations they come from. Nationalistic brandishing of medal figures is contrary to the basic principles of the Olympic Games. It is that very process which has cheapened and reduced the Games to their current lowly state, where much of the world cares little about them. Today, television figures world-wide are miniscule compared to any major football event like the World Cup. (I mean real football, of course, not USAian handegg.) Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"why not mention us medal record then..also its an obvious shot at america mentioning canada hock gold..whats with eh anti-americanism on wikipedia...after all americans founded wiki" [sic] Surely, that entire sentence, ignoring its blatant ignorance, loses the argument? Or we could feature the entire medal table. No bias there. 79.67.246.166 (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, to be fair, football is definitely more about the countries competing rather than the individual footballers, but I imagine many more people watch Champions League football over Olympic coverage.  urban f o x  12:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain Wikipedia is not bound by the Olympic Charter, which seems to be out of touch with reality and global perception. The Olympics are and for a long time have been country vs country. --Nricardo (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nricardo - you make my point for me. Modern Olympics no longer follow the original Olympic principles, of honest competition between amateur athletes. Now they mean naked nationalism, greed for money and most of all drug use.
Few people in my country watch athletics in the Summer Olympics. Most people watch the opening and closing ceremonies as entertainment, then switch off. Winners of athletics medals are (unfairly) presumed to be undetected drug users - particularly those from major medal winning countries. Of course, this is grossly unfair on the many competitors who win honestly. Unfortunately, too many bad apples have ruined the whole barrel and for us Olympic medals are devalued for ever. Michael of Lucan (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As interesting as all this may be, I see no evidence that this nationalism has reduced viewers. If anything, the evidence suggests it has increased it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course nationalism is the only reason anyone watches it...it is what makes it fun. It you vs. us...the basic thing needed in any competition and its what drives athletes and viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC) "Surely, that entire sentence, ignoring its blatant ignorance, loses the argument?" how was that ignorant, it is the truth. you are the ignorant one DWood 19:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Anyone here preparing for a fight (certainly not the majority of those involved, but I see a few) a word of advice: don't. What goes on ITN should have nothing to do with one's personal view of the Olympics, Canadians, Americans, the world, etc... Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we shouldn't include anything about Canada winning 14 gold medals OR the United States winning 37 medals even though they are both Olympic records. This will solve the whole problem about bias. Or, we could just put both records on the main page. We should appreciate the hard work these countries and the athletes of these countries have put into winning medals. But I have noticed, most of the media is very pro-american. Yes, the Olympic Games, both summer and winter, are about nationalism. For example, the medal race between the US and China in Beijing in 2008. Many people watched the Games to see the result. I don't think it should be that way. People should watch the athletes, not the countries, in sports. RG104 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about curling! Please? BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 04:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about Olympics medals per capita! Where will USA and Germany be in the standings? And Norway? Latvia?  :-) --PFHLai (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norway has a freaking event named after them! nordic combined...well partially named after them and other nordic countries...also everyone in norway,germany, and those other european countries are brought up on snow and skiing, so i say lets talk about countries that don't spend their free time on mountains. :) DWood 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

Wow, probably the most blatantly wrong stereotype I've ever read. Good going.  f o x  (formerly garden) 19:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to narrow your stereotype about "european countries" a bit. Unless, of course, you think that "everyone" in Spain, Italy and Greece is "brought up on snow and skiing", lol. BlueRobe 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs)
Plenty of decent (and cheap) skiing in Spain... in fact, Barcelona has just announced its candidacy for the 2022 Winter Olympics! Physchim62 (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hypocrisy on both sides of this discussion is appalling. On the one hand, if Canada got the most golds then that's worth mentioning, but on the other, would it really be out of line to mention the US record as well? It does seem like every time the US gets mentioned people get up in arms as though it's some kind of imperialism...it smacks of overcompensating and it's very unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.4.57 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. If the Americans had won a record number of gold medals, that would be mentioned. There is only so much room on the ITN template. If we had more space, we could mention Kim Yu-Na, Amy Williams or any of the other incredible athletic feats that have been achieved over the course of the tournament but we don't. It's not about bias and it's not to diminish any of these achievements, it comes down to the issue that we only have space to feature the biggest which, like or not, winning more gold medals than have ever been won in a Winter Olympics, is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HJMitchell. These pro-US/anti-US arguments aren't half tiring. Why can't people just accept that sometimes there is a perfectly rational, unbiased reasoning behind things --Daviessimo (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to "why can't people just accept that sometimes there is a perfectly rational, unbiased reasoning behind things," I refer you to the above comments, the majority of which struck me immediately as biased. Just to be clear, I don't really care if the US medal count is listed, or the Canadian for that matter. I didn't watch the Olympics, don't care who won, and don't take nationalistic pride in something as ridiculous as amateur sports. What I find of greater concern is the general attitude presented in many discussions I've read, this one included. Just so it's clear, I didn't even notice the "missing information" on US medals (though I'm mildly unconvinced that "and the US won xx medals, a record total" is too much text to include), I actually came to the discussion page over an unrelated issue...and I really don't care if the US medal count is even put up. But it does look pretty bad when you look at this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.4.57 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the comments have perhaps been a bit to OTT, but the very first reply, and one of the few from someone with any real involvement in ITN perfectly explained the situation and reasoning. (In fact most of the OTT comments having even really been concerning the original issue.) If you don't agree with it, that's up to you, but I see no reason why there's something wrong with us following the rest of the world, even if the US does something differently particularly when space constraints make it difficult to do both and there are plenty of other things we could mention instead. If anything, I would be far more concerned about the attitude of those who are unable to accept such a simple, logical and IMHO rational reasoning and instead must see endless conspiracies or bias behind it. I should add that no one has even explained why we should follow what the US does instead of the rest of the world including the IOC, in fact the starter of this thread has just ignored that point and instead simply continued to claim that everyone does what the US does despite the very first response pointing out, no they don't. Also note that the Olympics isn't primarily an amateur sporting contest anymore as professionals can and do compete in most events. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because medal tables are presented in the format of most won, not most gold...and even if it wasnt I would still see have the most individual athlete medal as more important than most golds... DWood 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the first reply? As it's already been explained medal tables are presented in the format of most golds most media (including the IOC's 'informational' tables) everyone except for those in the US. Not surprisingly then, we follow the rest of the world and not the US. You are welcome to your own personal beliefs about what is more important, but they are irrelevant to ITN. The same as say, anyone who believes anything concerning the US should automatically be ignored or automatically included. For that matter we don't use per capita rankings either even though clearly some people regard them as more important. I should add the US has a lot of natural snow and ice. If and when one of the Tropical nations at the Winter Olympics actually win a medal then we can discuss whether we should put them up, because everyone else has a lot of snow and ice, until then it's a little irrelevant. Unless you're going to use some ridicilously complicated system which is not only per capita but per geographical area and time covered in snow and ice. Either way, there's no reason why per capita is any more wrong then other systems Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IOC is not representative of anyone but europeans... I mean they're are countries who have 1/100 the population of the United States or 1/1000 of China or India but have more members in the IOC DWood 04:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

Oh be quiet, you ridiculous man. 87.114.119.26 (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see... countries in Europe with approx 1/100th of the US population. Well according to List of countries by population you have Lithuania, Armenia, and Albania. Personally I blame those pesky Armenians. I mean their name kind of looks like American so they are probably the ones behind the IOC's big anti-US conspiracy. Damn them! --Daviessimo (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it woul've been their (Armenians) neighbors the Georgians since their county has the same name with the U.S. state of Georgia. Heck, it even made Georgia a dab page! Boo! LOL –Howard the Duck 11:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Typical ignorant American "might is right" argument, there, Repiceman. Nice going. 81.156.124.198 (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it - the Greeks (pesky Europeans) started the Olympic Games whereas the Americans gave!! us the baseball "WORLD Series" (how many countries?). Denisarona (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme ask the latest World Series MVP... –Howard the Duck 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will he add more countries?? Denisarona (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if Japanese and American teams want to play with jet lag, or if teams from the Dominican Republic can sustain airfare for 80+ times per season. –Howard the Duck 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lets not get into baseball please. we already got IPL discussion over at ITNR with similar problems. -- Ashish-g55 14:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think most authorities would say that Armenia is in Asia, not Europe. Ditto Georgia. Peter jackson (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't say most authorities. Armenia and Georgia both have a defined commitment to Europe, are both members of the Council of Europe and their sports teams largely participate in the European arena. Technically the Caucasus Region straddles the border between Europe and Asia, so ultimately there is no wrong or right - its simply the preference of the country which way it looks.N.B. When I use Europe in this context I am referring the the Geo-political Europe rather than the Geological Europe, which I do believe generally extends as far as the Bosphurus and Ural mountains, which would technically make Armenia and Georgia sit outside of Europe --Daviessimo (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference sources frequently ignore countries' own preferences (if any) as to which continent they belong to, & have all sorts of different ideas on that, & indeed on what continents there are, & what countries there are. And, to return to the head topic, I think the Olympics count Israel as in Europe. Peter jackson (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just checked: [2]. Israel, Armenia & Georgia all count as Europe for Olympics purposes. Peter jackson (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Cyprus. Peter jackson (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK! enough with all the typical european hypocrisy... so typical for a european to do something then scorn someone else who does it. I am not saying the IOC is anti-US i am saying its is anti-anything not european. WHat the percentage of the votes europe gets? i know its pretty damn high and the last 2 presidents have been european... you all getting this? so stfu and actually think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very difficult to follow the line of your argument, due principally to your inability to spell, punctuate or capitalise words properly. 87.114.119.26 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
last i checked Canada was not in europe. this topic is getting ridiculous... where did IOC's europe bias come into play... did europe get more medals? -- Ashish-g55 19:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the my earlier statement? Euro countries have more votes in the IOC compared to other countries, even much bigger ones. DWood 19:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

It is wikipedia, I am busy if you have a problem with my grammar get over it. Also, here we spell it capitalize..so it looks like your spelling is the wrong one... DWood 23:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Too Much Negative News?

Could we perhaps try to aim for more positive news entries more often? Or is it purely based on what is -in- the established media? Bad news sells, and all; but since we're not trying to readers, could we put up something other than mainstream negative news articles? 67.235.44.68 (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some good news you would like to see featured, please suggest it at WP:ITN/C. IT seems there hasn't been much recently. Modest Genius talk 22:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is a bit miserable at the minute, isn't it? Unfortunately that's what is "in the news", but if you can think of a more positive news story, we'd love to hear it on WP:ITN/C. We try to keep it balanced, but it doesn't always work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that death count is one of the few measures of significance that mostly holds up world wide.©Geni 23:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could address the tragedy of the Chilean earthquake as "timely employment opportunities in the construction sector during the global recession", but I would rather hear the gritty honest spin. BlueRobe 01:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs)
Don't worry. Want some "cultural news" for ITN? The 82nd Academy Awards is just around the corner.... :-) --PFHLai (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animated GIFs on Main Page

File:TectonicReconstructionGlobal.gif

Would this image be appropriate (in terms of flashiness) for a DYK lead on the main page? Materialscientist (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with gifs on the MP, so long as the filesize is kept down. However, I find that a bit hard to follow what's going on. Modest Genius talk 09:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, as this should motivate you to click on the DYK hook ;-) Materialscientist (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should ban animated GIFs from the Main Page—indeed, I think we've had the discussion before somewhere—but they can be distracting and heavy on download width so we should use them sparingly, only once in a while. I've no objections to this one, although I'm not sure that an image actually makes people click on the link for DYK (or for ITN or OTD for that matter)—so let's call it acceptable eye candy! Physchim62 (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'll probably be helpful to slow it down. As MG says, it's difficult to see what's actually going on but while the speed perhaps works for the large size, given the difficulties due to the size of the thumbnail, the high speed probably makes it even more difficult to understand. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Animated gifs need to be resized before uploading. The full gif is served by wikipedia, not the resized gif. Last I checked the resizing is performed client size (which is kinda stupid, but I believe some bug was holding things up). 129.67.86.23 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have animated GIFs for POTD occasionally. I'll normally substitute it with a static thumbnail unless the filesize is pretty small (< ~200Kb). howcheng {chat} 17:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=347976402"