This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As per certain links like "deaths" etc, I think a link to the current elections year (ie- Elections in 2010 should be placed for easy access on the main page. the Most important ot ITN stuff with elections results is on there and there are always elections some place or the other so it warrants a place there. Then of course the "minor" elections wont even need to qualify for ITN. What do people think?(Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the news entry on this item should be amended to say "...banning the use, production and transfer of cluster bombs in the ratifying nations", or something to that effect. Perhaps this pushes into "duh" territory, wherein I'll be told that people clicking on the link need only read a few lines of text to discover that most major cluster-bomb producing/storing/using nations do not, and most likely, will not ever, fall under the ban. But, still. 76.28.169.130 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The number of deaths is stated as 1100 by several sources. I recently changed the article to reflect this and added a source, and several other sources on the article support this. Should we change it from "hundreds" to "over a thousand"? -- bydand•talk 09:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Try WP:ERRORS for small tweaks like this on the main page. --174.89.158.62 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Proposal
This may be the wrong venue and it likely has been brought up before but has anyone ever thought about adding in a "Today's Featured List" to go along-side the TFA? There may be a few issues with this idea such as the lack of lists (We'll likely run our of lists to put up in 1-2 years) and the quality of lists vs. articles but nonetheless, I think that we should consider a proposal like this. FL should be just as important as their counterparts and they should be allowed to be on the main page besides DYK and the rare ITN.--White ShadowsIt's a wonderful life 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Where does it show up in WP:PEREN? I had a feeling that this came up before but I was only suggesting it again. It sounds like a good idea but like I said and you guys pointed out, there are a lot of issues that would come up.--White ShadowsIt's a wonderful life 21:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It isn't on WP:PEREN, hence the "quasi-". The suggestion has been made many times before; see the talk page archives of this page, as well as the archives of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes - nothing can really change on Wikipedia. Aiken♫ 22:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not necessarily true but I don't really think that a TFL would be in the works anytime soon if ever....--White ShadowsIt's a wonderful life 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Wait, rather than just adding in a new section, why not make FLs eligible to go up as TFA? You can replace the caption with just "Today's Featured List" instead of "Today's Featured Article" whenever one makes it's way to the main page.--White ShadowsIt's a wonderful life 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that's been discussed too, but feel free to suggest it at WT:TFAR. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I had a feeling that it would. I don't really want to suggest it over at WT:TFAR; it will likely get shot down. I'll just wait until someone else brings this issue up again to voice my support for a FL to make it to the main page.--White ShadowsIt's a wonderful life 00:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was consensus for it then and I doubt there is now. With the greatest respect to FL, a FA is crafted to a higher standard and undergoes much more scrutiny. We will never run out of FA's to feature, we are promoting faster than we are running. I guess the question would be, why is this something we should do?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention that FAs tend to be more diverse and more interesting to readers than FLs (with a few exceptions). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It's great that we mention those, but 1-what makes it so notable? 2-there should be a link to the news item itself, not just to Coronal Mass Ejection. CielProfond (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair point, though we're planning on adding another bit to the sentence once we get documentary evidence of the expected massive auroral displays. It's the largest in at least a decade, and as far as I'm aware there haven't been four in one day before, but we can't state something without sourced info in the article. Modest Geniustalk 22:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
And it is neither cricket, a video game, nor anything to do with America. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Israel and Lebanon
Israeli and Lebanese troops exchange fire near the village of Adaysseh (pictured), on the border between the two countries.
The article states that Lebanon had violated the boundary, yet we have neutral wording not alluding to who was responsible. If Israel on the other hand had started it and gone across the border, it would have been worded differently in the front page.
What's the point? I'm not just complaining about the obvious anti-Israel bias that Wikipedia along with the media un-originally regurgitate. I'm suggesting that the tone of the wording show who was responsible, e.g:
Israeli troops open fire after a Lebanese soldier violates Israel's northern border"
It's impossible to go into all the nuances of the incident in a one-sentence blurb. ITN therefore uses a simple, neutrally worded blurb which only states the incontrovertible facts, and any further details (such as culpability) can be found in the article. Besides, I'm fairly sure there will be some disagreement over who was and wasn't responsible. Modest Geniustalk 23:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
What MG said. I wrote the blrb and I can assure you I have no pro- or anti-Israel bias. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Blaming anyone for anything regarding Israel is like opening Pandora's box in a snowstorm. Zazaban (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I endorse the neutral wording. (And in case it matters to you, 68.42.250.113, I'm Jewish.) —David Levy 01:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter David; I'm Catholic but I don't judge by religion because of the obvious fallacy in not treating people individually, but thanks for all your reasonings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.250.113 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I like to think of myself as impartial regarding such matters. I noted the fact that I'm Jewish because if I were to harbor a bias, it logically wouldn't be "anti-Israel." —David Levy 01:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Some are stated in past tense and others in present tense. I would go with past, since all of these news events happened in the past; unless you are describing an ongoing event. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be referring to two separate sections, for which our differing style conventions reflect a key distinction; we write In the news (current/recent events) in the present tense and On this day... (events from past years) in the past tense. —David Levy 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No, some "In the News" items were written in the past tense yesterday. In any case, I see that they are now all in present tense. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, there must have been an error. Sorry for misunderstanding you. —David Levy 17:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the OP is referring to wording of the Pakistan item [1] at the time, although I think that's still present tense (are killed not were killed). From my look thorough the history I can't see any other items that were in past tense. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Prop 8
The decision is a major news story. Why isn't it in the news section? Exploding Boy (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Prop 8. Maybe there was not enough space to put that aricle.Xavier The Second (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
A California court said that Proposition 8 (2008), which had banned gay marriage in the state, is unconstitutional. The decision is being appealed. Some commentators feel that the decision is part of a movement that will lead to the legalization of gay marriage throughout the U.S. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
And besides far-reaching consequences for LBGT rights in America, the issue of same-sex marriage, DOMA, and DADA, it's also major international news. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong place for this discussion everyone. See WP:ITN/C. It was discussed yesterday to mostly "Oppose" votes. -- Siradia (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly how much more obvious do we have to make it? This isn't where ITN items are discussed and, even if there's a firm consensus here to put an item on ITN, it won't go up until there's a consensus at ITN/C, so you;re wasting your time bys discussing it ehre, while ITN/C suffers from a lack of participation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Bias towards cricket in Did you know and Featured articles
I mean it's all jolly fun and all, but there is a whole lot more to the sporting world than cricket and cricket players, I don't have specifics but I seem to see cricket related articles every other day on the main page. Just a thought on editorial bias perhaps? Choronzon (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There have been more books written about Cricket than any other sport,Maybe this is why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avdoyle80 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a bias inherent in Wikipedia. Editors work to improve articles that they're interested in. Because of this certain topics get more attention than others. Maybe cricket is one of them (blowed if I know why - damn silly game. This is a proper game). The solution for readers concerned about this is to work on articles they find interesting.
Incidentally, there's a thread about this issue two up from this one. Though that's mostly about how often the subject of "OMG! bias!" crops up here. TFOWR 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Choronzon. I'm delighted Wikipedia hasn't really gone to the dogs. (See my comments above). --Dweller (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I am certainly not a fan of cricket, my sport tends to be American football, but I find it interesting to learn the important news of a sport mainly not talked about in my part of the globe. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Choronzon's gone paranoid. There's hardly any cricket compared to N american sports YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the Main Page never runs out of things to feature about British sports such as (association) football, rugby union and league, cricket, tennis and golf. XD –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed the main page has a very strong bias towards things British. I've never seen any main page entry that isn't written in some variant of this language that originated there Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a wee bit excessive, but all? I'm not convinced we can blame the British for MTV and the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising... ;-) TFOWR 11:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The band who were in the first MTV music video were British. And the British participated in WWII. LOL. Basically today's OTD is full of white guys. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Howard, I presume you were being impressively sarcastic when you listed those "British" sports. Hats off to you. Meanwhile, I'm with YellowMonkey - given the massive output of cricket FAs, precious few get to Main Page. Oh, and YellowMonkey is personally responsible for a massive proportion of those FAs. --Dweller (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Huh. I'm British, see about 40 minutes of American football a year and struggle to name any current players, but I remember Morten Andersen. By the way, surely ice hockey is a British sport too? --Dweller (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes. Lord Stanley is British, and Canada is a Commonwealth realm. That means, basketball is a British sport too since James Naismith invented it. That leaves baseball, which is obviously a cricket rip-off, and American baseball, which is ripped off from rugby, so we've rounded out all four "major" North American sports. Yay. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Most non American American football players must be punters. It shares the skills used in rugby union and Aussie rules. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I protest about the bias against Kabbadi articles in Did you know and Featured articles. --Dweller (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
On this day today it shows history bit "William Kemmler became the first person to be executed in an electric chair." Just right next to it is a picture of Tim Berners-Lee. Ofcourse the alt-tag in the image tells that it isnt Mr. Kemmler but for many it is confusing. This has been true for other items also, you have to scroll down the "On this day" box to really find the article that the image is referring to. Selostaja 10:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selostaja (talk • contribs)
This has been mentioned many times and is in the FAQ. There has been no consensus to change the status quo. 79.67.138.254 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
On This Day
I realize this may not be the correct place for this and I am sorry, but I couldn't find any better. Why in the name of all that is holy is the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima not listed. It is IMO much more significant than the disappearance of Joseph Force Crater. --dashiellx (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It usually would feature in "On this day" but "Today's featured picture" (further down the page) has a picture of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial in recognition of the anniversary. It is custom (I think) not to have the same event featured in two different main page sections at the same time - Dumelow (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I didn't scroll that far down. Hopefully others will and not have the same reaction I did. --dashiellx (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I too really missed the bomb in the 'on this day' section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.249.114 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That picture is the bomb! 67.220.5.154 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this has been the standard practice for the past couple of years to not have the same event featured on multiple page sections. Many do not want duplication, particular when you can have an entire section devoted to one particular event, and leave room on "On This Day" for something else also historic or significant. And yes, there has been a few discussions about this standard practice before, such as when D-Day was the subject of the featured picture for 6 June 2009, see Talk:Main Page/Archive 139#Ummmm June 6th, Today in History...Doesn't mention D-Day on the front page.
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 requesting an explanation. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
To some extent, as annoying as these common complaints may be, arguably that is only a minor issue. A greater concern may be those who don't check or post here and go away thinking wikipedia doesn't care about Americans/Japanese/whatever or is anti-American/Japanese/whatever or has an evil liberal/conservative/whatever bias. Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually I do not consider either of those things to be important. meshach (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
POTD too far down?
We should keep the various sections on MainPage from getting too long, or we would be pushing POTD too far down on the page. Let's keep TFA at 1250 characters or less, and about 4~6 items each at ITN, DYK and SA/OTD, and not make readers of MainPage scroll too much. I think DYK is taking up too much space on MainPage with ~10 hooks at a time (SA/OTD was lengthened to compensate and maintain L-R balance), and 6 hooks should be max. If there are 8 hooks, the hooks should be short. Otherwise, DYK is taking up too much space on MainPage. An excessively elongated MainPage is a MainPage with a poor layout. --PFHLai (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
& Kagan
I not only agree with @explodingboy but have to make the same comment about Elena Kagan becoming the 112th Supreme Court Justice. Provide a link to the consensus site if you can't provide a good reason for not having the two biggest news topics in the country "in the news" section. Altarboy420 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
See HJ Mitchell's comment in the section above regarding wasting time by not having this discussion at WP:ITN/C. - BanyanTree 02:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a link to the 'consensus site' and it is posted very clearly at the top of the page. Remember, though, that Wikipedia serves more than the United States and items for In The News are not judged on how '[big] in the country' they are; there is no such criterion and if it is not deemed to have great worldwide importance, it is not likely to make the cut. 79.67.138.254 (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Giveaway phrase here is "in the country". Which country? There's a big world outside the USA and many of the people out there read wikipedia. It's good to cater to those people, too. It should not be assumed that the front page of en.wikipedia is purely for the benefit of readers in one country.
This story is not just of interest to readers in the USA, it is also not just US media that has covered the event. Although it is true that the international media covers the nomination far more than they bother to cover the confirmation. But covering it is justified and was supported by editors in the correct location for these sorts of debates. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I know some Americans are going to agree with this.
Isn't it a bit unimportant for a global English site to say 'that country's national court had a new Judge'? I mean, wtf? --Leladax (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should go hunt for the European or Chinese or Indian equivalent's wikibio. We should keep it updated for ITN.... --PFHLai (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Wat? I don't know if that's what you meant, but it seems you said someone is a nationalist here and wants their Judges in the news. Read again, it's generally about some judge in a country's national court. i.e. Someone is a nationalist indeed. --Leladax (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I said that? I don't know anything about nationalism or anyone being a nationalist. I just wonder who the European or Chinese or Indian ... equivalents are. If the appointment of a person to such a position in one country is considered big enough news with international impact, I'd say we should be ready for other similar wikibios for future ITN purposes. I must say I have a hard time finding these other wikipages. So, while I agree that this is an important appointment, I have to wonder if this is really local news in a location with lots of English Wikipedians.... --PFHLai (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC) (I know, I know... I know where WP:ITN/C is. I don't object to this appearing on ITN to the point that I have to post my objection there. I'm just responding to Leladax.... --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC))
Appointments to the US Supreme court is a pretty big deal, when Obama made the appointment it got a lot more attention in the international press than the recent confirmation, but it means the story it self is notable enough. Appointments/Confirmations do not come along too often and considering the huge power of this court which basically decides american policy be it on issues like abortion or the legality of homosexuality, and it usually comes down to a very close vote (5-4 isnt it?), it seems to me just as notable as elections to the US congress which without doubt deserve coverage on ITN. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Britain has a bubbled view of the importance of USA. --Leladax (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious, are you planning on leveling that accusation at residents of *any* country whose opinion differs from your own? GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 11:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The SCOTUS is indeed important, but one associate is not the whole court. And the appointment is not like a historic moment when the SCOTUS exercises its power and issues a decision on an important issue -- that I'd put on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ask yourself: Would you do add a news item for the equivilent in any other country? If the answer is no, then it should not be done. --.:Alex:. 13:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Even if the answer is yes, this argument only works in several European countries and maybe Japan. When we include for example, confirmation of appointments on an equivalent body in say, France for example. This doesn't guarantee we'd do the same for countries such as Benin or even Thailand and Chile. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
But the question is would the international english speaking media cover an equivalent in any other country to the degree they would an appointment to the US supreme court? The answer is probably no, there for there is justification for us to not include those things but to include coverage of US events. People may not like how this world works, but wikipedia is simply reflecting how the English speaking media works. If there was no coverage from outside of the USA, then this would have been blocked. But there was plenty of mention of it (although i accept most was relating to the nomination at the time rather than confirmation / swearing in). BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
And when she was nominated in May, consensus was that her confirmation was ITN-worthy. See here. And most of the people who supported posting her confirmation then never chimed in during the current debate. ~DCLet's Vent 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems my own opinions have softened since then. She's still not notable, and there is no consensus at WP:ITN/C for the story. It should be removed. Modest Geniustalk 01:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
In any case, why does the front page story about Kagan feature a picture of Nathan Lane from The Birdcage?μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Picture placement
Is this front page auto-generated? If not, picture placement MUST be improved. I was just glancing and saw a picture, and the story just next to it was the first person executed by electric chair in the US. But I knew the picture, it was Tim Berners-Lee. At first glance, it seems that he was being executed! I joked to myself: something wrong here, I know that the web has its flaws, but they could not have executed him. So pictures must really be closer to the text. It is just confusing now. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is covered. But I later noticed that someone complained about it today, before myself. So covered, yes. Satisfactory, no. Clever, no. Long live consensus. History2007 (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course it could. Talk:Selected anniversaries is no more a policy page than this one. Anyone who is so inclined could use common sense, be bold, and fix this without getting bogged down in bureaucracy. KafzielComplaint Department 00:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
No, this talk page is the proper venue instead of Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries because this issue is also relevant to "In the news". Furthermore, anybody who would "be bold" would certainly be reverted because there has been numerous discussions about this issue (the last paragraph in that FAQ section links to some of them), but all have led to no consensus on an alternative method. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I actually think the problem is not so much 'no consensus' but 'no one is willing to do the work required'. There seems to be resonable support for changing the alignment. The reason this isn't done is because as I'm pretty sure explained in the FAQ, doing so could break or cause problems for other places that transclude the template. Heck a poor job could even break on some browsers or configs for the normal main page.
As I've said before, if someone were willing to do the work, testing the various different alignments in different main page alternatives and different skins and different browsers and different resolutions, text sizes etc and make an effort to fix any problems that occur and at the end of that come up with something which at a minimum works on all common browsers at all settings for the default skin, and have a list of places where an alternative template may need to be used, then I suspect there would be no problem reaching consensus to changing the alignment. Sadly although I've said this many times, many people are happy to complain, or say we should 'be bold' or 'use common sense' but not so happy to actually do the (likely extensive) work. At best we get people proposing half-arse or lazy solutions like making a new template to use here but no where else, because they can't be bothered actually testing it and working out where it works and where it doesn't and why.
In any case, it's worth remembering we're unlikely to have any perfect alignment, for example if headline with the picture is the last entry.
Screw font sizes, screw coding, browser settings, all that stuff. The pictures should be placed sensibly, even if it does mess up somebody's template. Writing responsibly is more important than making sure it looks nice in Firefox, and responsible writing includes avoiding misleading placement of artwork. That's first-semester journalism. However, the obvious solution to me is that the "pictured" note should be bolded rather than italicized. I know that's mentioned in the FAQ, but (in my not-at-all-humble opinion) it has been discarded because of an extremely petty criticism: If someone really finds it so "distracting" that they can't possibly read one sentence of text, they're going to have a hell of a time using Wikipedia. I don't believe that anyone is really distracted by it any more than people are distracted by blue text. They'll get used to it. KafzielComplaint Department 16:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
That sentiment reminds me of old style design for user interfaces. They used to have a term for it: RTFM, "read the ... manual". But the new GUI interfaces need no reading and no thinking. Welcome to the 21st century. History2007 (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you just helped me discover a new law of linguistics: "Oh no" = "Oh, yes", in resignation. Alternatively, we could have Tim Berners-Lee be the subject of a fake execution and settle the matter that way. I think he could have fun too. Let us set a date: April 1, 2011. History2007 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Kaf, I think you're somewhat missing the point about the bolding. You feel that 'bolding' the pictured sufficient resolves the issue. The trouble is, not everyone agrees after all how many people are even going to notice the bolded thing, we may end up getting nearly the same number of complaints because people just don't notice the bolding. Perhaps moe importantly, when we tried it we got quite a few complaints. You claim these are 'petty' criticism, but the same argument could be made for the complaints such as yours we get about the current situation. The question of which one works better is therefore unresolved and arguably impossible to properly resolve without time and resources it's clear no one is willing to dedicate to the task. It's worth remember the number of complaints we got in the short time we tried bolding was quite a lot compared to the complaints we get about the lack of alignment which aren't that uncommon themselves. It may be as you suggest just that people aren't used to it, but then again, do remember that the bolding will always be there, whereas sometimes we do have okay enough alignment that people are probably unlikely to complain. In any case, suffice it to say, 'being bold' an implementing a proposal which has never achieved consensus and was tried once before and quickly abandoned simply isn't going to happen, so we're back to my original point.
And as for my original point, it's unclear to me why and how you think doing something which could mislead and annoy people even more if it doesn't work in certain or many cases helps anything. I definitely don't think it does. Responsible writing and editing means you don't break things or annoy many people just because a few people think there's a problem but are too lazy to actual help properly fix the problem properly. Form and function both matter, and doing a half arsed job about it as you are proposing could ruin both for a large number of people for minimal gain. If you want to fix something, fix it properly. Don't break things or make it far worse for many or even most people while slightly better for a few, particularly not when the only reason is because you're too lazy to do a proper job. That's just basic common sense and basic human decency, no need first semester journalism or whatever.
I've never been interested in the technical aspects of Wikipedia and I make no apologies for that. I'm a big-picture guy. But are you really telling me that adding one extra apostrophe on either side of the word "pictured" would "break" the template? I find that very hard to believe. Realigning the photo, sure. Rearranging the text, almost certainly. But changing italics to bold? I don't think that would require any extra work at all. So we're really just back to personal preference, and the supposed annoyance of all these people you mention.
By the way, where are all those complaints? Reading the discussion linked to in the FAQ, I see several people supporting bolding and just a few opposed to it (again, for personal reasons, not over any technical issue). And mostly from regular editors, none from the anonymous and new users who usually complain. Is there any reason to think it didn't help them? I'd be interested to see the tally of IP complaints about bolding that day vs. IP complaints about picture placement over the years. At the time, the dominating argument against bolding was that people should be able to spot the italics. Well, obviously they can't, and no amount of arguing is going to fix that. We gave it a couple of years and we are still getting complaints about the current state of things on an almost daily basis; at this point it seems absurd to go on discounting them just because someone claimed he didn't like it back in 2007 and nobody felt like arguing about it very much that day. Had they known it would set an iron-clad precedent that would be referenced for years to come, they probably would have spent less time talking about what "lol" means and more time defending their decision. KafzielComplaint Department 04:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
If you'd read the discussion you would have read many complaints were received about the bolding in in WP:Errors (which isn't archived). Edit: I repeat the claim from the previous discussion in good faith however actually looking in WP:Errors I don't find many complaints [2] and these were moved to the main discussion anyway. In any case, if it did have many complaints, it isn't likely to be repeated for that reason.
Therefore the option that is left to us is re-aligning which as I said from the beginning may be possible, but requires extensive testing. I thought I made it clear in my previous comments that this is what I was referring to when I said it could break things majorly but in retrospect 'And as for my original point' could be intepreted in two ways. I meant it to follow on from my comment in the previous paragraph 'so we're back to my original point' and my original point in that paragraph was intended to referer to what I had said in a previous comment, realignment may be possible but requires extensive testing. In any case, I think it's clear what's holding the bolding thing up isn't insufficient testing or technical issues, but the fact some people don't like it.
BTW please don't make silly or bullshit claims. We don't get complaints about the lack of alignment on an almost daily basis. At most a few times a month. The alignment isn't even out every day as I've already noted. And yes this is a serious issue since bullshit claims completely destroy any resonable discussion.
Edit: After looking more carefully, the number of complaints when we tried bolding isn't really that high that I can see. I had presumed there were quite a few in WP:Errors based on the comments in that discussion, but it appears these comments aren't really correct. Therefore you may be able to achieve consensus on bolding, I somewhat doubt it but it doesn't see to be as much a lost cause as I thought. However you will need to achieve consensus, being bold on something which has already been tried and failed definitely isn't the way to go as I've already noted. As much as anything, trying to be bold will almost definitely result in it being reverted and probably never tried again for another 3 years when a properly reasoned discussion and trial could theoretically achieve some sort of solution. As I've already highlighted, if you want to have any hope of achieving consensus, you definitely should avoid making silly or bullshit claims like your claim we receive complaints about the lack of alignment on an almost daily basis.
When this topic began, it was the second complaint on that one day about this very thing. (And please note that neither complaint came from me - I didn't start this thread.) There's no need to make this personal, Nil. That will derail the discussion. It's just as absurd to claim that it happens only a few times a month at most, and even if that were true... a few times a month, over the course of the almost three years since the referenced discussion, is about a hundred complaints. As you admit, the number of complaints about bolding in that old discussion are exaggerated. Certainly not enough to say we shouldn't revisit this, as was my original point. KafzielComplaint Department 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Justice Kagan looks pretty darn happy about all those Chinese that were killed; I mean, she is looking right at that story line! Morbid absurdity aside, why can't we just have a rule to keep whatever story hook, however old, at the top of ITN so long as the image is related to that story? If people complain about having a stale story on top, then they should look for a free image related to a newer story on ITN. That doesn't work for OTD, but I think most of the complaining is for ITN. --mav (reviews needed) 02:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I doubt you'll get any consensus for that given that it would almost definitely mean stories affecting the US often stay at the top Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Are the majority of free images US-related? It seems like I see a lot of photos related to international news items. Still, I agree that consensus would be difficult, due to doubts about how well it would be implemented and maintained. And there would be complaints about stale news items being high on the list. KafzielComplaint Department 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Related question
On the TFA, the thumbnail is on the left. On the other three sections, it's on the right. Would there be problems if the TFA's thumbnail is on the right too? Or is it related to the nature of the other three sections as lists? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Gretzky Trade
First, I'm not even sure why this is considered notable enough to be put on the main page, but this part of the blurb: "but also upsetting so many Canadians that some even considered him a "traitor" to his home country." seems to be to be an opinion. I don't think opinions should be part of the "On this day..." section.--dashiellx (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Notability is not the sole criterion. A nice wikibiography is being "featured" here. But yes, the opinion should not be there. --64.231.53.222 (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
What, throwing a bone to Canadian readers is now unacceptable? The wording is weasily (maybe it's sourced in the Gretzky article) but other than it being slightly embarrassing that a brief mention of Canada concerns hockey (coz that's all we do up here), where's the harm? freshacconci talktalk 14:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It's cited in the article. ~DCLet's Vent 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
i dont know about it being embarrassing or anything. but i must say the traitor part is a bit cheezy. kinda irrelevant for OTD and makes it rather long of a sentence. -- Ashish-g55 17:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Search Box on the left side
The search box should be on the left side again. That was a much better usability. (And of couse not only on Mainpage, but on every page.) 82.113.121.248 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I log in, and the search box returns to the left side where it has always been for years. Why don't you set up an account and choose your preferred format/layout that gives you "better usability"? --PFHLai (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
A less dismissive answer would be to point the anon to something like greasemonkey. Logging in, as a registered user who does login, is something I would rather NOT do. Whilst I can't give specific instructions (sorry), I believe you can override the default css to use the old "monobook" skin, which has the search box at the left. The downside of this approach is that it won't follow you from computer to computer, and can only be used under firefox. User A1 (talk)
Logging in allows that to transfer from computer to computer, no matter the browser. f o x 16:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Nod. I guess people like what they used/heard/saw first and just don't like change. f o x 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally I will admit to not liking the change; however more importantly, I would like that talk:main page doesn't get a rep for being grumpy. I'm not suggesting baskets and cookies (the good kind), but saying "you don't like it, not our problem" could be softened a little. I also appreciate the irony of me pointing this out, which in effect implies I myself am a grumpy talk:main_page watcher. User A1 (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Grumpy? And I thought I was being helpful by suggesting a possible solution. Hmm... --PFHLai (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps more importantly, on non-maximised browsers it's quite possible for the Vector right-hand search box to be off the screen when it first loads. On the left-hand Monobook, this was never an issue. Modest Geniustalk 01:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
On small screens, the search box is now not even visible until you scroll. I think it's a really stupid change. Quovatis (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Missing comma
Resolved
– Fixed, and report to WP:ERRORS next time. TFOWR 08:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The expression "A landslide in Gansu province, People's Republic of China kills 127 people, with 2,000 more missing." is missing a comma after the second element (People's Republic of China), according to WP:COPYEDIT, Common edits, bullet point 7. Cheers. 91.208.174.15 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong venue but clearly correct, so I've made the change. Done. Warofdreamstalk 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Dynamic size for The Featured Picture?
Sometimes I browse WP on my 1680x1050 laptop. Other times it is docked and I have 1280x1024 to play with. Especially on the wider screen, panoramic or landscape images look pathetically small compared to the amount of horizontal real estate available. Can TFP not be dynamically sized to the section width? (I'm only proposing this for landscape images, portraits would become much too tall). Caching issues can be overcome by having several width versions available and dynamically selecting whichever one is appropriate, rather than dynamically generating the picture itself. Zunaid 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to think of how to accomplish this, but there's no good solution that I can think of that doesn't involve a lot of work for me. Firstly, we'd have to determine what are good image sizes to have. Then, during creation of the POTD template, I'd have to do several preview posts to make sure that those images get created by MediaWiki. Finally, you'd have to have a client-side script that says, based on your current screen size, pick the image that's most appropriate, and that script would have to know what those image sizes were ahead of time, which will work for most cases, but there's always going to be some weird edge case that screws it up. If you can think of anything better, let me know. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I might be misremembering, but isn't there a possible parameter for images that determines the width as a percent of the browser window, rather than a strict number of pixels? GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 18:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope, see Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Also, I tried it out and if you use a percentage width then it just puts the full-size image there. howcheng {chat} 18:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That would indeed be a nice feature to have, but it would require some technical work to be implemented, probably in the mediawiki software itself. It might be worth asking about the practicality of such a system at WP:VPT. Modest Geniustalk 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The list currently comprises Wikipedias exceeding 40,000 articles (excluding those determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders). —David Levy 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
New US judge, US centrism once again
Why is this new US judge on the main page? She's not a head of state, not a head of government, she's not even the chief justice. This is domestic politics of no relevance to the outside world. More important events in European countries (such as the election of a Prime Minister of a state with 8 million inhabitants - which btw. received significant international media coverage) have been denied mention on the main page. Would the appointment of a new judge (not chief justice) in, say, Italy, Germany or Poland be mentioned on the main page? I'm sure it wouldn't (given that even state Prime Ministers, arguably a way more important position, was not considered relevant). The pattern of US centrism on the main page is annoying, so are the constant attempts by the advocates of US centrism to find new ways to justify their US centrism. This is supposed to be an international encyclopedia, not the US encyclopedia. The US is not any different from other countries.
Per a previous ITN discussion, only new heads of state/government of souvereign states are sufficiently notable. This new judge monumentally fails to meet this criterion. I suggest she is removed.
If we were to report appointments of all supreme court judges around the world, we would probably have daily updates on this. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Head ye over to WP:ITNC where this is being discussed, and where the decision to keep or remove this ITN item will be made. TFOWR 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
1. As TFOWR noted, the correct forum is WP:ITN/C. Nonetheless, we already have a discussion of this subject above. (Did you bother to check?)
2. Please provide a link to the previous ITN discussion in which it was determined that only new heads of state/government of sovereign states are sufficiently notable.
3. Was David McAllister's election proposed at WP:ITN/C? If so, what reason(s) were cited for its rejection? (The article doesn't appear to have been extensively updated, so perhaps that was a factor.) —David Levy 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It was opposed for being "domestic politics"[3]. The appointment of a judge is also domestic politics. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In that discussion, you stated that McAllister's election was "comparable to the election of a US governor, which always gets on the front page." As evidence of the latter claim (which is flagrantly false), you cited a single extraordinarycase. You also cited the inclusion of Robert Byrd's death, ignoring the fact that he was the longest-serving member of the United States Congress in history.
Now you refer to "the appointment of a judge," apparently without any regard for the ramifications thereof. —David Levy 22:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There's always something "extraordinary" about US domestic politics, it seems (I fail to see anything "extraordinary" about the case you are mentioning). Thank you for demonstrating how the US centrists game the system by constantly inventing exceptions and new rules when it comes to the US to get their domestic politics on the main page while keeping European, evidently more important, news out. How is the appointment of a judge supposed to be more important than the election of the head of government of a state with 8 million inhabitants? Josh Gorand (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Name-calling is not constructive, nor is jumping to conclusions about editors with whom you obviously are unfamiliar. (I've opposed the inclusion of various U.S. topics and supported the inclusion of various topics related to other countries.)
2. You see nothing extraordinary about New York's first black governor (and the first legally blind long-term governor in the United States) taking office following the previous governor's resignation due to a prostitution scandal?
3. Again, you described McAllister's election as "comparable to the election of a US governor." Despite your incorrect claim to the contrary, we almost never include the election of a U.S. governor in ITN.
4. Even if McAllister's election did qualify, it doesn't appear that the article was sufficiently updated.
5. The significance of Elena Kagan's appointment is discussed above (in the section that you didn't bother to check for before creating this one and evidently didn't bother to read after its existence was brought to your attention).
6. You refer above to "exceptions." I still await a link to the aforementioned discussion in which it was determined that only new heads of state/government of sovereign states are sufficiently notable. —David Levy 23:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I agree with most of what David Levy has said above (and note I opposed Kagan on WP:ITN/C), re point 2 I have to say no, I really don't see anything extraordinary about it. Modest Geniustalk 01:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that it's ordinary for a governor to take office under those circumstances? —David Levy 01:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No, but none of those are particularly extraordinary. Scandals which force politicians to resign are frankly commonplace. 'First black' or 'first blind' are interesting but hardly revolutionary facts, especially since those attributes have been held by governors of other states. Modest Geniustalk 19:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, we misunderstood each other. As explained below, I meant "going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary," not "exceptional to a very marked extent" (both definitions from Merriam-Webster). —David Levy 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
IMO, "not ordinary" and "newsworthy" are not the same thing. (ie Octomom) §hepTalk 02:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not arguing that the item's inclusion was the correct decision. I'm noting that it stemmed from the event's unusual circumstances (not, as Josh Gorand falsely claimed, from a system in which the election of a U.S. governor "always gets on the front page"). —David Levy 02:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Last year's gubernatorial elections in Virginia (pop 7.8 million) and New Jersey (pop 8.7 million) didn't get posted on ITN either, as no gubernatorial elections make it. And by Josh's logic NYC's election (which took place the same day as Virginia and NJ) should be posted, since its population is 8.3 million. ~DCLet's Vent 03:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Surely a better point is that a prime minister or president of a small country actually has direct control on foreign policy, and is thus of more international interest. By contrast a provincial or regional lawmaker largely controls domestic policy. User A1 (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
", and is thus of more international interest" Well that point is debatable. The western (english speaking media) would probably give very very little coverage to someone becoming president/prime minister of some of the very small territories or countries in the world, there are over 200. The ITN should certainly cover all major elections that get a lot of international media attention, but the media is not as "fair" as some think it should be, but either way we should be going by the media coverage to help judge if its justified a spot on the front page.
A regional law maker/governor does not deserve a mention on the front page (Even American ones) unless there is something very special thats attracted international press. But this is about confirmation to the supreme court of the United States, an extremely powerful court that gives plenty of rulings on a tight 5-4 vote. This court holds sway over the lives of over 300 million people. Its notable although in future i think it should be restricted to the nomination rather than the confirmation. The nomination did appear to get far more media coverage. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
But, as everyone seems to be forgetting, English is the global Lingua Franca and the most widely spoken second language in the world. Irrelevant of whether 50% of our users come from the US, there are more users and visitors from a larger number of countries on en.wikipedia than any other. The US supreme court may be a big deal in the US but how does the nomination or confirmation of a judge affect people in the UK, or Nigeria, or India, which are all countries with large numbers of English speakers, let alone people in China, or Egypt, or Brazil. For too long there has been an undercurrent of belief in the cultural superiority of the US and it is perfectly reasonable that users outside that country are increasingly becoming frustrated with this.
Users often love the throw this page up, to point out that more users on the English Wikipedia come from the US, but I wonder how much that figure has fallen in the last 5 years or I wonder how large it will be in five years time? Personally I think this page is far more telling regarding how international en.wikipedia is. I mean 40% of Dutch users, 35% of Chinese users, 41% of Indonesian users, and 46% of Korean users come to the English wikipedia over those of their native tongue. In fact most large countries have anywhere between 10-20% of their users coming to the English wiki, which is remarkable given that for many, English is not the first language. --Daviessimo (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm very satisfied that the judge was removed from the main page "per the overwhelming rejection"[4]. We have established a new clear precedent that US judges are not notable as far as the main page/ITN is concerned. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Just as the past inclusion of items about several U.S. Supreme Court justices did not set a precedent for their automatic inclusion, the removal of Kagan's item does not set a precedent for their automatic exclusion (though it does establish consensus against their automatic inclusion, with Kagan simply not standing out to a sufficient extent).
Likewise, the David McAllister item's exclusion means only that an item about a new Minister-President of Lower Saxony doesn't automatically qualify, not that no item about a new Minister-President of Lower Saxony can ever be included. —David Levy 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Assuming we've established any such precedent shouldn't it be established for the judges of all nations equally? You only mention the US. I should hope that all bias is equally concerning, rather than only bias in specific cases, which would of course be biased, and needlessly so. (e • nn • en!) 21:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I consider it to be self-evident that judges are not notable (given that not even a head of government, who is hundreds of times more important, is not notable). The precedent only establishes that there is no exception applying to the USA; that the same principles apply to all countries, as they should. I hope we will not see appointments of judges in Chile, the USA, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Japan, Turkey or China on the main page in the future. Josh Gorand (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
1. I regard as self-evident the principle that there is no exception for the United States (or any other country). To assert that we've just "established" this is to claim victory in an imaginary argument.
2. Why do you place all judges on the same level, and on what do you base the assertion that a head of government inherently "is hundreds of times more important"? I doubt that many people familiar with the Supreme Court of the United States (or equivalent courts in some other countries) would agree with that assessment.
3. The parenthetical "given that not even a head of government, who is hundreds of times more important, is not notable" doesn't seem to parse. Is there an unintended double negative? —David Levy 02:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
1) I didn't say this was established for the first time. But it seems necessary to establish this precedent again and again, as the main page is constantly flooded with US centric news items, whether it's the appointment of a judge, the death of a parliamentarian or something else. Hence, it was a good thing that the discussion resulted in a clear precedent.
2) I put judges on the same level because I fail to see why the appointment of any judges would be notable. The appointment of a US Supreme Court judge was just overwhelmingly deemed to be not relevant. Surely, no one would argue the appointment of a lesser judge would be notable? (I do recognize that a supreme court judge is more important than a judge on a lower court).
The Prime Minister of Lower Saxony is head of government of a state with 8 million inhabitants, a state that also largely controls one of the world's largest companies, and the office has served as springboard to offices such as Chancellor of Germany (Gerhard Schröder), President of Germany (Christian Wulff) or party chairmanship of the large parties (Sigmar Gabriel). I think there is no doubt that this office is monumentally more important than any judge's office. The person who is Prime Minister of Lower Saxony is one of the most important politicians in Europe's largest country and one of the world's largest economies and could be it's leader the next day as has happened before. The incumbent PM David McAllister is described by the press as a Chancellor-in-waiting[5] (the current Chancellor is considered the world's most powerful woman btw.). I would like to see the judge who equals McAllister in influence. I hope this answers your questions. Josh Gorand (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Asserting that this decision established or reinforced a precedent against favoring U.S. topics is comparable to asserting that it established or reinforced a precedent against favoring judges whose surnames begin with the letter "K." (Damn those constant attempts by the advocates of K surname centrism to find new ways to justify their K surname centrism!)
What you perceive as an intentional imbalance in content actually stems from an undesired (but largely unavoidable) imbalance in editors. Topics related to countries in which the English language predominates (including the U.S.) compose a disproportionately high percentage of our main page content because disproportionately high numbers of our contributors reside in those countries and perform the requisite edits to those articles. I assume that other Wikipedias deal with similar systemic bias toward topics related to countries in which their languages predominate.
In other words, the death of the longest-serving member of any country's legislature will qualify for inclusion in ITN, but only if the requisite article update occurs. Unfortunately, this is less likely if the subject was Angolan or Belorusian (as random examples) than if he/she was American or British. This leads to the appearance that we actively discriminate based on nationality, which simply isn't true.
2. The appointment of this U.S. Supreme Court justice was determined to not warrant inclusion. In the past, the opposite decision was reached for the appointment of other U.S. Supreme Court justices. Obviously, neither outcome was applicable to all U.S. Supreme Court justices.
The appointment of a judge to a lower court absolutely could merit inclusion, depending on the circumstances. For example, the appointment of a nation's first female judge likely would qualify, irrespective of the level. Many subjects must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as there are variables that mustn't be ignored.
3. It's flat-out incorrect to state that "there is no doubt that [the office of Prime Minister of Lower Saxony] is monumentally more important than any judge's office." There might not be any doubt in your mind, but there is in mine. Doubt is not the same as certainty to the contrary (and unlike some, I don't make dismissive assumptions about a governmental system with which I'm relatively unfamiliar), but I can assure you that I harbor doubt regarding the claim that the head of a subnational unit comprising ~eight million residents is "monumentally more important than" a judge whose votes stand to sway decisions (on issues as paramount as civil rights) affecting a nation of more than 300 million people (and generations to come).
You described McAllister's election as "comparable to the election of a US governor" and falsely claimed that the latter "always gets on the front page." In fact, it almost never does. My state's population exceeds that of Lower Saxony, but when a new governor recently was elected and took office, this received no mention in ITN (rightly so).
If the comparison was inaccurate (and the event was not merely "comparable to the election of a US governor"), you have only yourself to blame for understating its importance. (But again, it appears that the article wasn't sufficiently updated, so this point is largely moot.) —David Levy 08:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This may or may not be the right place to mention this: I find it interesting the extent to which the arguments over news item significance mirror the arguments about state representation that occurred during the framing of the US constitution. More populous states wanted more representatives, but smaller states felt that each state was equally important and therefore each should get one vote. The compromise that finally settled the matter was to create two different representative bodies, the House (where more populous states get more votes) and the Senate (where each state gets one vote). Thus, America's founding fathers decided that both arguments were correct. More populous states are more important sometimes, but all states are equally important sometimes too. It's a shame that everyone here thinks only one or the other is right. The US is the world's sole hyperpower. It is currently the most politically, economically, and culturally important nation on Earth (a claim that may be controversial, but is well-supported). It holds 67% of the world's native English speakers, and this is the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, it is but one sovereign state among many, and Wikipedia apparently considers its internationalism to be one of its important qualities. So why not compromise, and officially adopt a policy that says that all countries don't have to be equally represented in the news, but should at least be weighted closer to equally than politics or population would suggest? Xezlec (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ha, and I can tell you're an American because 'superpower' isn't sufficient for you - it of course has to be a 'hyperpower'. You are choosing to focus on native English speakers rather than English speakers. As has been pointed out above, English is now the global lingua franca, with many people speaking it as a second language. We don't take our statistics for Wikipedia use solely from those countries where it is the first language; we don't discriminate in favour of native speakers. Factor in India and China amongst others, and the US doesn't dominate. The English Wikipedia has to be a special case because of English's importance as the global language; and en:Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. To insist that it is skewed in favour of one of the nations that speaks English as a first language is shortsighted at best, arrogant at worst. 86.133.215.233 (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
not merely a 'hyperpower', but also a uber-power and ultrapower as well. -sio. (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Your contemptuous tone toward me is uncalled-for. I did not invent the term "hyperpower", I got it from Wikipedia. The French Wikipedia, to be precise! The term became popular in political analysis in several languages after the two-superpower system collapsed in 1989. I am not "choosing to focus" on one side or the other, I am appealing for compromise and giving a nod to both perspectives (go back and re-read). If you value native speakers only, you would treat American interests as a 67% bias. If you favor internationalism only, you would treat American news as exactly equivalent to news about Andorra. My argument was that both perspectives have a certain validity. It is unfair to treat the USA as no more important than other nations because other countries get to have a Wikipedia that caters to native speakers, so denying us that would be discriminatory. It is unfair to give the US a 67% bias because, for all our size and power, we are just one country. Therefore, a compromise between those extremes is the only thing that makes sense. To insist that en:Wikipedia be skewed in favor of small countries which almost entirely use a different version of Wikipedia anyway is unrealistic at best, and hateful at worst. Xezlec (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In any language native speakers have more importance in how that language is used and interpreted than do non-native speakers. No one would think twice about this for any language but English. The contention otherwise is arrogance on YOUR part. --Khajidha (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
'Any language but English' - that's precisely my point. English has to be treated as a special case as it is the global lingua franca, the international language of business, science, education, technology etc. So en:Wikipedia is bound to get both visitors and editors from parts of the world where it isn't their first language. We don't discriminate. I am making the point for users from other languages - so that the ITN on what is a truly international Wikipedia (unlike, say the Suomi or Galego or Magyar Wikipedias) does not become a news outlet for one portion of that world and biased in favour of one country. Wikipedia:Systemic bias makes interesting reading. 86.152.241.22 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
But that biases the site AGAINST the native speakers who have every right to expect their language's wiki to serve them just as speakers of Suomi expect their language's wiki to serve them. We need an English-as-a-second-language wikipedia. --Khajidha (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
IMO the best way to fight CSB is not to restrict potentially workable items but to include more topics. A month ago the Suriname presidential election was not added "because Suriname is insignificant" Instead of narrowing the potential topics, it could've been widened to include that (the Suriname election) and this confirmation. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you really mean you want to fight CSB (countering systemic bias)? Or did you mean you want to fight/counter systemic bias? Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"The answer is", as often said, to improve other articles/develop date-relevant news etc so that "the rest of the world in general and the universe in particular" gets more of a mention. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
When is the proverbial someone going to create 'List of FA which have generated more text on the Main Page talk page than exists on the actual article'? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
OK then - 'List of entries of all kinds on the Main Page which...' - divided into 'adult/medical/other 'not while I'm drinking coffee', 'US-centric', 'four mentions in a given category in five days' (or similar) and 'other.' (I suspect the last category will be rather small - anyone care to prove/disprove) :). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Sister Project: German Wikipedia
Resolved
– Congratualtions to de.wiki, but the section remains the correct one. TFOWR 16:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
In fact, the German wikipedia has archieved its 1,000,000 article back in December 2009. cf. [6] You claim it to have some 500,000 articles (which in some sense is still correct:-) Rgds --Boobarkee (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The section is 'more than 500,000'. There would be no point in creating a new section for more than 1 million, because there would be only one item in it. Modest Geniustalk 19:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ask and Answer
Resolved
– ...and WP:Help Desk next time ;-) TFOWR 16:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
How do you add profile pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalShark (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Bear in mind, Wikipedia is not a social networking site. If, as your contributions so far indicate, your primary interest is self-promotion or messing around, you might find services such as Facebook or Twitter more appealing. However, to answer your question, to link an image on your user page, use the code [[File:Example.png]] substituting the image you're after using. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 21:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
are you sure this is correct? this seems a very high number. i'm not by a television, but that seems like it would be front-page, round-the-clock coverage type of damage, so i am skeptical. if this is true, it is terrible... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sio6627 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The death rate in Moscow is usually around 350 per day. It is currently double that, at 700 per day, so the smog and associated problems are killing roughly 350 per day. See [7] and the references in the bold-linked article for verification. Modest Geniustalk 22:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
after e/c
According to our articles : Moscow's population is roughly 10,500,000. Russia's death rate is 14.2/per year/per thousand. Given these numbers you'd expect a death rate of between 350 and 450 per day in the best of conditions.
The smog has roughly doubled this rate. It's a big deal. Tragic. But not unbelievable.
(Often in these sorts of situations they experience a dip in death rates after the smog clears, as people who were near death were killed in the smog, that would have otherwise held on for another couple weeks or months. Aside from some asthma cases, It's not usually healthy people with long lives ahead of them that are killed by this sort of thing.) APL (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
OT but I was quite interested to read your later comment. I was thinking a similar thing, that likely some of the people who die would have died soon anyway but it was just a gut feeling rather then actually knowledge Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
See Great Smog for a 1952 smog in London killing thousands in a few days without the seriousness being noticed immediately. Corpses lying around at a disaster scene with clear cause of death attract more attention than death statistics which only indicate indirectly how many and not who died due to an event. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I read in a newspaper 'some years ago' that in New Zealand they noticed a drop in deaths - and worked out that this was the result of people having been killed in WWI: this phenomenon is probably repeated in other contexts and, now, for WWII (though this would be veering into OR). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I was quoting the newspaper in question (too long ago to give a reference): comparing the death rates of Portugal and Spain now would probably show the effects of the Spanish Civil War. But - OR and somewhat morbid.
From the Russian TV channel of today - one hour in the smog in the Moscow region is the equivalent of two packets of cigarettes. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
For comparison, the 2003 European heat wave caused about 15,000 excess deaths in France (over a period of about a month), and emergency morgues had to be opened in the Paris region. Paris wasn't even the worst hit region in terms of temperatures (although I was living there at the time and it was bloody unconfortable!) but, like Moscow this year, it was less used to very high temperatures: if you know how to cope with 40 °C you can cope with 45 °C, but if you're used to having temperatures of 35 °C tops then you'll struggle at 38 °C. Physchim62(talk) 22:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Youth Olympic Games
Resolved
– Heh. It was already at WP:ITN/C. It had support. I have plonked it onto the main page. TFOWR 18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
If there's an article on the subject, you might want to consider WP:ITN/C? (And if there's not, start one!) TFOWR 14:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Sound quality on recording very bad
The sound quality on that front page recording is very bad. Could someone fix it or get a better version? 99.23.237.184 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
iirc, that sound clip of The Lost Chord is intended to represent 1888 recording technology, which is primitive and in "bad quality" in relation to 2010 technology. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
As it states in the OTD item, that sound is 'one of the first recordings of music ever made'. Funnily enough, recording technology wasn't very good back then. So whilst it wasn't 'intended' to be bad, it's a reproduction of a sound first recorded on primitive equipment in 1888. Modest Geniustalk 19:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
"This is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 40,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted."
Ok, but हिन्दी, ქართული and Македонски has not primarily stubs or placeholders, I think. -- JCIV (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I just performed our customary check of 50 random articles for each of those three Wikipedias. At the Macedonian Wikipedia, 43 articles were stubs or placeholders. At the Georgian Wikipedia, 46 were stubs or placeholders (mostly stubs). At the Hindi Wikipedia, 47 were stubs or placeholders (mostly placeholders). —David Levy 12:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I checked and saw it, too. Sorry, my mistake. Best regards, -- JCIV (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Some bias over Gaza
The "did you know?" item on Al-Bustan is the third "did you know?" item in about a week which comments on a development in Gaza which appears to indicate that any supposed "humanitarian problems" in Gaza are not as bad as they are portrayed in the media. The other two were something about an "upscale restaurant" and something about an Olympic size swimming pool. All three articles have dubious notability; two of them appear to be part of a political campaign initially driven by one particular journalist (Tom Gross) and then repeated by the Israeli government. In fact, proponents of that viewpoint seem to argue on one of the article's talk pages that the swimming pool is *only* notable because of its role in that controversy.
I'm not saying that the dubious nature of these articles and their controversial role means that they are ineligible for inclusion on the Main Page. However, I am a little concerned that their use in this repetitive manner (three very similar dubious articles listed under "did you know?" in one week) constitutes some sort of attempt to use the Main Page to spoonfeed a viewpoint to the readership.
Is there a method for dealing with this, other than just monitoring items proposed for the main page and then discussing them before they appear? I can't see that me (or anyone else) trying to push items with the "opposing" viewpoint into "did you know?" for "balance" is the best way forward.
I'll put in precise links for all three items if needed, just let me know.
--Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I further note that all three articles were created by the same Wikipedia user... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually, you pushing items is the best way forward. We work with what we've got - if new articles are being created about a certain topic, that's what we've got. What we need is for different new articles to be created. You could also head over to Wikipedia talk:Did you know and participate in the discussions over future DYKs to help redress any imbalance. TFOWR 21:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I've just begun doing exactly that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
#
Resolved
– ...and I learned something new ;-) TFOWR 13:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Why does this redirect here and not to number sign? Also, why cannot the redirect be visited? Also # is not an error in the title. Difficultly north (SS talk) 23:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Quoth the FAQ: 'the page for the pound/hash symbol (#) can exist only as a redirect to the Main Page for technical reasons: some web browsers reserve "#" as a shortcut for the front page of websites'. I assume it's related to the use of eg. Page#Section as a means of reaching anchor points within a the page. Modest Geniustalk 23:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that whilst the content about the errors on the main page are archived every day, the particular topic itself may still remain on the main page.
For example, I just raised the issue of the Peterloo massacre wording being confusing, and yet, simply because August 15 has passed, it's been archived out of this page and I can't find it. The peterloo event is still up on the main page under august 16th.
Any archiving should be in sync with the appearance or disappearance of the related matter. 68.42.250.113 (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the comments, I can only assume they were removed by mistake. Modest Geniustalk 21:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why the DYK picture of the Konzerthaus Dortmund doesn't show in the article Theater Dortmund? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't see why it wasn't displaying properly. It seemed to be there at a microscopic size since there was something to click to get to the image page. I've forced it to display at a 250px size for now. It might be a temporary glitch... BencherliteTalk 10:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This may be the wrong place for this comment but if it is, it is. I just thought I'd say that use of the word 'clocking' in the news story about the 800m seems to me rather casual and not up to the standards you would expect of a serious web page like Wikipedia. 92.0.157.58 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
But don't just remove the time, that's the whole point of this bit. Try "...with a time of 1:41.09 at the ISTAF...." Homunq (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
As is noted above Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors would be the correct place for the comment and the reply. I have copied the text to the appropriate place. meshach (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Simple English Wikipedia
Would it be good to have a clear link to this wikipedia mentioning that it is for people who don't know English very well? Like this: "Another Wiki, called the Simple English Wikipedia, is for people who do not know English very well." Just an idea. I don't see any better place to put this than here --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It's at the top of the 'in other languages' sidebar, which seems enough to me. Modest Geniustalk 15:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that it isn't another language!People who don't know English would have a hard time finding it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that they'd have a difficult time finding it: a user for whom the Simple English Wikipedia is likely to be useful will know the word 'languages' and its translation into the mother tongue; a quick look at the left-hand side shows a list of different languages (of which the user is likely to know at least one and therefore realise the function of said menu) and Simple English is at the top. Logical. 79.67.141.104 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) If they can't even read the words "Simple English", they probably shouldn't be contributing there, either. But I do agree that it could be a bit more prominently placed, since it is so directly related to this Wikipedia. KafzielComplaint Department 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The link to simple isn't simply to recruit contributors: it's to advise readers as well. TFOWR 09:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
In fact recruiting contributors should be at best a minor consideration since it's generally accepted the main page is for readers not editors/contributors. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the distinction. Every reader is a potential contributor; that's the whole point. If you'd prefer, I could have said, "If they can't even read the words 'Simple English', they probably won't be able to get much out of what they read there." But, either way, what does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? We're discussing changing the appearance/location of the link, not what people will do after they follow it. KafzielComplaint Department 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You're the one who said it. And there is a distinction. We don't do things on the main page which are primary of interest to contributors, regardless of whether you think they are the same thing. It's a well accepted consensus, which from many discussions I've seen we don't have consensus to change (and I would definitely say 'they're the same thing is an argument that has been made before but never got much traction). There are plenty of people who have no desire to be contributors, regardless of whether they can be, and we have no desire to try and force them to be contributors, or force them to see things which will not interest them just because some people don't think there's a difference. Therefore the primary purpose for the main page is to show off things which may interest readers, things which are only of interest to contributors are generally minimised if shown at all. If someone is arguing to give more prominence to something yet that thing is likely to be of interest to contributors, that proposal usually dies quite quickly. It's an important point, and one that IMHO should always be repeated whenever there is the risk of confusion. Besides that, there are plenty of people who can use the simple English wikipedia (with some difficulty) but likely lack the level of written English that they could make meaningful contributions, even if they're probably not ones who can't read language or simple English. Therefore we shouldn't care too much about potential contributors to the simple English wikipedia, instead what we should consider is potential readers. In this particular case, I don't believe there is an issue but if there is one where potential contributors are unlikely to be fazed, but some potential readers may be, then I see no reason why we should ignore the readers, who should be our focus simply because the potential contributors are unlikely to have any issue. Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be really hung up on this "contributors" thing. It has nothing to do with any of the points anyone is making. A more prominent link to the Simple English Wikipedia would benefit readers just as much as editors; readers who have difficulty understanding this wiki might have better luck understanding that one, so it might be good to help them find it. That's all anyone is saying. KafzielComplaint Department 19:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not actually obvious what the "Simple English" link goes to; it actually surprised me when I clicked on it for the first time and I am a native speaker! Also, people are unlikely to search for a link to such a project if they don't know that the project exists already. It's rather less obvious than, e.g., the link for "French" - somebody who wants to look around for the French wikipedia may spot it on the sidebar or may scroll down to the links at the bottom, but will find what they're looking for. Readers for whom the Simple English wikipedia would be preferable are not going to do an equivalent search unless they know that the project exists in the first place. As Chemicalinterest says, it isn't just like the other languages - it is a very special case. TheGrappler (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Simple English does not need special treatment, god knows what is said on there and on some of the other language wikipedias. People should be encouraged to stay here and use this wikipedia, it is superior to all others. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
For people with limited command of English, Simple is intended to be a more appropriate place for them (I don't know if that works in practice but it's why Simple exists). And Simple is different to all the other wikipedias since it is actually written in the same language as this one. That doesn't necessarily mean it needs special treatment, but it is unique and I'm not sure burying it with the foreign languages helps anybody to find it. TheGrappler (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
But what is to be done? Is there a non-disruptive way to indicate the "Simple" link to readers a little more clearly, so that (a) they know it exists in the first place and (b) they can actually click on it? TheGrappler (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's a lot of blank space in the banner at the top, next to the whole "Welcome to Wikipedia" spiel. I have no doubt that technical-minded people will now tell me why that space has to remain blank, but that would be my first choice. Kind of the ultimate disambiguation hatnote. "'English Wikipedia' redirects here. Less advanced English speakers may prefer the Simple English version." :D KafzielComplaint Department 00:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Happy to oblige : The whitespace is there as a spacer that can expand or contract, depending on how large your window size is. Otherwise the header could break the page and require horizontal scrolling. This is especially important because, since Wikipedia is reference material, it's perfectly natural to browse from portable devices with weird screen dimensions, or from a window that you've made smaller so you can have multiple windows visible at once. (Not to mention people with eyesight problems who use their browser's "zoom" function.) Adding something to the right of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit would break that functionality. APL (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
So how come the banner can expand and contract, but text within that same space can't? Couldn't you could just have the size of the Simple English notice tied directly to the size of the white space? KafzielComplaint Department 02:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
A Rating System
I was at the branch of Wikipedia Wikibooks, and I noticed they now have a rating system for feedback and looking into the page a little more, and I was thinking, would the main Wikipedia be helped by this too? I mean, it's nowhere near necissary but it would be something to be looked at and voted on, and by Wikipedia users only. So, what do you guys think?--Mr. High School Student 22:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: The feature that User: Mr. High school student is referring to is the Reader Feedback extension.Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello,Persian wikipedia has been reached 100,000 articles today please change position of this wiki at list of wikis from +40,000 to +100,0000.Thanks a lot:)Ladsgroupبحث 06:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that on the front page of Wikipedia.org (where you choose a language) the list of translations for "search" does not include the Persian translation, even though the Persian Wikipedia has already reached 100,000 articles.
Is it possible to add this? Thanks! CoverMyIP (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that's nothing to do with us. Were only responsible for en.wikipedia.org, though I've no idea where you'd have to go for a fix on the Main Page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I should address this error. Is there some sort of administrator I can contact regarding this? CoverMyIP (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
If you read from the bottom of ITN, it looks like someone breaking the 800 meter world record set off what appears to be the sort of events that would immediately precede some sort of zombie attack or apocalypse or global economic collapse. What I guess I'm trying to say is, our news section makes the world seem so bleak. Could we maybe think of some good news or try to rephrase the news items in such a way that it doesn't seem like the world is coming to an end? Antimatter--talk-- 06:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What do you suggest? "China celebrates becoming the world's second-largest economy with an enormous traffic jam"? There's not really a positive spin that can be put on a plane crash or a madman shooting eight people. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, we still have the Miss Universe pending to get on ITN... With a photo, if possible. Does it make it any better? --Tone 06:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Ack, no. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's a lack of alternative stories at the moment. It's silly season, and we don't feature stories which are trivial. There's a steady stream of disasters throughout every year, and I actually don't think now is very different - it's just that there isn't much else to pad them out with, and as a result they stay up for quite a while. If you can think of any other suitable stories, please suggest them at WP:ITN/C. Modest Geniustalk 17:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
well 2012 is closing in so the world is coming to an end. ITN is just reflecting the inevitable :) -- Ashish-g55 20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Skin Exception
It seemed like the skin did not afect the mainpage much!
--MvtechAlone! 10:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:ERRORS is useless
Right, got your attention. WP:ERRORS was created to keep all error reports in one place (and off this talk page) and apparently to speed up processing. I'm still trying to figure out why. Besides the fact that hundreds of beginners and anons continue to post errors on this very talk page (and then get rudely shunted off to WP:ERRORS, or, rarely, actually having said errors fixed immediately), I find that WP:ERRORS is NOT AT ALL quick to fix errors sometimes. Refer to yesterday: [8], when I posted improvement suggestions to the TFA blurb early yesterday morning UTC, which never got acted upon despite being up there for over 12 hours. This has happened previously to my suggestions too, to the point that I don't even bother much any more. One also finds that a lot of error reports are cleared with the edit summary "no longer on Main Page", meaning that they haven't been fixed.
It is my experience that WP:ERRORS is not achieving what it set out to do, that is respond quickly to error reports (and if something's on the Main Page for the entire world to see the response should be measured in MINUTES, not hours), nor is the message getting across that people should not post errors to Talk:Main Page. It seems there is a severe lack of admin eyes on WP:ERRORS, perhaps best would be to fold it back into Talk:Main Page where it should appear on many more admin's watchlists. Thoughts? Zunaid 12:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks above, sees that he took four minutes to reply to an non-error in "On this day" having fixed the issue in the intervening period, vows to do better in future...(!)). Of course, some of the things that are removed as "not on the main page" will be discussions of matters that aren't actually errors, and so there's nothing to fix. And folding WP:ERRORS into Talk:Main Page would be more likely to get the errors mixed up in watchlists with run-of-the-mill discussion of the main page. And your assumption that more admins watch Talk:Main Page than WP:ERRORS isn't one I'd necessarily agree with. Apart from that, you have made a good point that sometimes errors are left too long without being dealt with. One way to deal with this would be to place a message at WP:AN and ask for more admins to add the page to their watchlist.
Dealing with your comments from yesterday, I did not see them but would not have made any of the changes even if I had. Here's why. (1) The TFA summary follows the lead of the article; the article uses "massive", not "heaviest"; see "consensus" in the instructions. And you left out the diff where someone pointed out that "heaviest" would be wrong. (2) Throwing out suggested articles that could be linked without even bothering to check if the target exists is not helpful; see "be specific" in the instructions. (3) There is no need to link "Shakespeare" when the more specific link to "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is given, nor (IMHO) "comet" or "asteroid" when there's a link to "impact crater". Similarly, links shouldn't be given for common terms like water. The idea is not to link every word possible in the article, or indeed the TFA summary. See WP:OVERLINK. BencherliteTalk 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Note I have "smalled" these 2 posts to avoid distracting from the main discussion. Zunaid 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I would support "folding" WP:ERRORS into the talk page. This talk page (Talk:Main_page) appears to be the natural place for people to report errors, and reduces the amount of "local knowledge" one needs to understand where to report errors. I cannot see the purpose WP:ERRORS serves, other than confusing new users. The use of transclusion certainly does not make it easier to understand. Just to clarify, I am not puporting to be an admin, just a user who doesn't get the need for more layers. User A1 (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
In response to Bencherlite: the point is that my query was not responded to at all, even if just to give the feedback you just gave. Note that my link suggestions were thoughtfully chosen given the other technical terms that were already linked in the blurb, so your feedback would IMHO have been vital yesterday as an explanation for why they weren't done (even if I personally disagree). Let's not lose sight of the 2 main points though: WP:ERRORS was supposed to stop these requests from lingering too long, and it was supposed to prevent too many requests landing on this talk page in the first place. To achieve the first goal it needs the equivalent proportion of admin eyes as WP:CSD, however much is required to achieve the same kind of response time. The second goal is basically unachievable as we are dealing with first-time users just trying to make helpful suggestions; I agree with A1 above, bombarding them with instructions when they hardly know how to use a wiki website is not helpful. Zunaid 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
My example is probably atypical, but I often check WP:ERRORS for something simple I can fix, without always looking here. I saw the Oberon complaint and left it for others. Scientists would protest the word "heavy", out of an exaggerated reaction to the fact that you weigh a couple pounds more on the North Pole than on a tropical mountain, and you don't see the word in astronomy. The links didn't look that helpful. And if I argue without a strong opinion something is wrong, it usually doesn't lead to anything constructive. Art LaPella (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
As an admin, I find WP:ERRORS useful. If I see someone post there on my watchlist, I'll try to deal with the issue quickly (though I am busy and have other things requiring my attention). The problem is not WP:ERRORS, it's the lack of admins to deal with it. There are about a dozen admin regulars there—compare that to the number ho deal with CSD, AIV and the other "traditional" admin areas. The way forward is to get more admins looking in on it, not to scrap it. If it's merged back to this talk page, posts will only get missed on watchlist in between general MP discussion (not to mention the spam and conspiracy theories) and we'd have unanswered reports clogging up the archives. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I use it sometimes, and don't have a problem with it. It's not the fastest, but short of promoting new admins or getting more to work around the Main Page, there's really nothing you can do about it. It's just a microcosm of all the problems with relying on volunteers, there's some times that it's not going to get dealt with instantly, and other times when people are pretty good at taking care of it. Unless someone comes up with a better system, there's nothing to do but deal with this, since it's the best we can come up with. C628 (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think ERRORS is generally good, except when users are directed there instead of being helped here. It should always be in the form of "I fixed the error, but next time please use WP:ERRORS" (in the case of an admin responding) or "You may also want to post this at WP:ERRORS" (in the case of a non-admin responding). It's good if it helps, but we should never let process get in the way of helping readers and improving the encyclopedia. KafzielComplaint Department 00:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Not wanting to get into a discussion, but I think "thanks, but next time do X" is a little bit unkind to new users who are trying to help out. Better just to solve the problem and say nothing, or better still, just "thanks, fixed". 129.67.86.189 (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, wow, now you have pure State Department Propaganda on the front page?
Do you even realize the troops that remain to Occupy the country are in the 50s of thousands? (with indefinite provision) --Leladax (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think Leladax is saying that the phrase on the Main Page "the end of foreign combat operations in Iraq" is not an accurate statement, but rather a simple parroting of US government propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.210.71 (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It is accurate, whatever certain conspiracy nuts might have you believe. There are about 50k American troops left, but they are (we're told) not fulfilling a combat role, so combat operations have ended. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What does "end of combat operations" mean? According to the linked article, "advise and assist". I assume that means assisting in combat situations. This blurb is very vague. I sincerely doubt that no more US firearms will be discharged in the region by US/Coalition troops, which is the implication that most people will take away from that blurb. 81.110.184.105 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the troops that are staying are helping to train the Iraqi army and police, as well as Iraqi intelligence. At the very least, that's the impression I've gathered from this. Sceptre(talk) 23:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This really is not the forum for discussing conspiracy theories no matter who is accusing who of promulgating them, in fact, neither is Wikipedia. I would request refraining from further discussion on this here. Thorncrag 23:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Totally agreed that the form of words used is highly tendentious, disputed and entirely relies upon the US's own (inevitably propagandistic, given that it's a government statement about a war situation) spin on events. It requires urgent modification. Can I also state that "This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option: " is a load of utterly meaningless gobbledegook and a prime example of the amateur bureaucracy which has destroyed Wikipedia in the past few years. DublinDilettante (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Not only that, but to navigate to any In the News articles of discussion you have to go through Beaurocracy and Red Tape (i.e. lots of clicks via non-linear URL routes) that the world hasn't seen since the Stalin Era. --195.74.250.115 (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia's main page. Click on either "talk" or "discussion" tab. Select option from gigantic menu box at top of page. Hermes Conrad would be disappointed, Stalin would be outraged. In the news even has a shiny new table of contents listing each current discussion. TFOWR 08:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I appologize, the Sept 2 entry is not in error. It seemed curious that there were two recent entries regarding Vietnam, that had no supporting entry in the cited "year" page, and I was wondering if recent previous Main pages had been salted with Vietnamese history. Should it not be a requirement that an "On this day" item be so referenced?173.73.192.6 (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. The condition for appearing in "On this day" is an entry at the relevant day, not the relevant year. Years tend to be more restrictive, and will usually have sub-articles with only major, global events appearing in the year article. TFOWR 09:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest that if an item is found to be interesting enough for Main Page, that either an entry be be created in relevant "year", or the link form of stating the year be edited to show "year" not as a link. One could also change the bot, if the page is generated that way, to show the year but link to day#year so that the link actually has relevance to the item.173.73.192.6 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I know Today's Featured Article is only in the English Wikipedia - it's not on Dutch, Spanish, French, Italian, Simple English, Japanese (I checked), but I was wondering why. Why are some of our featured articles only on the English Wikipedia? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The answer is simple - nobody's written them over there. To be fair, it's not the most broad of topics, and you'll struggle to find speakers of any of those languages interested in that, let alone ones willing to write for Wikipedia about it. f o x 11:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well wouldn't that be obvious? American football is only popular in the US and to a lesser extent Canada, Mexico and Europe. My point is why are some of our featured articles about topics that are only found in the English Wikipedia? I checked some of our FAs and some of them, the only other Wikipedia that had an article about them was the French one. I can understand if it's an american topic, but look at Tulsa, Oklahoma, it's an American city but nevertheless has articles on other Wikipedias. What I want to know is why some of our FAs are only on the English Wikipedia and not others. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, what is wrong with that? There is no criteria saying that the topic of the FA should be interesting for other languages as well. As long as the article is excellent, it can be promoted to a FA. --Tone 12:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I know but, I am just rather disappointed that some of our best content cannot be seen by those who can't understand English. I'm not saying that being in another language should be a requirement for being an FA, it's just that I wish more people could see these articles and use Wikipedia in the best way they can. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not an English Wikipedia issue. If an article doesn't exist in another language, it's because nobody on that project has written an article on it. We're all volunteers, as are the editors of the French, German, Japanese, Farsi and any other language Wikipedia. I agree it's a shame that our best work isn't available in other languages, but there's nothing much we can do about it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, the existence of an article on the same subject in a different language's Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that "our best content" is available in said language. The article might or might not be translated from ours (or vice versa, or translated from a shared source), and its potential quality ranges from an empty placeholder to a featured article in its own right.
Likewise, of course, some of the English Wikipedia's articles are inferior to the corresponding articles contained in other Wikipedias. —David Levy 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I've had translators contact me in the course of translating a couple of my FAs to other languages. I don't know how organized this is, but at least some of the other projects are aware of what a tremendous resource the English WIkipedia is for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
September 4, 2010 FA title
The Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart toured Italy seems like too much highlight. Could it be made shorter by either just highlighting "toured Italy" or just highlighting the name? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
'''[[September 7]]''': [[Independence Day (Brazil)|Independence Day]] in '''[[Brazil]]''' ([[1822]])
should be
'''[[September 7]]''': '''[[Independence Day (Brazil)|Independence Day]]''' in [[Brazil]] ([[1822]])
Could you correct this? Thanks. Missionary (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made this change but corrections, ideally, should be requested at WP:ERRORS. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 05:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
tropical depression eleven
I think this should be changed too tropical storm Hermine as its been upgraded.--83.71.86.145 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
They're different systems, although TD 11-E's remnants did contribute to Hermine's formation. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Diefenbaker picture
With today's featured article, I think we notch a first: the first time the same picture has been used to illustrate two different Main Page FAs, as we used the same picture of John Diefenbaker for the article on him on Canada Day (July 1), barely over two months ago.
It's a nice picture, very dignified and stately, as well as eminently relevant and I don't blame the article creators for wanting to reuse it. However, I just wish a different picture could have been used for variety's sake. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As the "article's creator", I had no role in selecting the pic, the Featured Article Director picked it and may not have realized that it was used before. We are a bit short of pics of Dief, I am afraid. That one was not in this article until someone put it there, I think tonight. I had used the 1939 pic of Dief which we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I wasn't sure if Raul/Sandy had picked it out or you had. Sorry. It had been with the article in the queue for a while which led me to believe it had been submitted with the Main Page request. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw it in the queue, but decided against querying it with Raul. I am hopeful of getting more Dief pictures before I get the '58 election to FA, which I am looking for materials for) (and that will be the last Dief election I'm looking at). Too late for this one, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure re-using one picture in a three month period breaks up the "variety" of the Main Page too much :) GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 03:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Fernando Lugo does not sleep. He waits.If it does, we could always substitute Fernando Lugo instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the current picture of Gillard is approaching Lugo status. ~DCLet's Vent 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a great image of Dief at Expo, it is visible I think if you search LAC. He's dancing with some costumed characters and clearly enjoying himself. Unhappily it is not free ...--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Tipped Over House Picture
Resolved
– It is changed. Next time, report issues like this at WP:ERRORS. TFOWR 11:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The word BACK in this description means nothing and adds nothing. Suggest it is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.250.109 (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't this in here? ℳono 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Assuming you mean the attacks of 11 September 2001 (today is September the 11th), it's because we don't feature the same event in 2 different sections of the Main Page. It's today's featured picture, which is why it's not in OTD. The same has been true of D-day and the Hiroshima bombing in the recent past. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Well it's not one of the spare blurbs, so I'd have to guess that it's because nobody's ever nominated it. For that, you'd need the WP:OTD talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that. I thought the anniversaries were just taken off the respective date article :P --Diego Grez (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Well you could normally just add it yourself, but not while it's on the MP because it's cascade protected. Anyway, if you think it's worthy of inclusion raise it at the OTD talk page and either an admin will add it or you can add it tomorrow and it should be on there next year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that. I was looking at the spare blurbs, not the "not suitable for Main Page" ones. Apparently it's tagged with {{refimprove}}, which I don't see, but it does have plenty of other tags on it and is in a bit of a state. There's a gap at the bottom of the RHS, though, so I'm not averse to sneaking it in if somebody wants to put the work into it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Notability
What makes [10] more notable than [11]? And [12] more notable than [13]? Just systemic bias?·Maunus·ƛ· 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the 1973 Chilean coup, it was on OTD, but was removed, presumably due the tag in the external link section. I'm not totally sold on the Medal of Honor winner (apparently Willie Apiata didn't make ITN back when he got the first-ever Victoria Cross for New Zealand) but, to be fair, the fingers story is new to me - I guess the answer to your question is "no one has suggested it at WP:ITNC". TFOWR 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Newsworthiness is a notoriously arbitrary selection process. That said, it seems in your selections, you've revealed your own Anti-American bias, haven't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.13.219 (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
This selction doesn't exactly seem arbitrary though. And no I haven't revealed anything other than the fact that I also read news from other parts of the world than the one I live in.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You replace one Bias with another, you don't get anywere.--85.211.118.192 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't argued for replacing one set with the other - I merely wonder by what criteria events are selected. The medal for example seems to be only of interest to Americans. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
FWiW, OTD items are chosen based on the quality of their associated article with a view to getting a good spread of dates and locations, rather than comparative significance, which is why the World Trade Center attacks and the Chilean coup aren't on there. As for SSG Giunta, I think being the first recipient of any nation's highest award for valour (equivalent of a VC, MoH), especially the first living recipient in 40-odd years is pretty significant and the consensus at ITN/C seemed to be to post similar such awards from other countries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Main Page
Sorry, if there is another talk page about this somewhere else, but, I have a suggestion.
With the new look of Vector on Wikipedia, I think that the boxes on the Main Page would look better rounded (like the French Wikipedia). I know that the boxes on the Main Page haven't been changed much in the past years, but it could be easily done, and I think that It would look good on the "new Wikipedia". --PiKaPitalkblog 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia uses nonstandard code incompatible with Internet Explorer, the most widely used web browser. (As a result, IE users do not see the rounded corners.) In past discussions, the English Wikipedia has rejected this specific change on the basis that we should not intentionally introduce such inconsistencies. —David Levy 19:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The new skin is no justification for adding rounded corners; it doesn't use them anywhere, so adding them for this reason is a non-starter. It might be an idea to update the colours, however it's infeasibly difficult to arrange such a thing. — PretzelsHii! 19:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, please no! I'm not sure what the new Vector skin has to do with rounded corners, since it doesn't seem to use them anywhere else. And not everyone actually uses Vector anyway. Modest Geniustalk 22:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I just thought it would look good. But wait, IE can't see any type of rounded corners on wikis, I didn't know that. Sorry. --PiKaPitalkblog 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think IE9 can, but I guess that still wouldn't change the fact that a lot of people use a browser that can't. But I actually wouldn't mind a colour refresh to fit in (even though I don't use Vector). I, for one, would certainly support and assist with such a proposal. --DorsalAxe 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Julia Gillard
In the News
Forgive me, but I thought once was enough to see her face on the main page. What has she done exactly to merit a second appearance?Eugene-elgato (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The item with the picture used beforehand was removed from T:ITN. Ideally we'd use a different picture, and I suspect that that will happen soon enough, but for now it's back to Julia. Pictures are slightly problematic, in that they require work - identifying free pictures, cropping, and then once they hit the main page they need to be protected. All of which requires an admin with clue - which may be lacking at any given time. Right now, for example, I'm in a position to do all this - but I'm an idiot. Image-work - and particularly protecting images - is something I have no experience with, and I'm likely to break something, so I'm putting up with an ancient picture until someone smarter than me comes along. TFOWR 09:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, you mean the guy with the first particular medal since Vietnam? But why not a picture from any of the other news pieces? Even a Turkish flag might be niceEugene-elgato (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
For the reasons I stated above - it's not that trivial to do. It almost certainly will happen - just not immediately. TFOWR 09:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
How about Kimmy Clijsters? Doing. Courcelles 09:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, could you have found a worse picture of her? Honestly? Not trying to get in the middle of the debate on what's news-worthy but that's about the most unfit-to-print picture of someone I have seen in a long time. It looks like it was taken with a camera phone. I have come to expect better of Wikipedia... --144.191.148.3 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to provide a better picture ;-) TFOWR 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You obviously have not seen the glory of File:CourtneyLove.jpg. that image looks like someone took it while drunk. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The Front Page is slowly turning to a propaganda leaflet of the US State Department.
It started with the carbon copy of the US Government statement that military combat operations are seizing in Iraq while it's well known - even by Democratic sources in the US - that's just propaganda. The country is occupied.
Now the Front Page is filled with elements that only would make sense in the "US english wikipedia". No military is ever mentioned giving medals to its soldiers, yet, the world viewer is supposed to subjected to read and stand in awe for the 'amazing soldiers' of the US.
[Maybe you should start posting more how you give 570% more than the second expenditure to the military industry.]
Oh, and wait, just in, the "American", film wins an award. Who cares posting the news if it was some damn Frenchy right? --Leladax (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see a few sections up, titled "Notability". If you think there is an American bias then take part in WP:ITN, WP:OTD, and wherever else you think there is a bias and express your opinion during nominations/nominate non-American themed articles and events to be featured. §hepTalk 20:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
And in regards to the movie that won being featured. The movie that won the award last time was from Israel and listed as well see 1. §hepTalk 21:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Take it up with DYK and INT. No one really likes to see someone claiming bias on a page that only has a few dedicated helpers. Perhaps you should find a medal awarded to a military member on another nation and get it on the main page?--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 21:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair Johnson Beharry was featured on the main page when he was awarded the Victoria Cross, the British equivalent. Hut 8.5 21:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this is not main page newsworthy - most of the world couldn't care less.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Now the propagandists - apart from trying to censor this discussion about the Front Page - are putting up the 'Beat Turkey' news as an answer to this post. The news were available 2 days before they were posted. You are trolls belonging to stormfront.org. Plain and simple. --Leladax (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, whenever you see an item about a U.S. entity winning or being awarded something, you blindly assume that it otherwise would have been excluded.
Regarding the first living Medal of Honor recipient in 39 years, you claimed that "no military is ever mentioned giving medals to its soldiers," and it was pointed out that we included an item when a British soldier became the first living Victoria Cross recipient in 36 years.
You also made such an assertion regarding an American film winning the Golden Lion at the Venice International Film Festival, and it was pointed out that we included last year's Israeli winner.
Now you allege that the FIBA World Championship item was added in retaliation for your earlier criticisms, despite the fact that the event appears on our list of recurring items that we routinely include (irrespective of the outcomes), provided that sufficient article updates occur.
The item was inserted by a HJ Mitchell (a British administrator) shortly after the tournament concluded (so I don't understand your claim that "the news were available 2 days before they were posted"). —David Levy 17:42/18:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This "discussion" should be censored, for at least one reason that has already been established: that this is not the place to discuss selection of in the news articles. Further, for the following reasons:
All state departments are propagandists, the U.S.'s is not the exception.
Wikipedia is not the place to rail against the U.S. regardless of whether the comments are veiled in a phony disguise of improving the main page.
If you want to have a discussion on bias that is civil, non-vitriolic, and non-accusatory that does not have a tendency to make Americans reading it feel condemned and accused, then please do so in the appropriate venue, but this whole discussion was poorly executed from the very beginning which is why it was collapsed in the first place. Thorncrag 17:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
For 1 (one) day the news about the Medal of Honor is bearable, but the soldier picture's continuous presence is just a reminder that the United States of America is engaged in yet another unpopular war in the other side of the Planet and yes, they once again fail to realize how unpopular its wars really are for the rest of the World. Please change the picture right now. Aldo L (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure WP:ITNC would appreciate your suggestions for new news items, or any help you could provide finding an image for one of the other current news items. TFOWR 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The reason that picture is there is because we don't have any suitable replacements for the newer items. If we did, I'd change it right now, but not because you demanded I do so, rather because it's looking very stale. We do have the Turkish referendum on if it makes you feel any better and any claims of bias can be easily disproved by a look through the history of T:ITN. We try to keep it varied, but it depends on what's "in the news". I believe over Christmas 2009, most of the items on ITN were related to China. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The point isn't really that there is too much US related stuff - its the kind of stuff chosen. This medal was given for fighting against other countries the citizens of which also read wikipedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That's probably true. Your point?--Fyre2387(talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This topic seems to have attracted a whole cadre who are great at following suggestions. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And please accept my apologies if I was too vehement. Aldo L (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
"Yet another unpopular war"...I'll be glad when the popular wars begin. Bravo601 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The popular wars are going to be awesome. And trendy. (e • nn • en!) 06:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Spam?
Is it spam to announce the release of a band's boxed set of albums? Such an announcement is in the "Did you know ..." section on September 16. - 71.166.121.127 (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
10 only mentions J. Saville as former mensan. So why does the article say it in the present tense??--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Uh, what? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Modest Geniustalk 02:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
A quick look through their contribs points to Talk:Jimmy Savile#Ref 10 innacuracy. Cymbelmineer, this is not the page for this type of discussion. §hepTalk 03:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Turkish Wikipedia
Turkish Wikipedia has 150.000 more than article. Edit your "Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below." please. Here(en:Article-tr:Maddeler) Thanks. --95.10.227.104 (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I personally support such a move, but there is absolutely no chance of achieving consensus without initiating a centralized community discussion backed by a detailed plan addressing numerous concerns raised in the past. —David Levy 22:48, 18 September 2010 (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.
Yes, of course. It would require a developer to change the main page setting in the LocalSettings.php file though, but that's easy enough. Other projects use a page other than "Main Page" as their start page. Enwiki does so purely for historical reasons (and the fact so many pages link to it). Aiken (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The fact that many pages (including those from other websites) link to Main Page always is cited a major reason behind opposition to a move. This is why it's an absolute must to stipulate in advance that Main Page would remain a redirect in perpetuity, no matter what. Otherwise, consensus for a move is unachievable.
As evidenced by the discussion below, another stumbling block is the matter of what new title to use, which should be determined separately (as it otherwise muddies the waters). —David Levy 03:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's doable. There are technical hurdles, but some other projects have their main pages in the local project or portal namespace. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
While we're at it, surely "Front page" would make more sense, too. — PretzelsHii! 23:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't agree. I'd prefer index. I think if this is going to turn into a discussion it ought to be moved elsewhere (but wouldn't recommend it, as this has been shot down so many times. Wikipedians just don't like improvements). Aiken (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
But why? It's not an index in any sense of the word. We have lots of different indexes, under Portal:Contents. The Main Page is not an index of the encyclopedia, it's a hand-selected daily "best-of". — PretzelsHii! 00:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I hardly think Did you know and in the news are "best of" - the opposite, in fact. If I had my way the main page would be radically different. Aiken (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where else to put this. Wasn't this just on the main page? Have we run out of FAs? ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 18:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's been a TFA before. It was listed for OTD on April 12 (according to the article's talk). Maybe you're thinking of that? §hepTalk 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I remember it was later than that. Maybe I'm just going crazy. ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
We haven't run out of FAs. I know this because none of mine have been there yet. ;) f o x 10:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The growth rate of FAs is greater then an average of one per day and I'm pretty sure is still increasing. As we only run one FA per day, except in very unusual circumstances, it is inherently impossible for us to run out as long as this trend remains and we don't change our policy. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
If the article for bank mentioned in the lead ITN item states that the Institute for Works of Religion is commonly but wrongly known as the Vatican Bank, why is the incorrect phrase used for In the News? 158.158.240.230 (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Corrected, thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
If it is indeed wrongly referred to as the "Vatican bank" then it might be a good idea to have a search of wiki to find any other references to this term...I've seen it used in other articles at least once 87.194.86.204 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - thanks for volunteering ;-) TFOWR 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
"Vatican Bank" is the common name of the "Institution," and there is nothing wrong with calling it that. In fact, I'd assume most sources use the term "Vatican Bank." ~DCWe Can Work It Out 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree - all of the sources use the term Vatican Bank. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
by the way "IOR cannot be considered a bank in the current usage of the term"[14][15] .--Nicola Romani (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect details?
I know that you will probably find me a pain in the arse (I believe in American English this is written as ass) but I usually look at the main page before moving on.
I could not help but notice the nice picture of the shark. But the text? The text next to the picture says: ... that it is uncertain where adult speartooth sharks (pictured) live, as none have been captured?' What is probably meant is that this shark was captured as an infant and that it is unclear where these sharks go when they are adults'.
However stating that as none have been captured will beg the question: Well, where did this one come from then?
--JHvW(talk) 13:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
...Maybe this one's wild? f o x 14:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
8-) Yeah, and it just happened to swim into the Melbourne Aquarium. Sorry to have wasted your time. --JHvW(talk) 14:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The OP is right, this makes no sense. Especially if you actually read the article "The speartooth shark is threatened by incidental capture in commercial and recreational fisheries""Significant numbers are also taken by recreational anglers and bow fishers". I think this is a context problem, perhaps "none have been caught for scientific study" might be more along the lines of what the article intends, but this is not clear. Just remove or alter the hook. "The range of conservation threats faced by the speartooth shark, coupled with its small population and restricted range and habitat preferences, have led the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to assess it as Endangered" might be an appropriate new hook. User A1 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for not making me feel a complete idiot. The discussion has also been taken up above. --JHvW(talk) 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK selective Tweets
This is just a question, or maybe a suggestion for a new DYK idea, if not already there. I made a joke here about Tweeting scholarly opinions. That made me think: "So many people get so many useless tweets that are forgotten in 45 minutes. Would people like to get selective tweets of DYK?" Shall Wikipedia send them out, selectively, e.g. DYK_ART would only tweet DYK items on art, etc. Anyway, just an idea if someone wants to follow up. It might be a way of providing education via tweets. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Since this doesn't affect the content on the Main Page (rather suggests a way of sharing some of that content in other locations) I don't think this is the relevant place to ask. Try WT:Syndication or WP:VPT. Modest Geniustalk 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, it seems there's already a Twitter feed of MP content: [16]Modest Geniustalk 14:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let us just drop the subject then. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Update to talk page header
I've put together a draft update for the burgeoning and complicated header on this page at Talk:Main Page/HelpBox/Draft. Are there any improvements that could be made, and would people be happy to use this? — PretzelsHii! 01:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll put the template up in the near future. — PretzelsHii! 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see much of a usability difference between the two. Is there a reason the draft version is superior to what we've got right now that I'm missing? §hepTalk 00:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The current version has amassed a lot of unstructured information. The new version is split into sections such that users will not be overwhelmed and ignore the box entirely. I've also cut down the prose by about 30% to make it easier to scan and get straight to the point. — PretzelsHii! 15:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how I missed this before. I'm happy to get rid of some of the extraneous text, but the new version looks ugly to me - too many colours, and the left and right columns don't line up ('Using and contributing to Wikipedia' is one line, but 'Submitting content to the Main Page' spills onto two). If you put it all in a single box (like the current one) it would be much better. Oh and keeping the 'submit errors' link right at the top would be good, rather than moving it down with the archive search (or use both). Modest Geniustalk 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The idea behind splitting the two sections is so that if my query is related to the main page, I don't have to read through those 12 links to find what to do - and vice versa. Breaking error reporting out of that simple is it/isn't it distinction sort of defeats the point, and it's the first section below the box anyhow - I don't think this will make it harder to find. The columns will never line up because it adapts to whatever screen size people are using; the current version is far more unbalanced anyway due to the wordy descriptions. Feel free to iterate your ideas for colour etc on the draft page. — PretzelsHii! 00:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What would a blue/green look like? The same colors used on the top of the main page. ShepTalk 20:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
News
The topmost 'In the News' item should really say "US federal court", not just "federal court". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Done already - try WP:ERRORS next time. :) f o x 12:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't say "alleged" either, since she was sentenced for a crime she was convicted of.Pedantrician (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
She was sentenced for attempted murder; it's alleged she was also an Al Qaeda operative. TFOWR 22:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Dominion Day in New Zealand
I thought Dominion Day in New Zealand was celebrated on September 26? The current "Dominion Day", which is celebrated only by South Canterbury, is celebrated on the fourth Monday in September, which is September 27 in 2010. --Rochelimit (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It is 26 September pretty much everywhere right now. Only exception I can think of is ... New Zealand. Classic case of Wikipedia's poor time-zone handling. Still, Timaru should be happy eh?! TFOWR 10:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Poor timezone handling?! Should we make UTC start in Auckland? Don't think so. f o x 12:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It's less a case for shifting UTC+0 from Greenwich to Wellington Auckland, and more a case for posting certain items ahead of time. In this case we have an item that, by the time it goes up, no longer applies in the relevant country. I'm not sure what the best way of handling this is (my first thought is posting a day ahead of schedule, i.e. having a "Tomorrow will be..." option in OTD). It did surprise me when I lived in New Zealand that most New Zealand OTDs appeared "late". I live in the UK now, and it's still an issue, I guess - I congratulate my relatives on Dominion Day and they snigger at my lack of calendar-skills ;-) TFOWR 12:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
There really is no way to solve this to please everyone, unless location-specific Main Pages are developed (I can't imagine how difficult that would be). If you posted Dominion Day yesterday there would be plenty "wtf"faces in places that aren't NZ. f o x 12:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, with a "Tomorrow will be..." option, the "wtf" reaction would be lessened (though Kiwis may still have a wee bit of head-scratching, but at least Dominion Day gets seen on Dominion Day ;-) ). I can't see any easy way to make location-specific (or time-zone specific) handling of OTD an option. Maybe with some client-side parsing of the HTTP response's date field, but that gets really ugly. TFOWR 12:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused by your comment. NZ (well most of it) is currently at UTC+13 since 26 September. Wikipedia follows UTC which means that while this item only went up at 1 pm on 26 September, it was still Dominion Day, and was for another 11 hours. In fact as no country has UTC+/-24 (or even close), it is inherently impossible for the item not to be present on the main page during at least part of the day in any country (events which aren't considered to span a whole day it may occur). For some countries it would be only appear more then halfway thorough the day and continue to be there long after the day is over, in some countries it will be from long (but less then halfway) before the beginning and disappear long before the end, but either way it will still be there during part of the day. (Well stuff like someone adding or removing it during the day would be an exception of course.) Incidentally, unless the OP lives in the Chatham Islands, it was still Dominion Day in NZ when they made their comment above Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
True, it's visible for part of the day. I guess my concern is for the casual reader who maybe checks the mainpage once a day. I used to - in pre-wikiholic days - have a few hours reading in the evening, and it's that kind of casual reader I'm thinking of. I'd missed the OP's date - my timezone maths mush have been out - but you're right: 10:39 + 13:00 is still a few minutes left ;-) TFOWR 19:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well technically any country with +/- UTC, including the UK during daylight saving time could have the problem of someone missing the entry if they only check wikipedia once a day. And in my opinion, the problem is actually potentially less for + then it is for -. I suspect people tend to check wikipedia more in the afternoon and evening then they do the morning (that tends to be peak time for internet usage). People are also asleep in the early morning. So for someone from a UTC-11 country for example, the item may be there from 000-1300 their time. But they may be asleep from 000 to 0800 so they won't be seeing it. They have a chance of seeing it from 0800-1300 but as I said in general people are probably more likely to check out wikipedia in the afternoon and evening. On the other hand, if people check out wikipedia multiple times in a day, they may only check the main page enteries once, and it may be the first time they visit wikipedia during that day. Nil Einne (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that's probably correct for weekdays. The time I noticed it being an issue was at weekends, when I'd check in the morning over breakfast then disappear out for the day. I guess 2/7 of the time for 4 million/6 billion people probably isn't that big an issue, though...! I'd agree with you about checking the Main Page - even now it tends to be a morning thing for me (though it's not an issue now, as I'm on UTC+0/1) and after that I just follow T:MP. TFOWR 09:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm copying here a comment mistakenly left on Wikipedia talk:Contact us, heading refactored for organization. (I'm not watching this page, so if you need me, user talk, please.) Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
City of Lausanne, Canton de VAUD, Switzerland
You showing a crest for the Canton of Vaud in White and Red on your maina page.
THE RIGHT COLORS ARE: WHITE ON TOP AND GREEN ON THE BOTTOM
Bill Ihringer
Atlanta
ref. I lived there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.214.69 (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't see any such image currently or recently on the main page. Furthermore, our article on Vaud already uses the colours the IP describes. However, File:Lausanne-coat of arms.svg IS in red and white, but is apparently the coat of arms of Lausanne rather than Vaud. Perhaps we had misidentified one of them somewhere? Modest Geniustalk 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't work it out either. Notably the DYK enteries, and all the other entries at the time of the OPs post (01:41, 27 September 2010) didn't feature such a crest Nil Einne (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is none of the above appearing when not in Editing Talk Page mode - or has the auto-archive got ahead of itself? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to have corrected itself now. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Ecuador emergency
Resolved
– Nominate candidates for ITN at WP:ITN/C. This one made the Main Page :-) TFOWR 16:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
To propose an item, head off to WP:ITNC. This has already been proposed so head over there and indicate your support for it. The discussion currently centres around 2010 Ecuador crisis so I'd suggest some merging will be needed. TFOWR 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Over one million articles
I note that both the German and French versions of Wikipedia now have over a million articles. They are currently listed with those with over 500,000. I suggest they should have a place of their own: over 1,000,000. - Ipigott (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Been suggested so so so so so many times. Answer is no. Sorry. f o x 13:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I know it was suggested several times when there was only 1 non-English wikipedia over 1 million articles, not doing it then made sense. Now there are 2, it seems like a possibility. If another one hits the million mark it would almost certainly be done. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The community has consistently rejected proposals to establish a top tier containing that few Wikipedias. We didn't reach consensus to add the "more than 500,000 articles" tier until eight Wikipedias qualified. —David Levy 16:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think four is probably a better number to be worth adding a new tier, but the current two is certainly insufficient. Modest Geniustalk 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I would also be fine with four as a minimum standard. I would definitely oppose having a tier for less than four Wikipedias. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Quick question
Main Page has a weird tendency to sometimes — but sometimes not — show up on the Untagged Uncategorized Articles list. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to when it does or doesn't appear, either. So I just wanted to ask: is there some projectspace category we can shove it into so that the system will consider it a categorized page, or is there some technical reason I'm not familiar with why that would be a bad idea? Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories have to be visible for the toolserver to count them; an article can have 100 hidden categories on it but will still register as uncategorized if there isn't at least one visible non-stub category too. For what it's worth, though, it's not the end of the world if there isn't a viable solution to this — I'm almost certain that the toolserver can be programmed to just skip this page, whenever User:JaGa is able to get to it, and even if he can't it's just one page to remember to skip when doing a categorization run in AWB — but I thought I should ask anyway just in case. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If it ignores ALL hidden categories then that's a problem with the tool - it should recognise and honour something that designates a page it should ignore. Incidentally, that might explain why the Main Page was tagged as uncategorised earlier this week diff. Modest Geniustalk 23:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no, notwithstanding this page it's mostly not a problem with the tool; at least in articlespace, pages are only considered to be correctly categorized if they have visible content categories on them — stub categories and hidden maintenance categories don't count, because they're meant for internal maintenance purposes rather than for subject sorting or user browsing, so our categorization policy actually does require articles to get tagged with one of the uncategorized article templates if they aren't in at least one real content category, no matter how many stub or maintenance categories they may already have. So while the appearance of this page on the list is potentially a bug to fix, the toolserver is actually behaving correctly when it comes to real topic articles.
That said, however, you're correct that this is the reason why this page would have gotten tagged earlier this week — and why it might happen again in the future if we can't figure out a solution at one end or the other. I'm careful to skip this page when I'm doing an AWB run through the uncats list, but clearly not everybody else who works with that project is. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it should certainly be ignoring maintenance categories and the like, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. However, other automated sweeps (e.g. for CSD) have special categories specifically created to cause a page to be skipped over by those sweeps e.g. Category:Wikipedia orphaned talk pages that should not be speedily deleted. I'm just saying that the uncategorised tool should use/recognise something like that. Though since it discriminates based on namespace it's something that will hardly ever need to be used, and could well be better handled by creating a specific exemption for this page. Modest Geniustalk 23:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
What is a little odd is that Main Page never shows up on the regular "Uncategorized Articles" list — it only shows up on the version of the list that autogenerates a downloadable AWB/bot-friendly text file. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Rekenaar gebruik in skole
Resolved
Hierdie word saamgestel om aan te toon hoe baie geleenthede is daar om die studente se aandag te kry met behulp van die rekenaar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmostert99 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Miskien probeer hier plaas? TFOWR 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This is compiled to show how many opportunities there are for the students' attention to get through the computer. — Jmostert99
Maybe try this instead? — TFOWR 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
And a human translation: "This is compiled to show how many opportunities there are to get the students' attention with the help of the computer." Interestingly the user created an account on Afrikaans Wikipedia in 2008 and made not a single edit with it since, I'm having trouble wondering why they've suddenly posted now, presumably accidentally to enwp due to unified login. In any case, marking as resolved, nothing further to see here. Zunaid 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
15000 AU = 0.237 ly
see my correction to article on proxima centuri Too Old (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
As long as half of the news pieces are regarding SPORTS, maybe it makes more sense to have a separate section for those, since they are not news nor are they newsworthy. Cosprings (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Before I get into whether they're newsworthy (an entirely subjective discussion), where do you suppose such a section would go? ~DCWe Can Work It Out 21:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
IMO ITN isn't even an encyclopedia-worthy section, but that's for another time... Aiken (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
And we're about to have an inundation of Nobel Prizes (five in five days). It's hardly ITN's fault if lots of similar events happen in the same week. Modest Geniustalk 00:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that Norman Wisdon dieing is newsworthy enough to be ITN Still polaris (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
ITN items are discussed at WP:ITN/C, and only posted if there's a consensus to do so. In this case there was, I believe, unanimous agreement for it to be posted. Regardless, you need to comment at WP:ITN/C. TFOWR 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Why on earth is Norman Wisdom's death on the frontpage? He wasn't even that funny. Lugnuts (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
ITN items are discussed at WP:ITN/C, and only posted if there's a consensus to do so. In this case there was, I believe, unanimous agreement for it to be posted. Regardless, you need to comment at WP:ITN/C. TFOWR 12:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Question about sourcing.
Resolved
– Stepshep is correct: this is the wrong venue, WP:Help desk is the right venue. (I can tell you for free, however, that emails are not reliable sources). TFOWR 09:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've attempted to make contact with Brooke Anne Smith via Email and I planned on using the email as a source. However, I need to know if that counts as a reliable source. I really need to know. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Per above: "Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements relating only to the Main Page. It is not a place to ask general questions or submit content." Try Wikipedia:Help deskShepTalk 02:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Warofdreams talk 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
