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.

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

Done, added the "village" to the piped link. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference exactly? for future reference? --140.203.12.241 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, you know. Algebraist 14:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Preston is a city in Lancashire; Preston Village is a suburban area of Brighton and Hove in East Sussex. So the difference is about 500 kilometres (sorry!) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

What makes you think Leonardo's page has never been TFA? Sure, it was five years ago, but we do have archives, you know. Algebraist 15:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, Talk:Leonardo da Vinci says, near the top, "This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 10, 2004." So it's most unlikely that LdV would make it back to the Main Page, even if it was to regain Featured Article status, since articles only get a second spot in the sunshine in the most exceptional of circumstances. Bencherlite^Talk 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it...uh...says "former" featured article. That's a shame. Well, we should un-unfeature it (I'm still not used to Wikipolicies)! In my personal (though slightly biased) opinion, Leonardo da Vinci's page is far more "featureable" than Emma Watsons, but I suppose this argument doesn't belong on this specific discussion page DeathNomad 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles are featured because of their quality, not because of their subject. Thus, we have featured articles on obscure songs, porn stars and single episodes of TV series, while there are highly encyclopedic topics sitting around without any recognition. If you want something to be featured, the best thing to do is to work on it. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, featured articles are featured because they successfully pass through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates after reviewers decide the article meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, commonly considered among the most challenging single tasks on the wiki. Once an article has been featured on the Main Page, only in extraordinary circumstances would it be reconsidered for Main Page placement, largely due to a constant queue of featured articles that have never had their day to shine on the Main Page. The article Leonardo Da Vinci had its featured status removed after discussion reached a consensus that it no longer met the featured article criteria. The article would have to be improved back to FA quality and pass through FA candidacy again before we would be able to have the discussion if it merited an extraordinary redo. - BanyanTree 12:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, since the topic seems to be getting ignored here, I'm bringing it over to WP:AN. Ashanda (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The TFA is usually protected against page-moves, just not against editing. howcheng {chat} 07:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not against policy, just not always. Matty (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's a conspiracy. In order to smash this odious cabal, we need to raise the quality of all articles to Featured Article status. Only then will ordinary, decent articles make the Main Page! Onwards, Featured Article-istas! To arms! (Or at least keyboards!) Yours in featured article solidarity, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Featured articles aren't secret- anyone's welcome to comment at WP:FAC (where we decide whether potential featured articles are up to scratch), see what's coming up, or even request that certain articles appear. More can be learnt about the selection process for FAs here or about today's featured article here. On another note, if ancient history counts as shitty, what on Earth would you like to see more of? J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To slip in some praise, today was the first time for months that I read the Featured Article from start to finish and then re-read it. The Retiarius article had wonderful detail and is truly interesting and well-researched. I always wondered about those nets, and why the fighters had so little armour when they were fighting to the death. Now it makes sense. A great choice.

I do have doubts about some previous selections, which seemed to have limited interest, no matter how well written. However, whatever you choose, someone will think it's not as good as the article on his favourite band or on her favourite nematode.Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your doubts are, in some respects, FA's greatest strength - a lot of the time I'll learn something new about a topic I wouldn't normally read about. And it provides an incentive to improve those articles that I am usually interested in! Which reminds me - must go and read today's FA, and then start working on improving a few articles... ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

When you say you "reread it" do you mean because every sentence in the Retiarius article shows up at least twice? 98.114.95.59 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead section (that's the one that shows up above the table of contents) should summarise the rest of the article-all information in it will appear elsewhere in the article. This is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Meant for WP:ERRORS? --74.14.17.253 (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving this to WP:ERRORS Ecphora (talk)

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

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

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

Presumably so, but this page is for comments on the main page, not pianos. Thanks.  GARDEN  09:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant to comment on this, and pardon the delay. Actually I think the original comment did belong here. The reference to "duo-piano" in the Main Page teaser was obscure. "Duo-piano" is obscure jargon, and was unhelpful in indicating what the item was about - even for the musically inclined. Its use obscured the information rather than assisting understanding.Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was no definite number at the time. --candle•wicke 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying that "a number" doesn't mean anything at all and thus constitutes poor wording. It doesn't even specify that the number is not definite.--137.146.170.162 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If a news item says "A number of people did x", the fact that you're reading it implies that it was a significant number of people, otherwise it wouldn't have been published. In the sentence "A number of people (whose exact quantity is indeterminate but large enough to merit reporting in a news article) did x", everything in brackets is completely redundant if you're reading it in a news article.

It's not poor wording at all unless you can't grasp the concept of context - in which case bad luck, but Wikipedia isn't aimed at the functionally illiterate. --86.156.134.242 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is poor wording. What about 'several'? Modest Genius ^talk 14:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "Delegates from at least 30 countries". I think the number of the countries they represent is the real point. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Several" means at least three, so it's no better or worse than "a number" - in fact worse, since thirty is arguably too many to be described as "several". Context, people, context. --86.170.68.167 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is better than 'a number', because it places at least a lower limit and indicates that the datum is discrete. Not perfect by any means, and if we have the exact number we should use it, but definitely better than 'a number' Modest Genius ^talk 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I believe this has been proposed before. I think the consensus was that we shouldn't semiprotect the first article people might try to edit while maintaining that this is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, good point. I caught myself thinking of the encyclopedia in terms of vandals rather than well-intentioned editors. Sorry- a little insignificant (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For the appropriate guideline, see this page. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I dont think its vandalism as such, however is breaking the WP:NOTFORUM policy number 4 Dark verdant (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this page is really for discussing improvements to the Main Page itself. The better place to ask question about using Wikipedia and clarifications on Wikpedia policy is the Wikipedia:Help desk (BTW, there's a link in that big box at the top of the page). -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

• Fixed by Raul. Better, though, to situate requests of this sort at WP:ERRORS (transcluded atop this page). 68.76.146.212 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I've gone ahead and implemented this. Dragons flight (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

That's a frequently asked question. Art LaPella (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It could be something to do with CSS being disabled, or your browser not reading the site's CSS for some reason. I don't know what to do about it, however. Graham87 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, I'm using 3.0.9 also. Modest Genius ^talk 23:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• The discovery of fossilised Puijila darwini (restoration pictured), the oldest ancestor of modern pinnipeds ever found, is announced.

The picture before was a group of walruses, and now it looks like a big weasel. Clicking on pinnipeds shows a walrus. Is that a mistake? Dream Focus 18:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. Please read Puijila darwini. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In particular, please read this sentence: "Unlike modern pinnipeds, it did not have flippers and its overall form was otter-like, albeit more specialized; its skull and teeth are the features that most clearly indicate that it is a seal." Art LaPella (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2009

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

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

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

I disagree. I think you're reading the guideline far too liberally- for instance, I would support a non-breaking space between a number and a unit of measurement (especially if abbreviated), but I would not support a non-breaking space between a number and something that is not a unit of measurement. Compare- "John owned 40 acres" and "John owned 40 fields". I think they should be used very sparingly- overly unjustified text is not something I find aesthetically pleasing, at all. J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between "40 acres" and "40 fields" seems to be a line in the sand. To me "acres" and "fields" are both units. Also, I've seen the justification issue come up before, but I don't understand it. Could you explain? (I don't notice a difference, but maybe I don't know what to look for.) Shubinator (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn said "unit of measurement". Acres are all the same size. Fields aren't. Units of measurement are needed to specify variables in a physics equation. A square mile is exactly 640 acres, but 640 fields could be any size. 120 miles divided by 60 mph equals 2 hours. 40 fields divided by 5 fences is meaningless. Art LaPella (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

40 fields ÷ 5 fields/farmer = 8 farmers. But I get what you mean. Going back to justification, is the problem that the text goes to the next line, leaving some white space on the previous line? This is more of an issue on articles. Three of the Main Page sections (ITN, DYK, OTD) have bulleted lists and you can't really see the justification. Shubinator (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed, thanks. For future reference, these sorts of comments are more noticeable if they are made at WP:ERRORS. Bencherlite^Talk 16:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Most people would be able to link the fact it says 250th with the fact they died.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

That widely recognized manufacturer of boots and saddles in rural Dickens, Texas, Charles Weldon Cannon, known as Tooter Cannon, (presently at DYK) ought to go at least some of the way to countering this utterly earth-shattering revelation. :) --candle•wicke 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Then there's that guy, Antonio Bastardo, (also at DYK) who we all know for... uh... --candle•wicke 18:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Surviving elementary school? --86.159.27.165 (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Better tone down all this Mexican stuff when we're at it. TFP and a prime spot on ITN? Never! :) --candle•wicke 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I quite like today's Norwegian DYK... :) --candle•wicke 03:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I think "comfort" here means "stimulate an underused libido", i.e. women could get from Chopin the "comfort" they couldn't get from their uncaring husbands. That's how I read it, anyway. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess if one broadens one's concept of libido to refer generally to the creative impulse, that makes sense. I was thinking of it more narrowly in terms of sexuality, i.e. concupiscence.

Sca (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Currently we have only one Norway-related item on Main Page, in the DYK section. And I am pretty sure we had a lot more U.S. items than Norwegian ones. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the OP doesn't know the difference between Sweden and Norway? Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay being countryless at ITN may have gone some way towards this. --candle•wicke 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Norway is even complaining about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the Durban Review Conference. --candle•wicke 17:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

You know, this is a wiki. So if you don't like what's on the main page, write something and nom it for ITN or DYK or TFA. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I am of half-Norwegian descent, I have to say that today's Norwegian entry about the Krag-Jørgensen rifle strikes me as excessively obscure. I know some Wikipedians think obscurity is what Wiki is all about. I have a different view. It seems to me that Nguyen Van Thieu's flight from Saigon in 1975, for just one possible example, is of far more interest.

Having said that, I wish to report that my paternal grandmother always told my dad that "the Norwegians are the finest people in the world."

Sca (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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

No. --candle•wicke 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

i can assure u the pigs got nothing to do with norway :) Ashishg55 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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

On the other hand, millions of English speakers have been wondering for years just who the Norwegian editor of Verdens litteraturhistorie was. Thanks to today's DYK entry, we know at last.

Now, who was his assistant, and what was his mother's maiden name? Also, what model of Volvo did he drive? And speaking of cheesy — did he really like gammelost, or did he only pretend to like it?

Sca (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sca (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you look closely, you'll find that today's featured article on Ælfheah of Canterbury is actually a Norway entry. Sca (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You might also notice an astonishing bias in favour of the English south-east on the Main Page today; TFP is this lovely panoramic view of the Thames. --candle•wicke 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The main page takes its cue from the article. If you want it to change, you should go to that article's talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you might take a cue from reading the following article - Joke. Next time I'll add the smiley. Michael of Lucan (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for puerile jokes. This is for discussion of the Main Page. You have a userpage for jokes. Danthemankhan 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Insulting a comment as puerile is contrary to the principles of adult discussion, and possibly self-referential.

You do me an injustice. I suggest you read back and see what happens every time this subject is mentioned. It is no coincidence that there are 19 pages of archived comments and a FAQs on the talk page for the article. I may have pre-empted another two pages here. Michael of Lucan (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

No, Michael of Lucan's right... there must be some problem where users on the North American continent can't post errors... it's a catastrophe! 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Michael. Something is seriously amiss when Norway and Lithuania are getting more coverage on this page than the United States. Is today a public holiday there? But then that would surely give more people more free time... --candle•wicke 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

...because people in the USA know very little about US topics and a great deal about Norwegian topics? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic points, maybe tomorrow we can featureUniform (soccer)147.72.72.2 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I've actually never heard it called that before... it seems an extremely unusual use of the word "uniform". Thanks for telling me. :) --candle•wicke 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to the original point - the name of the article Association football --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Try telling that to the editors who worked to get these articles to FA status. User:Raul654 makes the final decision. Also see this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this issue is raised time and time again and I really don't think this user fully understands the process of WP:Featured articles and WP:Today's featured article... --candle•wicke 09:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

((Request edit)) Sorry, if I'm doing this wrong. Learning as I go. The number of confirmed deaths due to swine flu as of today according to the WHO is 7, not 152.[1] Could someone please change this?Jcblackmon (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Future requests for change to Main Page content can be brought to WP:ERRORS where they may be noticed sooner... --candle•wicke 21:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Outwith Mexico maybe --86.148.187.16 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you mean a new ITN, things have been a bit slow but I think enough people have died today in Azerbaijan and the Netherlands so a new one will be along soon enough... :) --candle•wicke 21:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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

That's because "main page" is English and other language Wikipedias will have the URL for their main page in that language. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to add what their equivilent is. Like it is [ar.wikipedia.org/wiki%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9], for example.--Pokémaniac Thomas (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But there's no point - that's just many (unintelligible) extra characters cluttering up the edit box that serve no purpose. They both point to the same page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That would also store up problems if other languages decided to move their main pages (such as the perennial suggestions to move ours to Portal:Main Page). No real pros, several cons, not necessary. Modest Genius ^talk 23:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you love it when a (now banned) sockpuppet of a banned user asks for a critical page to be unprotected? He'd be "more than happy" to help, really. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, now... let's AGF on this. --candle•wicke 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Rephrased. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The Main Page gets its figures from this article. That article gets its figures from this CNN report and this AP report. I didn't find your CNN report (so where in bleep are you getting your figures?). If it exists, the article's talk page would be a better place to discuss which report is the most reliable. Art LaPella (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As of 6pm PDT, the CNN report has been updated to the 149 figure (unconfirmed) with only 81 cases confirmed worldwide, but at the time that I posted (not to mention the time that the Wikipedia headline would have been posted), my figure was the one being used. But whatever # is current still does't change my point (which you ignored), which is that by using the term "at least", Wikip is claiming that 149 is the smallest confirmed figure, which in actually it's the LARGEST REPORTED UNCONFIRMED figure, with CONFIRMED #s being MUCH smaller. (I still haven't found the # of CONFIRMED deaths on CNN, and I don't have the time tonight to do any more intensive search.) And it is pertinent to THIS page when Wikip is spreading inaccurate figures on the gateway page. CFLeon (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the top of this page states: "The main page usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first." Admittedly the article doesn't say "at least", but that phrase does allow for a delay in getting the Main Page to match the supporting article. Art LaPella (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that "at least" has been removed, I don't have a complaint. Just to be clear, I don't mind what figure is used (in a week, we may see 500 deaths); my complaint is the intellectual and journalistic dishonesty of taking the LARGEST figure being mentioned and then claiming that it is the SMALLEST. To me that practice smacks of Tabloid Journalism or PR Propaganda. CFLeon (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Oh well. Not much we can do about that except assume honesty. --candle•wicke 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Er... what? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go to that disco either! There seems to be a lot of people that lie about their names here too ... either that, or there are a lot of cruel parents in this world! --LookingYourBest (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed by an admin on Commons

(cross-posted to WP:AN)

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

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

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

Now this issue I remember because it is right on the page history of the Main Page: About two years ago, somebody added Category:Main Page[3] but then was reverted.[4] As archived on Talk:Main Page/Archive 111#Category, the objection was that it spoils the appearance of the main page and that no one needs help finding it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC) .

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

It has a population higher than Switzerland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Sweden, Israel, Finland, Norway, Ireland and other countries that we cover in depth or which would be considered "major". However, English is not a language widely spoken in Senegal, and, as far as I know, it has no major links with English speaking countries. Our coverage of the nation is poor due to systematic systemic bias. I'm not quite sure how you could argue that the Senegal news is of little importance when we have a car crash, a poet and something about marriage in a tiny country (see above...) next to it. Note that all those stories are about Europe. If anything, we seem to be strongly biased against the important political stories in Africa. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Any opportunity to have an African ITN is to be welcomed. It is also pleasing to note that we had a slight increase in South American ITNs last month. No country or continent ought to dominate. Three paragraphs is a more than suitable length for ITN and having it on the Main Page means someone might come along and add to it. --candle•wicke 18:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's systemic bias - systematic bias is quite different (and implies consistent but intentional bias). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? Are you saying what I was describing was not systematic bias? My description seems pretty consistent with what our article on the subject says. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean systematic bias? Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, shut me up. Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For those who are wondering: Systemic_bias#Systemic_versus_systematic_bias states '[...] systemic biases are sometimes said to arise from the nature of the interworkings of the system, whereas systematic biases stem from a concerted effort to favor certain outcomes. Consider the difference between affirmative action (systematic) compared to racism and caste (systemic).' Modest Genius ^talk 02:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry J - I should have been clearer. Your definition of systemic bias was quite correct, I just meant you got the link wrong and presented it as a definition of systematic bias which (I would sincerely hope) Wikipedia does not have. After all, TINC (however, SCREWy it may seem). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Huh? Where? In other news, please report any inaccuracies or stylistic suggestions about the content of the Main Page sections to WP:ERRORS. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Second World War is generally the accepted historical term. --89.240.151.100 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

...in Europe and the Commonwealth; I believe "World War Two" is preferred in the US. However, it doesn't alter the fact that we have no idea where this is an issue - we need the original IP poster to let us know. I've also looked at the Main Page and can't see anything obvious. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgot about this. Saw it a few hours after it was left and couldn't see anything either. It must've been a DYK which was replaced... but I can't find anything in the archives... --candle•wicke 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

wow...

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

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

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

I've changed the wording. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

It was on the news, but it scrolled off. Besides, it's not that important. So far, you're more likely to die from regular flu. APL (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose, though it is affecting people all round the world. And for all we know, it could get much worse. I still think it should be added. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 15:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It could get much worse? No crystal ball please. We will definitely feature it again when it does get much worse. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If it gets much worse. No crystal ball please. :) J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. You made me blush. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

?I think wikipedia should be worried if people come solely HERE in order to get current news... --Jakezing (Your King (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised considering the frequency of new ITNs at the moment... 2 May is beginning to disappear already... --candle•wicke 02:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Please see our sister project, Wikinews. —David Levy 03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

What does the word pandemic mean? Certainly few people are dying of the bugger,

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

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

The entry does not imply that Latvia was the first? J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. It seems quite odd that today's "On This Day" fails to list the Mexican connection with Cinco de Mayo - which is widely celebrated as a Mexican heritage day in North America.

Sca (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the section: 'On this day... 5 May: Cinco de Mayo; [...]' Modest Genius ^talk 23:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The single person pictured is the last one mentioned (the name followed by "(pictured)"). — JamesR ≈talk≈ 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Still somewhat confusing that way.  æron phone home  09:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-ordered for clarity, and because it makes more sense to have Milligan mentioned first in the context of his eponymous legal case. Bencherlite^Talk 09:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Please suggest candidates at WP:ITN/C, NOT here. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Posted now. Thankfully I lurk around here to spot these types of comments. --candle•wicke 02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Another WP:ERRORS. --candle•wicke 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, surprised nobody has complained about the systemic bias with wrestling on the main page. --Kaizer13 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The table tennis ought to go some way towards evening that out. --candle•wicke 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Sorry I don't get the picture Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Where the current link is kill it could have been a link to gunmen kill 44 people at wedding party without much extra work. Maybe it doesn't make so much sense, I just thought it could improve for anyone who works on that stuff if they might not have thought of it. Some of todays links like mutiny and slaughter sort of fit but usually it seems like Georgian troops mutiny and Egypt commences the slaughter of all domesticated pigs (no change to current wording only change to size of link) sometimes it seemed like that type of link was more correct and newsy. Not much of a suggestion but hey maybe next year :) 86.46.64.230 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why Georgian troops mutiny doesn't work is because there are useful links in Georgia and troops. Ditto with Egypt and domestic pigs. 'Gunmen kill 44 people at wedding party' is a very long link and is likely to cause more confusion and doesn't look good for a stylistic viewpoint. Finally ITN is not about the news. Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A good reason for changing the title to something involving the word "events". Of course then there would be no more ITN... there would be a brand new set of initials... --candle•wicke 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Yip, I'll pass this over to WP:ERRORS as well... --candle•wicke 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It constantly eludes me why people never report errors in the correct place. What really is so difficult about posting properly? 79.71.114.103 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When you come here for the first time you might not know where everything is. --candle•wicke 13:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. At the time I looked at the page to submit my note, I searched the page to make sure nothing was mentioned about it previously, and then could swear that I saw something about posting to the end of the page. I usually do minor contributions like the aforementioned correction, and so when I run into a page that I can't edit, I tend to look for the best way to help correct it. Some people don't have all the time to read through all the rules and minor nuances (not to mention search for the specific locations) when they just want to make a simple contribution. Again, I apologize for posting to the incorrect place and in the future I will either contribute to the list of errors near the top of the page or choose not to contribute at all. --Everchanging02 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

So now were being reprimand for putting something BESIDES major news event as thje picture? Amazing. I think it's a good change; we need to mic up the ITN pictures between important and not important entries.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A balance should be able to be found between the utterly unimportant from a global perspective and fear-mongering, 'the sky is falling' tabloid news. Snooker champion=ultimately unimportant. Swine flu pandemic='the sky is falling.' Georgia accuses Russia of coup attempt=somewhere in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.229 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Difficult, though, to produce a picture of one country accusing another country of plotting a coup. Also, note that this ITN is currently top; when it gets displaced by a more recent news item the picture will likely change. I suspect recent events in Turkey, and any accompanying picture, may satisfy your criteria. To my mind, however, snooker is a growing sport in Asia and Europe, and a significant part of the anglophone world will find it at least slightly interesting (mind you, I'd prefer a picture of a Nepalese politician or an Austrian avalanche). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The same could be said for various sporting events that get mentions on ITN. Namely American Football and Baseball. To be honest I care little about snooker and other sporting events but I'm happy the ITN items have taken away the fear mongering Swine Flu that is constantly in your face at the moment (well my face anyway). Dark verdant (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If only there were some way to find out... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Apparently it was invented in India if that article is to be believed. Considering India has one of the largest populations in the world, add in China who had players at the tournament and tried to steal it from Sheffield (reported in the Irish Independent despite Ireland having no players in the tournament), and this dwarfs the population of the US... throw in the fact that the result was published in The Sydney Morning Herald within minutes... seems like the sport is at least as relevant as baseball and American football for most of the world. If it is perceived as unusual, I think that is to be welcomed... it might attract more editors to become involved in that area and readers learn something new... presumably why they're here? --candle•wicke 15:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having 9-ball either if it is of the same relevance. --candle•wicke 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And while I'm not a sports fan, I welcome ITN items that counter the misconception that the section is a news wire reporting the most important stories. Assuming that the appropriate articles have been updated/created, the highest championships of all major sports should be included. —David Levy 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think you may be mistaken? I was under the impression that it was just a guideline/reminder and that anything which was deemed suitable and updated could be included on the Main Page. Despite this, it seems increasingly difficult to add sports which are unknown in the US, whilst the Super Bowl continues to be included and the Pulitzer Prize (a national award which can only be given to items published in the US) was lying dormant on the list until it was spotted after it made its way onto the Main Page a few weeks ago. Based upon my knowledge I too would say snooker is a suitable candidate for WP:ITNR. --candle•wicke 00:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

>>By the way, happy belated birthday Mr Genius, I think it's time to update your p/age. :) --candle•wicke 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Please cite the recent instances in which sports unknown in the U.S. were unfairly omitted from ITN. If this is so, it's a problem that should be addressed as soon as possible.

2. Are you suggesting that the Super Bowl shouldn't be included? —David Levy 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I just find the inclusion of the Super Bowl unusual, considering it's a national championship. The equivalent in association football, for instance, would be the Premier League or, in Gaelic football, the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship (which has been around a lot longer than 1967 (1880s in fact) and features London GAA and New York GAA, the former being on an entirely different island in an entirely different country and the latter being on an entirely different continent altogether, and the entire tournament which I would consider as culturally relevant in its region as the Super Bowl seems to be in its region). Also, "hurling is played throughout the world, and is popular among members of the United Kingdom, North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina..." Even The New York Times considers it the fastest field sport in the world – in its recommendation as a suitable event for its readers to attend, it says the game dates from ancient times and that modern semi-finals have "only a limited number of tickets" available on match-week. And that's just the semi-finals. I just think some of those illogicalities aren't being addressed appropriately. Also, considering this would be those two sports at their highest level, I think those two have more relevance than, say, the Premier League; football of that variety of course having so many popular continental championships and the FIFA World Cup as its signature events. --candle•wicke 02:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Super Bowl is the premier championship of its sport (American football). That sport is played primarily in the United States, but this is a country whose population is equal to 61% of the entire European Union. (The Super Bowl also has a large international audience.)

However, the U.S. population needn't be considered, as there is consensus for the inclusion of every major sport's highest championship(s), assuming that the appropriate articles have been created/updated. This includes sports played chiefly in countries with much smaller populations than the United States, such as Canadian football (the Grey Cup) and Australian rules football (the AFL Grand Final). You mentioned the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, which is another event that qualifies (because it is the highest level of Gaelic football). You also mentioned hurling, and it appears that the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship qualifies as well. As you noted, the Premier League championship is not the highest level of association football.

You stated above that "it seems increasingly difficult to add sports which are unknown in the US." Again, please cite specific instances in which the criteria were met and such items were unsuccessfully proposed. —David Levy 03:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That list is neither complete nor sacrosanct. (And it's more an indication of which specific events should be featured than of which sports should be.) It appears that the sport of snooker simply hasn't been discussed in this context before, but I see no reason why it shouldn't qualify (and I realize that you agree). —David Levy 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Snooker" is a funny word. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it make you snicker? —David Levy 03:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it's partly due to the old joke (adapted), "Snooker?! I barely know her!" :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Just leave it on, this is going to fall apart into a "My country is best" POV argument, really soon and we all know it.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on the current ITN picture, the best country is obviously this one ;-) Slightly more seriously, as the ITN picture has changed now, isn't this thread somewhat moot? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it amazing that no matter what we put on the MP, fort no reason somebody has to complain, to much Norway, to ?Much US, to much unimportant stuff.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hanging around WP:ITN/C more often is advised. Have you seen the length of the discussion on snooker? And that made it to the Main Page... but that's besides the point, I was asked for examples for what probably seemed like strange claims and I have given a summary of points I've made elsewhere before since that was essentially what I was asked for. There was meant to be no bitter accusations involved but I apologise if my tone came across in the way. As for the list, well clearly there are those who are uncertain and it may be regarded as policy by some. At the moment there is a very flat, eventless discussion on the 2009 World Table Tennis Championships. I've seen the the men's section and it has Japan, South Korea, Denmark, Austria, France, Slovakia, Italy, Romania, Russia, Czech Republic, Australia, Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, Slovenia, Portugal, Greece, Russia, Poland, Belarus, Croatia, Serbia, Sweden, Noway, Chinese Taipei, Mexico, Ukraine, Egypt, England, Latvia, Belgium, Iceland, Spain, Singapore, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Scotland, Bulgaria for the geography enthusiasts + India and China for the population enthusiasts. Not at WP:ITNR and no representation from the US does create stumbling blocks and uncertainty when you only have yourself to comment with on the topic... and no, ITN does not usually bow to pressure fom the Talk:Main Page regulars to remove the latest controversial topic unless there is some logical reason to do do. --candle•wicke 12:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

With the current developments, WP:ITNR is now rendered as obsolete, with the recent loosening up of the rules. The quick removal/re-addition of big 4 U.S. sports would've been reversed, anyway. –Howard the Duck 14:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends how recent. The presence of the Pulitzers on the list rendered the awards section obsolete and destroyed the honest rationale which was offered to the person who nominated the 2009 BRIT Awards earlier this year. --candle•wicke 14:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Which probably opens the floodgate for such articles. –Howard the Duck 14:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It was removed... we cannot possibly have every national music, film, literature award... and then where would it stop? Radio might feel left out. The internet itself. Then science would have a valid claim since this is an encyclopedia. I think there is much greater step between awards and sport. --candle•wicke 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't wait for Burundi's equivalent of the Oscars to get in. –Howard the Duck 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that was happening. --candle•wicke 14:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But then it's hardly rendered obsolete if it's just a guideline and not a policy? --candle•wicke 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe tag it with historical or something. –Howard the Duck 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean important as in news of the deadly, dangerous, rich beyond dreams, power beyond control and evil beyond sanity, or do you mean that kicking a ball is just not the international exciement it is made out to be, the fastest man in the world is sort of lame, maybe curiosity is a search for merciless justice or a bit of whatever that dum cat was having and the news, is not really the news, but is the bads!! We should not be expanding it in love, we should be crushing it like a spine in the ass. Olympics? World cup?? Please wait here while we crush your puny hopeful spirit! Wahahaha! Beleive it. World champion anything is top rate news. Mr. 1 in six, thousand, thousand, thousand... not Mr. top of the street but top of the WORLD Ma! If there was less public sport there would be less world peace 'cos humans other attributes are ignorance, boredom and evil mind-ness. And it's nearly as hard as golf? 86.46.64.230 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)