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.

I don't have any idea about how the main points that is showed on the main page is selected, but today there is something different compared to the previous years. 24 April 1915 which is the day where Armenian Intellectuals arrested and killed under the Ottoman Rule and a widespread genocide had begun against Armenians in Anatolia. For the last 3-4 years it is always showed on the main page. I don't understand how it is not there this year. What other event can be important then this. The creator of the "genocide" word Raphel Lemkin told that Armenian Genocide made him to prepare a law for crimes against humanity which he was able to get it accepted by United Nations after 15 years of effort when the WWII is finished. This is him explaining genocide

How can wikipedia skip such an event ? Ali55te (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because you didn't nominate it? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, depending on the efforts of all its editors, all of whom do this voluntarily in their "spare" time. Maybe the person who nominated your Armenian genocide last year isn't around this year. Maybe you will be next year. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTD doesn't work by a nomination process, unlike many of the other parts of the Main Page. Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 24 was updated yesterday for today's appearance by Howcheng (talk · contribs), who is the main editor to deal with OTD (as far as I can tell) and so well aware of the general approach to be taken to WP:OTD inclusion. As the note at that page says, "Please note that the events listed on the Main Page are chosen based more on relative article quality and to maintain a mix of topics, not based solely on how important or significant their subjects are. Only 5–6 events are posted at a time and thus not everything that is "most important and significant" can be listed." Deportation of Armenian notables in 1915 was included in 2011, Armenian Genocide in 2008 and 2009. Just because something is included one year does not mean that it will be included every year, as it says at ((SelAnnivTalk)): "Many days have a large pool of potential articles, so they will rotate in and out every year to give each one some Main Page exposure". Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I found exactly where discussions are happening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/April_24 Thank you for your answers. An administrator can archive this discussion. Ali55te (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What Bencherlite said: Not every event is listed every year. Armenian Genocide and Deportation of Armenian notables in 1915 are simply out of rotation this time around. Given that the pool of eligible articles for April 24 is not very large, it will most likely be on again next year. —howcheng {chat} 21:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the only day where it's possible to include a link to the Ottoman Anti-Christian massacres which resulted in over 2 million deaths, and are widely considered the first genocide of the 20th century. It's very strange that a minor battle in a short war, the abolition of russification in Lithuania, and a local event in Scotland are shown instead. I don't think that we should exclude this just because it's considered "controversial" in Turkey.--Rafy talk 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It absolutely has not been excluded because it's "'controversial' in Turkey". It's simply out of rotation. Just because an event is omitted does not mean we disrespect it or anything. The only articles that get included year after year are holidays and observances, so if you work on improving and expanding Genocide Remembrance Day (as that article is currently a stub and thus ineligible), you can guarantee the listing of the genocide every year. —howcheng {chat} 23:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your reply.--Rafy talk 01:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

*Coughs* 9/11 has been in OTD (as well as often the main featured article, DYK enties and POTD) every year since 2001. There is absolutely no chance that that will be rotated out, is there? Systemic bias and the preponderance of US editors means that one is stuck on the 11 September OTD entry forever. They will argue that although only a couple of thousand of people died, the geopolitical significance of the event means it stays. A few million who were massacred a century ago in a far-off land? Pffft. Not nearly as important. 86.133.208.11 (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. It was omitted in 2008, 2010, and 2011. However, it has been able to be indirectly included every year because of the Patriot Day article, which is exactly the same route I suggested above to Rafy. Next time, before accusing anyone of bias, please check your facts, as it would have only taken you a few minutes and you would have spared yourself some embarrassment. —howcheng {chat} 09:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I wanted this discussion to be archived in order not to cause this kind of accusations, but unfortunately it happened. Howcheng thank you for the information. I think we can improve the genocide remembrance day article. We have a lot of time until next year. I am sorry if this caused any inconvenience. Ali55te (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

it just says the Government not which one

"that during World War II, the government occupied Parsi Gymkhana and Islam Gymkhana in Bombay, leading Hindu Gymkhana to offer membership to Muslims and Parsis as an "emergency measure"?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.22.254 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

i want only to know. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally, no. Since anyone can create a YouTube video without oversight, they are not considered reliable, unless it's primary source info, or an exemplary argument can be made for its use.--WaltCip (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree... although, a you tube video might give you the information for a reliable source--- "February 28th Fox News' affiliate John Q Public out of WIKI in cincinattie reported"... but then the source is the news broadcast, not the Youtube video (which if not confirmed independently could still be subject if not posted by the station itself---was it edited?) In general it would face the same scrutiny as a blog or self published material... generally not reliable, but exceptions do exist.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

As the header suggests, the WP:Help desk or perhaps WP:VPP is the best place to ask this sort of question. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. But it was discussed in other talk pages ?? --82.139.5.13 (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I may sound ignorant, but what is the process to update the news at the top of the page? The train accident in the Netherlands may have been quite horrifying, but hasn't anything more important happened in the world since the 21. April? What about the new tensions between Sudan and South Sudan? Newt Gingrich withdrawing from the US presidential race? F Hollande and N Sarkozy having gone through to the second round of French presidential elections (with the far right M Le Pen achieving a historic result in the first round)? Yulia Timoshenko starting a hunger strike in the Ukraine, just a few months before the start of the EURO 2012 football cup? Just consider the German wikipedia site - it currently contains the following: a) the EU Commission has launched a lawsuit against Hungary because of its constitutional reforms; b) the University of Liverpool predicts that the Asian tiger mosquity, which tranmits Dengue fever among other diseases, will find suitable living conditions in Europe in 2020/2030, following climate change. Yulia Timoshenko is a past news there already.. On the French wikipedia, they also highlight the collapse of the Dutch government, 2 days ago. Also, not sure who checks the "On this day" section, but today is also a national holiday in Portugal... shouldn't this be included? 37.24.24.32 Khuft (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That news process is at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, where you'll find the Sudan news is already being discussed. For "On this day", see Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. Art LaPella (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thx, I'll try my luck there. Khuft (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Carnation Revolution was excluded because of maintenance issues, which have now been resolved, so I will put it back in. —howcheng {chat} 20:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, thx! Khuft (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to post this as this suggestion covers all the Wikimedia wikis so I'll leave it here.
Would it be possible to define the CJK fonts targeting Windows users so that they would always see Meiryo for Japanese, Microsoft YaHei for Simplified Chinese, Microsoft JhengHei for Traditional Chinese and Malgun Gothic for Korean? I'm asking this because these fonts, while not perfect and not without issues, are much better on the eyes and easier to read than with the default ones used by web browsers on Windows. Especially when using Opera, which has serious font rendering issues with CJK fonts which do not seem to occur when using the aforementioned fonts. Opera also has broken settings for fonts defined for a specific language as it simply ignores the font defined and this occurs since version 10.50. An example of a Japanese site that uses Meiryo is Pokémon.co.jp.
This suggestion, as I said above, applies to all the Wikimedia wikis in all localizations but affecting the Japanese, Chinese and Korean ones in particular. Would such change be feasible and acceptable? 85.246.191.187 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this sort of suggestion would be best made at the technical village pump. Modest Genius ^talk 23:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Chernobyl Disaster.jpg is non-free. Isn't that against the rules? --Openmouth (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Now replaced. --PFHLai (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Openmouth (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Writing here, because Wikipedia talk:Introduction seems to be protected somehow, and this is Main Page-relevant after all: funny as that the word "collaboratively" on Wikipedia:Introduction leads, through a redirect, to Collaborative fiction and not Collaborative editing is, I think some would like to correct it. 153.19.193.21 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, but WP is not fiction. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, 153.19. I have changed the wording of WP:Introduction accordingly. Well spotted - glad someone is reading that stuff! Bencherlite^Talk 22:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For those wondering, although the introduction has pointed to the same place since 2005 [1], the place it pointed to was seemingly relevent until a merger was completed and it was turned in to a redirect in October 2011 [2] so it isn't quite as bad as it seems (although it's still a few months before anyone noticed and found somewhere to comment where it was noticed). Nil Einne (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Two trains collide in Amsterdam" should be a single wikilink to the article. Bolding "collide" and having that as a piped link is surely incorrect as per WP:EASTEREGG. danno 22:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. Thinking that would go to collision would be absurd. Expanding the link to include "Two trains" make make it even clearer, but that is still unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu 22:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely the whole point of a link is to be as explicit as possible (within reason) about where it's going? What's the problem with making it clear "click on this link and you'll go to an article about this specific incident"? It may seem absurd to you, but the front page is our window in from the world. People hitting the site for the first time may not be familiar with the premise of piped links and make the assumption that the link will take them to an article explaining what a collision is. The front page appears the perfect venue for a little bit of hand-holding. danno 21:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Monday (UTC) the popular choice for WP:Today's Featured List in Main Page? If so, why am I having doubts about it? Also, there is no mention about making more people become aware about it, especially in the Main Page. Were other days, such as Friday (UTC) or Saturday (UTC), considered? --George Ho (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How about doing your research and looking in the archives for the discussions? How about not assuming that because you have doubts about it, it means it's wrong? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As you suggested, I have researched discussions from Main Page only, and many supported Monday as a day for Featured List in June 2011 (no need to give a link, right?). However, I could not find research of which demographics browse within 24 hours of Monday (UTC). Reasons for my doubts: Monday is children's school day, especially on Fall and Spring, and staffs are sometimes strict on computers; also, people go to work on Monday; worse, UK people are somehow busy on Monday. I don't know about Sunday; everybody goes to church. Friday or Saturday... How are those days for internet? --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are making very little sense, and I suggest you not make yourself look even more foolish (I'm in the UK. Does this make me "somehow busy on Monday"? Nor do I go to church on Sunday. I've never heard weirder comments). —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but very few people these days (in the UK, anyway) go to church on Sundays. It's a thing done in the US and in more religious/Catholic countries. — foxj 03:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Going to church is not that big a thing in the US either. Research has shown only about 20% of the US population go to church on a normal weekend.[3] GB fan 04:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

All right, big inexcusable misconception on my part. Let's leave the "church" thing behind and find out how many people surf through internet and Wikipedia on Monday and other days. --George Ho (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note: If I recall correctly, Saturday and Sunday were set aside for the planned Today's featured sound section (on the basis that weekend access is less likely than weekday access to occur via work/school computers, on which audio playback often is unfeasible). —David Levy 05:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're not interested in dry facts and statistics, skip to the third paragraph. The lowest hit counts in recent months were Boston Reds (1890–1891) all-time roster (a franchise that went bust 5 years before the oldest living person was born) and 1936 Winter Olympics medal table (you'd have to be in your 80's to have any chance of remembering those). Both attracted more attention than List of Chicago Bulls seasons, Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame and List of Watford F.C. seasons did in 2011. The organisations from the 2011 lists all have tens of thousands of fans, and compete in competitions followed worldwide by millions of people.

Note: the following stats exclude Moons of Saturn, which appeared in the TFA slot on a day in which Wikipedia was in the news. Six lists garnered more than 10,000 hits in six and a half months in 2011; seven lists have done so in under four months in 2012, and I suspect Monday's TFL will come close to that threshold. The mean hit count in 2011 was 6,500; the mean so far in 2012 is 12,600. The respective medians are 4,900 hits in 2011, 8,800 hits in 2012.

Sorry to bore people with marginally relevant statistics, but my point is that on the readership side TFL is growing, and growing nicely. There are undoubtedly things that could be done to help it grow further, but as baseline interest seems to be growing, I think moving from Monday to another day would be reckless. —WFC— 07:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that TFL has twice beaten TFA for hits on a Monday, and the growth WFC mentions, means that we're not in the wrong place right now, quite possibly we're exactly where we should be. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I can understand having a band/video game/movie etc as the featured article if it is well-written and encyclopedic. But what is with having them as a featured picture? It just looks like a promotional picture for a band to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.255.107.130 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If the picture passes WP:FPC, it's eligible for the main page; content is pretty much irrelevant since taste is wholly subjective. GRAPPLE X 16:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone has made a proposal to abolish ITN. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#ITN. Please make any comments there. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is now closed. --PFHLai (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Its said 1974 but the articles, say 1947. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Memorial_Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan98.82.104.129 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noting that, very important we get that sort of thing right. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As English Wikipedia nears 4,000,000 articles in the next month or so,(doubtless to be trumpeted with a Main page banner) that might be an opportune moment to insert into the Main Page framework a line covering other Wikipedias with "Over 1,000,000 articles": currently they are [4], [5], and [6]. If this suggestion is misplaced here, would someone re-site it in the appropriate place? Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly see how this would be good (not only because a million is a nice round number!) but I'm wondering whether or not this would leave the 700,000+ section a little bare. It might be possible to lower the limit to 600,000+ to free up more space but I'm interested in other's opinions. I've seen this sort of this discussed before and it'll be nice to see what people say now. 87.194.104.228 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been proposed and rejected many times. There's longstanding consensus against creating a tier for such a small quantity. We didn't add a "more than 500,000 articles" tier (since updated to "more than 700,000 articles") until eight Wikipedias crossed that threshold. —David Levy 20:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Since it's been brought up, I wouldn't mind skipping the "trumpeting" of 4 million. I don't hold out hope that it will be skipped (and indeed, skipping it would probably create more "drama" then trumpeting it), but I wanted to at least mention my viewpoint. More on point, I agree with David for now. I think that we're close to needing to update the tiers, but keeping it to three seems sensible to me.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I second that, Ohms law. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Third 'dat per Sven Manguard. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
      • You can't support it per Sven, because he didn't give a reason :P --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
        • He cited Ohm's law as a reason, no? To which I would have to concur. --124.185.19.1 (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
          • I would have thought the second law of thermodynamics was more applicable in this case. —howcheng {chat} 18:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And from one of the Evil Overlord and derivative Lists - Never invoke anything larger than your head (particularly if citronella candles are involved).

Perhaps there should be a drive to get more 1 million article wikis/upgrading stubs. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not work on bringing the existing articles on major subjects up to basic competency? 71.174.33.212 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am in favour of a minor bid of "trumpeting" of the 4M threshold and as an editor who spends far more time on improving exisiting articles than creating new ones I still hold that the breadth of WP coverage is a great strength. Depth and breadth are not mutually exclusive. Greenshed (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've been writing about Indonesia-related topics for over a year now and it still strikes me how many major singers / films / other pop culture things we didn't have here. We may have fairly broad coverage in Anglophone areas, but others... not so much. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm requesting a bot for Davykamanzi.

• Operator: Davykamanzi
• Botname: DavykamanziBot
• Operation: Automated (autonomous) mode, but I should be able to run it in manually-assisted mode as well to solve conflicts.
• Programming language(s): Updated pywikipedia framework
• Purpose(s): To update the league tables and match results for the 2012 Kenyan Premier League (source here), the 2012 FKF Division One (Zone A source here, Zone B source here), the 2012 Kenyan Women's Premier League (source here) and their future seasons. Updating them manually gets quite tedious as I normally have many other tasks to do.

Thank you! Davykamanzi (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Go to WP:BRFA. Also, read WP:BOTNOTNOW. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 13:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Davykamanzi (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The UK has had local elections, and Boris Johnson has been re-elected mayor of London. I am somewhat amazed Wikipedia has neglected to include this in current events. Sir Richardson (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly welcome to propose an item at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, although I'd caution you that I seriously doubt you'll find a consensus to add an item about a local election, even if it is in as significant a city as London.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps good for Portal:Current events and the ITN-equivalent on Portal:London. --PFHLai (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Police in Napier, New Zealand, began a 40-hour siege of the home of a former New Zealand Army member who killed several officers during the routine execution of a search warrant." Only one officer was shot dead - Wikipedia tell us this at the relevant story page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.10.130 (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. In future you may find a swifter respose at WP:ERRORS. — foxj 07:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Far more worthy of the honour than MCA.--66.7.139.222 (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment here. Hut 8.5 14:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI there is no one single "honour". Any candidate that meets the criteria is liable to appear on the ITN ticker, and I hope your rationale turns out to be more expansive than Maurice Sendak simply being "far more worthy".--WaltCip (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The administrators at WP:ERRORS are painfully slow to reply to error reports. It consistently takes almost a full day for each comment to be addressed. Something has to change, as when there is an actual mistake, it has often already come and gone by the time it is noticed. Bzweebl (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The response time tends to vary depending on how active admins are at the time (which depends on the time of day and other factors) and may be a few hours in some cases. But can you give a few recent examples of clear cut undisputed significant errors occuring solely on the main page which went unaddressed (meaning no response on the section, AND no change to the appropriate template) for that length of time? (Particularly where if supporting material was needed beyond the article or a more complicated rewording required, it was provided rather then relying on the admin to find it/work it out.) Looking at the error page as it stands now, we have

the quotation marks example where it's disputed whether it's an error

the order thing where it's unclear whether it's an error from the info provided and so minor to be not the sort of thing worth worrying about (we aim for chronological order but it can get complicated in some cases particularly with time zones differences and events like elections here it's unclear precisely what time we're considering and with cases where the time isn't even in the article anyway so if the difference is about 1 day it's not really a major concern)

the 'Stefanie Isak' which as per the comment, the problem is also in the article so should be addressed there first before it was brought here

the de Soto/Mississippi River thing which was addressed in about 3 hours from the time stamps.

In other words, no clear cut example of any problems here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there may be no problems I have to cite, but that is not the point. The point is, mistake or not, the response time is slow. Are you trying to say that if they view it as an actual error, then they will respond to it quicker than if it is an incorrect error report? If that is the case, it shouldn't be. All error reports should at least be acknowledged that an administrator has read them and agrees or disagrees with them. If they respond in equal time no matter whether they agree or not, then there is no need for me to bring examples of any problems. So either way, I think that something should change. Bzweebl (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If an error is complicated or appears to be too minor to be worth worrying about or is probably incorrect but the admin isn't sure or doesn't want to have to defend themselves, it's not surprising if an admin leaved it for someone else to deal with. I don't think there's any reason to worry about non errors which don't get a sufficient response. Remember the whole point of the error section is for simple errors to be pointed out for admins to quickly address without having to think much or spend much time. The more complicated you make things for admins, the less likely it is to get a timely response. It's not intended for long discussions, the section itself says that. And it's not archived and error reports are removed as soon as the item is off the main page regardless of whether or not the problem was addressed (except for SA/OTD, it's usually mostly a moot point anyway unless the error was also in the article which of course is one of the many reasons people should dead with problems in articles first). And while some admins acknowledge or comment after having fixed an error, others, particularly in simple cases simply remove the error report. So long discussions are fairly pointless, they'll be gone in a few hours to days and only findable by looking in to the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC) P.S. For the Isak thing, the article was actually fixed a while ago, so I mentioned this and proposed a new wording based on the new wording in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if admins are ignoring errors because the "error is complicated or appears to be too minor to be worth worrying about or is probably incorrect but the admin isn't sure or doesn't want to have to defend themselves," doesn't that mean there is a problem with admins not replying because of one of the above excuses? Shouldn't admins take all main page error reports seriously and not be ignoring them for one of the above reasons? It is really that long of a discussion to say why an error report is not really an error? Your additions to the above comment seem reasonable. Thanks for discussing. Bzweebl (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If the deleted comment is not a spamlike, could its creator move it to the appropriate fashion wiki on the Wikia platform. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am relatively new and not quite sure what that means. Could you either do that, or if I need to do it, tell me what to do? Thanks. Bzweebl (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That comment refers to this edit, which is clearly spam. I would have just deleted it without comment, personally. Graham87 01:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought it was referring to my above comment which I crossed out. Bzweebl (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Allowing for the minimal possibilty that it was someone being 'overenthusiastic in a language not their own' (having had to tweak several articles of that nature). Jackiespeel (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

How often is the wiki fundraiser banner used?Smallman12q (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Once a year. You can find information on this year's fundraising activities over on the Meta-Wiki. By the looks of it, they're still compiling results of beta testing; if last year is anything to go by, the banners will start to emerge in earnest from late November through to around Christmas. — foxj 04:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The train-wreck picture and the Beethoven picture are placed next to texts about other topics. Even though the texts are very short, this is confusing and poor style.202.179.16.75 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Note, someone removed this with other stuff, with the remark that 'this is not a forum.' The above is not a general forum comment; rather a specific comment and request about the specific content of the main page. 202.179.16.75 (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. Jenks24 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. I read "Why..." and am clueless as to why.... All it seems to say is that we use a method that prevents the picture to be properly located unless it happens to be the most recent item. Well, then why not change the method, e.g., by coding by hand rather than using a "bad" subprogram, bot or whatever? 06:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.16.75 (talk)

No bots are used for either DYK or ITN, and as the FAQ section mentions, there's no guarantee any changes won't break things in other cases. If you are willing to make any changes needed, confirm they work properly for all significant browsers and don't break things in alternatives to the main page and when the template is used elsewhere, you're welcome to do so, but so far no one of those complaining has ever volunteered. Doing a half-arsed job and suggesting we just use the template in the main main page is generally frowned upon. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that doing a sloppy job is/should be frowned upon. that is exactly why I complained. But I don't have the technical skill to make the change. Instead of knocking people who complain, maybe those who do have the skill should make what seem [but with Wik and other internet stuff a lay person never can tell] to be simple changes.202.179.16.66 (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not simple, or it would have been done. Which isn't to say it doesn't warrant discussion and suggestions, just that it's not simple. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of those who have the skill probably don't care enough if at all, it's unresonable to expect someone to spend all their time fixing something which they don't think matters when there are plenty of more important things on wikipedia that need fixing. (Remember although I haven't see clear cut opposition to a change that doesn't mean there's consensus it's a problem. Of course there's no guarantee any change will be accepted either, we have tried doing other things before which were reverse due to subsequent opposition. You can't expect people to guarantee your efforts won't go to a waste since ultimately they can't be sure until they've seen the results whether a change is for the better or not.) In any case, a lot of the work doesn't need much skill, just a bit of effort. In particular checking out all the alternative main pages as well as the various other places like the user page where it appears but also trying at different resolutions and different browsers. If you're using Windows or Mac OS X, trying on Linux isn't really that hard either. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean, I agree with 202.197. Sometimes it can look a bit of a dog's breakfast because everything is pre-assembled and dropped in through the templates, so no-one is looking at the whole page 'before it goes live', the way the editor of a newspaper would take a glance at the proof for the front page. But the times there are problems are unpredictable - it might take a lot of fannying around to prevent something that only happens occasionally.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's happened again today with Margaret Thatcher, so it doesn't seem to be an occasional problem. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that it's a "problem". —David Levy 22:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So what? Not everyone agrees that climate warming is a problem, but enough do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You've described consensus. If there's consensus that the our image alignment setup is problematic, we should seek to address the problem(s). Past discussions have failed to demonstrate such consensus (which is what I should have written above). I didn't mean to imply that unanimity is required. —David Levy 23:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm with the OP on this. A tiny uncaptioned picture a long way from the text it's related to is pretty pointless. Many times I've spent some time on the Main Page trying to work out which item the picture was related to. And I contribute to ITN! This is Wikipedia's main window to the world. It needs to look great, every day. Either leave the picture out, fix the location, or maybe add a tiny caption to explain the pic's presence. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, re "In any case, a lot of the work doesn't need much skill,..." by Nil: It is also the case that the Main Page doesn't have an edit function for people who think that content should be sensible and sensibly present to even try. 202.179.16.75 (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I also agree with the IP. There's enough brains, editing and technical prowess here to fix this if we're not complacent. It looks rubbish and it's on our shop front. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So, Dweller, does that mean you volunteer to figure out the fix? (keeping fingers crossed...) Rhodesisland (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no technical ability whatsoever. I'd also want to see more consensus that it should be fixed. --Dweller (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, me neither! But I don't see it as a big problem. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a regularly recurring small to medium-scale problem on our shop front and as such deserves rather more attention than a small to medium-scale problem on some obscure article getting 3 hits a month. It's a principle of good HCI design that semantically associated text and graphics should be spatially associated. With respect to the commentators above, I don't wholly accept the "well you fix it" argument which seems to be kicking the problem out into the long grass. If I put enough time into it I might be able to come up with a fix but even if I could not then with the current template layout we could easily adopt a rule which only allowed an image if the uppermost item in either ITN or OTD had a suitable image available. It may well that if we accept that action is desirable then some solution that is a compromise between a visually ideal but technically complex solution and the technically trival but visually far from ideal solution I have just outlined would be chosen. However, I do not want to put hours of my time into trying to find a solution if the consensus ends up being to stick with the status quo. That is why we need to come to an informed decision about what is possible and what course of action we wish to follow. I would be grateful if someone with brains, editing and technical prowess could set out a number of options, including the "do nothing" option. Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's really difficult to understand why anyone would be arguing in favour of separating an image from the text it relates to, which is what seems to be happening here. And why on Earth is it apparently considered to be a difficult problem to solve? Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this is something that's always irked me. It just comes across as sloppy and something ought to be done. Hot Stop 02:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is sloppy, and a disservice to our readers. But apparently it's not a problem because not enough editors appear to care enough to press for the issue to be addressed. Ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a problem. It makes us look absurd. The Foundation has put aside funds to pay for these kinds of fixes. Someone associated with the Main Page, who is capable of distinguishing "fine" from "crap," should approach them. Is there such a person? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the very dated look of the main page I'd say that the answer is very obviously "No". Malleus Fatuorum 05:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, people with technical expertise are treated like second-class citizens by the so-called "content contributors." Diff of User talk:Alarbus -- Dianna (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As evidence of "technical expertise", you've linked to a page whose code breaks my pointing stick's normal scrolling functionality. —David Levy 06:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It generally is unhelpful to declare that "of course" something is a certain way when you know that other users, participating in good faith, disagree. It comes across as dismissive and disrespectful.

I personally believe that such an improvement is worth pursuing, but I don't believe that the current setup (in which the "pictured" subjects are clearly labeled) is broken. —David Levy 06:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Then one of us is wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see Opinion. —David Levy 21:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No one is arguing in favor of separating an image from the text to which it relates. Some of us merely disagree that it's a major issue. And to date, all specific reformatting proposals (some of which seemed okay to me) have lacked consensus on the basis that the disadvantages outweighed the advantage (which we do agree exists, all else being equal). —David Levy 06:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What's the advantage of having an uncaptioned pic nowhere near the text it relates to? HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I explicitly stated no one is arguing in favor of that and acknowledged that there's agreement that all else being equal, alignment is preferable.

But in the various reformatting proposals, all else isn't equal; various methods of emphasizing the connection between the image and the related text (e.g. adding a border with a caption, moving up the relevant item, moving down the image, connecting them via special coloration) were felt to have downsides outweighing the benefit. (I didn't necessarily agree, but that's how things turned out.) This, of course, doesn't mean that such ideas (and/or others) aren't worth discussing now. —David Levy 09:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we just encountered one of those linguistic/cultural differences with a figure of speech or cliché. I'm still not sure what you mean by "all else being equal". The simple point is that, like many others here, I see a significant problem. Current technical tools here don't seem able to fix it. That means we need new tools. There are many excellent geeks doing technical stuff for Wikipedia. Having managed many such people over the years I know that they are not always the best judges of what works best for non-geeks among the general populace. Simply telling us that the present tools can't fix the problem is not an effective answer. We need to ask the expert technical people to come up with better tools, or we stay at risk of all looking like a bunch of amateurs. HiLo48 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware that "all else being equal" was an Americanism. It refers to a hypothetical scenario in which all other relevant details are unchanged. In other words, aligning the image with the related text is preferable, provided that doing so doesn't adversely affect something else. I don't think that anyone (including those who don't regard the current setup as "broken") has expressed disagreement with that.

If a satisfactory technical solution can be devised, I'm all for it. As noted above, I personally felt that some of the implementations proposed in the past were acceptable, but consensus wasn't reached. —David Levy 21:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hence my comment about the geeks perhaps having too much influence on design. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the relevant text can't just sit at the top beside its image? Or point to a discussion where that's explained? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In DYK, there's no reason (so it does).

In ITN, the items are listed reverse-chronologically by date. A suitable image illustrating an item from the most recent date isn't always available, so placing the illustrated item at the top often would require deviating from the correct order.

In OTD, the items are listed chronologically by year, so we would need to either deviate from the correct order or always illustrate the earliest event. —David Levy 12:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

But is there a reason we can't just set a policy that the illustrated item always goes first, while the rest go in chronological/reverse-chronological order? --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There's generally opposition to that as being even more confusing (in the absence of some highlighting or treating of the one with the image as special which tends to get more opposition), not to mention unfair to the other items. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To take Anthonyhcole's question to the other end of the matter, is there a reason why the relevent picture doesn't move with the relevent blurb? We could still have the "one pic per box" standard, but instead of forcing it to the upper left corner, instead let the picture float next to the text it is supposed to be illustrating. That would seem to solve the problem. I'm sure there is some design issue whereby people want the picture to always be in the upper left corner, however there is no universally acceptable principal here (if there were, we'd have already implemented it), and since we're always going to violate some principal, I think the least eggregious would be that. Instead, it would be the best service to the readers to have the picture follow the text... --Jayron32 13:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the very start of this thread and also mentioned in the FAQ (mentioned even before my post0, one of the key reasons is no one (or group of people) has ever bothered to propose how to implement such a change, and prove it works in most or all usages of the template. BTW, the FAQ also mentions (although admitedly doesn't explain so well) that the French wikipedia does move the image to align it with the text some times. [By doesn't explain so well, I mean they sometimes seem to do it, sometimes not, my quick check shows they're currently not. Whether it's just the person updating the template forgets to align the image or there's some other problem, I don't know. I don't think anyone who has cared to complain has ever investigated this potentially fruitful avenue of information e.g. by asking them. I mean beyond those who noticed it and my look at the template a few times to see if I could see any obvious reason (IIRC I didn't see anything useful except possibly one time the image was realigned suggesting it's possible some updaters do simply forget).] Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Looking carefully at the French wikipedia, perhaps one of the reasons why it's not always aligned is because it seems given the current design of the page and the generally smaller number of items it's rarely a problem so not something many bother with. Also [7] shows one of the examples I was talking about of an apparent re-alignment of the photo. Also while perhaps it's a fluke, and hopefully I don't offend the editor involved, [8] suggests perhaps simple mistakes in the template aren't that uncommon [9]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are we using a template for the picture anyways? Why not just put [[File:Name|thumb|right|100x100px|caption]] in the line where the picture belongs, you know, like every single other use of pictures in the entire rest of Wikipedia. That would make the pic float with the text... --Jayron32 12:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's been said that such a setup would cause layout issues on other pages on which the content is transcluded. To whatever extent this is true, it doesn't matter whether the image is inserted via a template (as in the case of ITN) or without one (as in the case of DYK). —David Levy 13:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think chronology matters at all in either ITN or OTD. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Imagine an image that is portrait-oriented and it's attached to the bottom item. If that last blurb is short, you end up with the case where the image extends beyond the text, which would look pretty bad. —howcheng {chat} 19:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe you can change the vertical alignment to align with the baseline of the text the picture is located alongside. See Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Vertical_alignment. That should cure the whitespace at the bottom issue. --Jayron32 19:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

...at the expense of creating an unsightly gap above it. —howcheng {chat} 21:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any way do achieve this with a floating table which only contains the image? I cannot work out any way to baseline a floating table. Greenshed (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

All 4 Main Page sections use a floating DIV element, so theoretically you can move the image up and down as needed, but because we don't what anyone's viewport size is, there's no guarantee of putting the image in the right spot. Let's say the blurb with the image is last and you place the image to align with the top of the next-to-last blurb to avoid having blank space below the last one. On one person's screen, it might look perfectly fine, but on someone else's, it might end up looking associated to the wrong blurb (next-to-last instead of last). Then there's the additional issue of now the left and right sides of the page look weird: TFA and DYK will always have their images in the top corners, but ITN and OTD have them in random places? That's why the images always go in the top corners. I believe having captions under the images was also suggested but consensus didn't really like how that looked. —howcheng {chat} 16:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside the technical considerations for a moment, if we have a consensus that for aesthetic consistency with TFA and DYK that the images in ITN and OTD should always in the top right corner then I would firmly maintain that the text of the top item in both ITN and OTD should relate to the image. One way to achieve this would be to have a highlighted ITN and highlighted OTD article. As an aside, I would like to see more use of the exposure that an article gets when it is linked from the main page being used to motivate editors to get articles to GA status. If we did adopt a highlighted ITN and highlighted OTD approach then I am sure we have enough GA articles to make this work for OTD; ITN might be more difficult. However, if we have a consensus that chronological ordering of ITN and OTD is stronger principle then, returning to the technical considerations point, then the floating DIV element should work (I think) if the image needs to go at the top or in the middle of the list. It is only at or near the bottom that we have a potential whitespace problem, particlarly on larger viewport resolutions. If it is possible to baseline a floating DIV element then for the last item and (say the bottom third items) we could always baseline the floating image with the bottom of the relevant news item. I recognize that this is not a perfect solution as at the two-thirds point down the list we would switch from toplining to baselining images, but it would be better than the current arragement as images and text would generally associated. So my questions are a) can we baseline images with text? and b) what do editors want to go for:

1. Chronological ordering with an image that appears anywhere in the order? (this may create some whitespace problems)

2. Chronological ordering with an image only displayed when the first item has a suitable image is available? (note we could reverse order OTD if that would help)

3. Highlighted ITN and highlighted OTD approach (which make the availability of a suitable image as a pre-requsite to be the highlighted item)?

4. Chronological ordering with an image (illustrating any item) always at the top (status quo)?

5. Darkened background connecting the image to the related item (otherwise the same as option 4)? (example buried somewhere in the archives)

6. Almost chronological ordering with the most recent item that has an image at the top. (Similar to 3, but without any talk of 'highlighting' or selection. New items are simply added in the second position if there is no image for them.)

7. Chronological ordering with an aligned image only displayed when the first, second or third item has a suitable image? (the top of the image would be aligned with the top of the item text and as the lower items would never have images, potential whitespace problems would be avoided)

Please add further options if that would help. Greenshed (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added a couple of options. —David Levy 12:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I like #3. Basically we would be treating the first spot in OTD and ITN as separate from the rest of those sections. Items would go into the top slot if and only if there were a usable image to go along with the item. --Khajidha (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added option 6. Chronology makes sense, but since it isn't visible anywhere I believe it is far more important to have the connection to the image make sense than if the newest item ends up second. /81.170.148.21 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion appears to apply specifically to ITN. This discussion also pertains to DYK OTD. We could place the least recent item with an image at the top, but this would greatly limit variety. And because the years are displayed, a change in order would be much more apparent. —David Levy 23:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe you meant OTD, David. #2 is out of the question. There are perfectly legitimate reasons why a blurb in the middle (for OTD) would have the image: centennial (or bi-, tri-, etc) anniversary, variety (too many white males, for example), or the simple fact that it's the only one with an image available. I think omitting the image altogether is unacceptable. I also don't really understand the difference between #3 and #5, but those are probably the best options if something must be done. —howcheng {chat} 01:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! Indeed, I meant "OTD".

By "highlighted", I believe that #3 refers to an item with special editorial focus. #5 refers strictly to visual highlighting. (I wish that I could find the original proposal.) —David Levy 01:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes David is correct. In this context highlighting refers to editorial highlighting. I too quite like this option (#3) - my only concern is that our Front Page is already a bit crowded and adding featured / highlighted OTD and ITN articles will make it more crowded. It would be good to see a mock up of what it might look like if anyone has the time? On a separate note, given that the FA sometimes does not have an image I am not sure why Howcheng thinks that must there always be an image in OTD or ITN. Greenshed (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, a mockup of #3 would be helpful.

On rare occasions, ITN does lack an image. But this almost always is because no suitable file is available for any of the items (which occurs very infrequently at ITN and never at OTD). Howcheng was referring to a hypothetical scenario in which no image is displayed unless it illustrates the first item listed. For various reasons (and given the alternatives), I agree that this is unacceptable.

Your suggestion (#7) is interesting, but it wouldn't work well with OTD (because the most recent events never would be illustrated). —David Levy 18:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Telugu

Telugu wikipedia crossed 50,000 article count mile stone about a month back. Kindly include it in the list of Wikipedias above 50,000 articles.50,000 --Arjunaraoc 04:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunaraoc (talk • contribs)

It would appear that the vast majority of those 50,000 are stub articles which would make Telugu Wikipedia ineligible for inclusion on that list, unfortunately. — foxj 04:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian

The Macedonian Wikipedia has 55,750 articles and therefore it should be put to the right place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonicus (talk • contribs) 14:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted at Template:Wikipedia languages, "this is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted." The Telugu and Macedonian Wikipedias are examples of this. (Sorry!) —David Levy 16:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages proposal

I would like to propose that we do away with these quantitative listings entirely. Every few days there is someone coming here demanding that we move their native language to its proper level, and virtually every time investigation shows that the article count of those wikipedias is highly inflated. A simple link to a list of all available languages' wikipedias should be enough. --Khajidha (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. I am not sure what value the curated list brings, other than to promote the fact that Wikipedia is indeed available in other languages. A link to a list would put everyone on equal footing, eliminate the drama, and reduce the amount of manual curation needed. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Fanny Imlay has got to be one of the worst articles ever featured on the main page. This article is more suitable to be featured on AfD than the main page, IMO. Many people are expressing the same sentiment on Talk:Fanny Imlay. --Zanhe (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, this is an excellent article. The complaints on the talk page are laughable at best. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting another user from Talk:Fanny Imlay: "Good writing must at some point be subject to the quality of its subject matter. And, this article is the most well written pile of boring sh** that I have ever read." I wouldn't use the same language, but the sentiment is the same. --Zanhe (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There are (and rightly so) no extra standards for what is a "notable" enough subject matter for the main page. If the subject matter is good enough for an article at Wikipedia, and the article passes WP:FAN, then there is no conceivable reason why it shouldn't be on the main page. Merely because you personally aren't interested in it doesn't mean anything, Wikipedia is not built on your personal interests, and does not reject articles simply because you don't find it interesting. If it bothers you that much, then you need to participate in WP:FAN and make sure that articles of substandard quality don't become featured articles. Complaining after the fact does no bit of good. Though, I must say, this is a very well written and researched article. It is nice to have an article about a subject matter not everyone knows about ahead of time. That's a great use of Wikipedias main page: to expose people to things they otherwise might not have learned. --Jayron32 19:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is clearly of sufficient quality to be a featured article under the current criteria. Being "notable" is a threshold requirement for a subject to deserve a Wikipedia article; featured article status is then based on the quality of such articles. Being "more notable" (or "interesting") than other articles is not a criteria for being a featured article, despite your complaint here. It seems you actually have a problem with the featured article criteria, and that you would like to propose a new criterion--namely, that articles be "interesting" to qualify for featured article success. I would suggest proposing this new criterion on the talk page for WP:FAN or another more appropriate place than the Main Page's talk page. However, I will say that given that your proposed new criterion for featured article status is to allow only "interesting" articles to pass scrutiny, and that what is "interesting" is a highly subjective determination (particularly when attempting to draw lines concerning what is sufficiently notable to be an Wikipedia article but insufficiently notable to be a good or featured article), I predict that your suggestion will be rejected. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the subject matter does not appear notable enough for her own article (and I've expressed that on the article talk page), that has no bearing upon its selection for TFA. By virtue of its having the FA star, it is eligible to have its day on the Main Page. —howcheng {chat} 22:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

@Jayron32, did you actually mean WP:FAN? Or perhaps one or both or WP:FAC/WP:FA? was what you were after? Bencherlite^Talk 02:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that instead. Some processes have candidates, others have nominations. So the C/N convention gets confusing. --Jayron32 18:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Call me a radical, but I'm not 100% sold on the "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" thing. That has a "the encyclopedia anyone can mess with" vibe to it. Wouldn't it be nicer to change it to something like "the encyclopedia anyone can contribute to" or something along those lines? The intention is to emphasize the collaborative and open nature of the encyclopedia without putting so much emphasis on the fact that whatever you read may have been tampered with. --uKER (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get a lot of response here. Try asking this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). — foxj 07:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! --uKER (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Today's the anniversary of the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, any room in the on this date section for a blurb? I'd suggest: 1980 - The most dramatic volcanic eruption in the continental United States since 1915 was triggered by an earthquake below Mount St. Helens.

Thanks, whether there is or not room and whether you do or don't use my suggestion. Anynobody(?) 21:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Make a request at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries. Rmhermen (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Despite having the Featured Article star, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens is tagged as having an unreferenced section, making it ineligible to appear on OTD. It may also require a listing at FAR if anyone feels inclined to do so. —howcheng {chat} 07:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Why "Eighteen hundred Palestinian prisoners end a hunger strike after Israel agrees to improve their conditions." and not "Eighteen hundred Palestinian prisoners end their hunger strike after Israel agrees to improve their conditions.

In case anyone can't spot the subtle difference, in the first, apparently approved, example, the casual reader can expect to hit "hunger strike" and expect to be taken to an article about hunger strikes in general. They won't actually go there. In the second, it is clear that they are going to an article about this specific hunger strike. Why is this kind of thing allowed to persist on the front page of all places? I quote WP:EASTEREGG again. This wouldn't be allowed to persist in an article yet on the front page this abuse of pipes seems to be fine. Why? danno 01:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what is "this kind of thing"? I can see the difference of which you speak. It doesn't bother me. Are you suggesting that there is some kind of hidden political agenda on display? I really doubt it. I suspect you are the first to even notice whatever it is you've noticed. So, do be blunt. Don't talk in riddles, as if we should all understand. Explain it for us. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he's trying to make political comment, just expressing his irritation at the easter egg linking (I could be completely misreading things, though). I happen to agree Danno's suggested change, although I don't think it's a huge deal. @Danno, you might already know this, but you can report things like this to WP:ERRORS to be fixed. Jenks24 (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and it's also not as big a deal as in an article because "hunger strike" is in bold, which I think most readers can figure out means if they click on it they will get at least some info about what the blurb is talking about. Jenks24 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've relocated "a" to the link. (I see no need to switch to "their".) This reflects an established ITN convention, so you're correct that a simple request at WP:ERRORS (no impassioned plea necessary) would have sufficed. —David Levy 03:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. No, there was no hidden agenda attached, certainly not a complaint in relation to wikipedia's treatment of political prisoners, that just happened to be a headline that I picked up on. It was more that in article space we're encouraged to make piped links as unambiguous as possible but on the main page bolding a pipe is considered sufficient (something that I've commented on before hence the same whinge title). As Jenks24 points out, it isn't a big deal, it just seemed slightly inconsistent to me. If it's an established ITN convention then that's all the explanation that I was looking for. Thanks again! danno 23:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There are two proposals (made by users who aren't me) to change the way ITN is styled. The first would create a separate section (or ticker) for recent deaths, and the second would add a similar section for elections. The examples provided are only mock-ups of what they might look like, styling could be improved if there was consensus to make the changes. I do not believe it's intended to be an either or situation (though that could be decided). Hot Stop 04:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Portal talk:Current events (protected) so here.

How is possible in en.wikipedia.org: no one dared to write about the Chicago NATO rally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC if you wish to have it on the main page. The portal current event pages aren't protected, so you could add it if you really cared. Hot Stop 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is Simple English at the top of the language list instead of following the alphabetical order of other languages? that should be changed. --186.19.203.233 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I surmise that this is done because Simple English is a subset of English. Because this is the English Wikipedia, one would assume that our readership must have some command of English, and therefor Simple English is more likely to be useful to our readership than any other given language. (e • nn • en!) 16:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's one reason. Another reason is that visitors unfamiliar with the simple English Wikipedia are highly unlikely to ponder its existence and check for it under "E" or "S". —David Levy 15:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is due to the very strong lobby from the Republic of Simple Englishtan. :P –HTD 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Further to the question above, there's a conversation going on at the Simple English talk page about the ordering of the links to the left-hand side of the main page. The rationale given in answer to the question seems reasonable: that languages are sorted alphabetically by prefix; for example, Russian is sorted not at P (for Русский) but R for ru and Chinese is sorted at zh. I notice, however, that this is not the case for our main page: after Arabic, id is the first language, followed by ms, before reverting to an alphabetical order until et, el, es, eo, eu etc.. Is there a reason for this? Second, the sorting for Simple English interlanguage article links is not consistent with the sorting on the main page: it is placed at 's' alphabetically. 86.145.90.103 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the simple English Wikipedia's list, ours is alphabetized by the languages' names, not by their prefixes.

Main page should be updated more due to the vast number of viewers on the site. Come on now Folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jburgs (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The simple English interwiki link's position in articles differs because we've never discussed changing it (to my knowledge). We probably should. —David Levy 18:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that in Russian, the "Р" is an R (more or less). Andrew Gray (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, David, for the quick answer. I was aware that what, to an English speaker, is a P represents [r] in Russian, but it was an example brought up at the conversation I referenced, that's all. 86.145.90.103 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should have mentioned that my main concern was that, especially for languages that don't use the Latin alphabet, maybe alphabetical ordering is not necessarily the best way of sorting, from the view of a non-native English speaker. But that doesn't matter, really, in the grand scheme of things. With regards to Simple Wikipedia's sorting, maybe we could get a bot to do it, assuming consensus were got? I'd go about it, but I'm not aware of the correct channels and I don't really want to make an account. 86.145.90.103 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In terms of sorting, since I don't see any particular reason to sort the main page different from articles, I would suggest this discussion would be best held elsewhere anyway although it looks like most articles are inconsistent with the main page, e.g. wikipedia, most of which appear to follow the prefix. The ordering on the main page, i.e. following the romanisation of the language's name is the same as www.wikipedia.org and I guess is reflective of the fact there's no real no arbitary way to sort diverse character sets. A third option, since this is the English wikipedia, would be to follow the language's common name in English although I'm not sure if this would work in all cases. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Actually I may be slightly mistaken about www, their sorting seems slightly different. I think they ignore any word that means language or equivalent in sorting. There are also some other things which seem a bit odd to me, I'm not sure if they're mistakes or just something I didn't appreciate (I did point out a mistake a long time ago). Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit2: You can see the discussions on sorting at www Meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template/Language sorting. I was nearly right in edit(1), the specific sorting order is following the identifying word. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In terms of sorting, since I don't see any particular reason to sort the main page different from articles

I alluded to the reason above. Because "simple English" isn't a distinct language, a visitor to the main page, utilizing the sidebar to find other Wikipedias, would have no idea that such a Wikipedia exists and no reason to check for it under "S" or "E". Conversely, when someone gains this knowledge (and begins actively reading articles), he/she will know to check for it.

This, of course, doesn't mean that it would be a bad idea to place the simple English interwiki links first in articles. But it's much more important in the context of the main page.

A third option, since this is the English wikipedia, would be to follow the language's common name in English although I'm not sure if this would work in all cases.

This was discussed years ago. We decided that it would be less helpful because persons for whom other languages' Wikipedias are useful typically know them by their native names. —David Levy 18:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well there may be reasons for exceptions for simple, I didn't really consider that since it seems a small thing. I still don't see any reason for the rest of stuff to change order so IMO a more centralized discussion would make sense if people want to change things. Or actually since articles do vary, it would arguably make sense to consider unifying unless there are good reasons for the status quo beyond it being easier for editors and bots to sort via language code. N.B. I'm also not considering excluding wikipedias like we do on the main page. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Not ready for ((editprotected)) yet.

I suggest we add an html comment at the top of the page along the lines of:

< ! - - The Main Page is one of the more complex pages of mark-up in Wikipedia. If you're browsing "View Source" just to see what the mark-up looks like almost any other page is simpler to look at. - - >

Mark Hurd (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I don't see any harm in doing so... but I would advise more eyes on this first. — foxj 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Robin Gibb was placed at top of the scroll list to persist, quite rightly for the next few days. The man was a legend in the music industry. Why not the same treatment for Donna Summer? She was seminal in Disco and had major hits. Amy Winehouse was kept up for days and days and days and days AS WELL with her picture for days and days and days and days and she had a few hits of derivative style. Why the discrepancy???? 188.28.120.89 (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC. Basically it would be probably be posted, but the article is tagged for needing more citations. Hot Stop 14:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Donna Summer article looked fine to me. Also Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau should have been on the "In the News" list if you can put the Lockerbie bomber up there for days 188.28.120.89 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

The bomber's only been there since Sunday! See WP:ITN/C if you disagree with the listings, complaining here will solve nothing. — foxj 17:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition, Donna Summer clearly has a cleanup tag, so it doesn't look fine. If you believe the tag isn't justified, you're welcome to contest it and remove it if if that's the consensus, but just saying an article 'looks fine' when it has a cleanup tag doesn't help anything. Note that although there's no specific discussion of the tag in the article talk page (that I saw), there was an ITN/C. And really it's not difficult to see the problems the tag refers to, so I'm not even sure whether you need to read ITN/C. Nil Einne (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides, I wonder what people would have thought if Junior Seau was listed in ITN. Sure his death was tragic, but he really wasn't that famous outside of the US or possibly Samoa. (although he is one of the handful of American football players I know because I once saw a show he did on Versus which aired on a local channel here) Donna Summer is somewhat more well-known worldwide, and her music did define a decade, but she's not really a household name (believe it or not, her death was the first time I ever heard who she was, but that must be because I am from the younger generation), and her death (from cancer), while sad, wasn't really that surprising or sudden. Even if her article did not need any cleanup, it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway, since Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and she really isn't much of a household name worldwide. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise Gibb. Who has heard of him in this generation? Also why is it that people who misappropriate black music get a mention and are considered "household names" by the self-perpetuating media (including Wikipedia) but not the originators? I'm not claiming racism, I just saying inconsistency. I'm not sure many had heard of Etta James too but she was on the ITN scroll list for days a few months ago. The content of ITN is tabloid and random. There seems to be no real test of import. Certainly in music it appears to be dominated by pop-music. Sport also has an undue dominance. Maybe wikipedia could take an example from the BBC's mainpage and the animated carousel where more items can be crammed in? Web 2.0 and all that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.120.233 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you but wikipedia isn't here to right 'wrongs' perpetrated my the media or whatever you seem to think. In fact while we recognise the need to avoid WP:Systemic bias, we also rely on WP:RS therefore what ultimately matters is what RS, including the media, see as important or significant not what random editors see as important in opposition to the evil media (or whatever). As me, Hot Stop and others have said, it's a moot point whether we should have mentioned Donna Summer's death. There may have been consensus to post it, but her article was automatically excluded by virtue of the cleanup tag. And as others have said on ITNC, while plenty of people were willing to complain about how we should include her, or even as the case here, how bad we are for not including her, it seems few were willing to actual do the work and fix the article. Also, the main page has plenty of redesign proposals, however it's not an easy task particularly since we care far more about accessibility and compatibility then many other sites likely include the BBC, and also given the consensus, community based approach we take. However since we are not a news site, and ITN is not a news section, it's questionable how much inspiratiion we should take from a news site anyway. In particular, there is already great concern that the main page is too cluttered, so I'm not sure 'cramming' more in is likely to get much support. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Yes, if that's the policy, then the Summer page should have had its problems sorted out. Trouble is, having read your NPOV policies, I can say, it would be a nice thing. Seasoned Wikipedians bully people and vandalise new entries or remove them wholesale rather than constructively altering to fit into the encyclopedic mode. It could just be the very people you talk about in the systematic bias article :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.120.233 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Could someone raise the level of protection in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies? Every 5 minuts a newly registered user vandalizes the article. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Did you know ... that the film Thor 2 will have a 'more Viking-influenced feel' than its 2011 predecessor, Thor?" asks our Main Page today. No, I didn't know that. Will it? In whose opinion? The producer/director/maker(s) may plan to give it such a feel but whether they succeed has yet to be seen and even then will be a subjective matter. JIMp _talk·cont 02:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This does not argue against using the factoid in DYK, just against using it without attribution. I suggest you bring this up at WT:DYK so reviewers get less sloppy in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't suggest we delete it just clearly state that this is the plan. JIMp _talk·cont 01:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What's with all the Roy Liechstenstein on the Main Page? For almost a week now, I think I have seen him mentioned on Did You Know...? on each day. What is this, Roy Liechtenstein Appreciation Week? JIP | Talk 18:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If so, it's Monmouth Appreciation Month and Bach's Cantata Appreciation Year, with periodic new themes. See this FAQ. Art LaPella (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This simply reflects the flow of articles which have been nominated to appear as DYKs. TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) has been working on Liechtenstein articles recently, and this is the result. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I thought everyone would be happy with the lack of horses, women's softball players, and Michigan State football team line-ups. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running low on non-Roy Lichtenstein-related hooks here. If you really want to help, please write up some articles of any other topic and nominate them for DYK. This is the best way to space out those Roy Lichtenstein-related hooks with stuffs you like. --PFHLai (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not ready for ((editprotected)) yet, but recovered from archive so it is does get "more eyes".

I suggest we add an html comment at the top of the page along the lines of:

< ! - - The Main Page is one of the more complex pages of mark-up in Wikipedia. If you're browsing "View Source" just to see what the mark-up looks like almost any other page is simpler to look at. - - >

Mark Hurd (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I don't see any harm in doing so... but I would advise more eyes on this first. — foxj 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone want to suggest a better wording before I enable the ((editprotected))? Mark Hurd (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A solution in search of a problem. Do we get comments or complaints from people saying they don't understand the Main Page code? Bencherlite^Talk 12:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My concern would be for new editors. Someone comes along, and thinks this whole "anyone can edit" thing sounds pretty neat. They decide to take a look at what a page looks like, so they hit view source on the front page. They quickly, then, decide it's way to complex for them and don't end up editing. I don't know if it's a major problem, but adding a short comment like that that may eliminate the problem seems minimal enough that there's really no reason not to.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Bencherlite, there is no way we can tell if it is a problem or not. Shooting it down because nobody complains about it seems daft to me. — foxj 14:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So the scenario is that there are potential editors we are not recruiting because (a) they are on the main page and thinking about how to edit Wikipedia; (b) they do not see, or choose not to click, any of the links that we put there to welcome people or answer questions, such as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" or the "interaction" pages listed on the left hand side of the page including "Help"; (c) they do not visit the talk page, which has an entire section at the top of the page entitled "For questions about using and contributing to Wikipedia" with a number of useful links; (d) they choose, instead, to click "view source"; (e) they are presented with a large box at the top of their screen which tells them that they can't edit this page, and then says "What can I do? Register for an account if you don't already have one • Visit the Sandbox to make test edits • Check out the Tutorial to learn more about editing"; (f) they choose not to click any of those links; (g) they never darken our doors again; (h) if we added a hidden comment as suggested in the code *below* the big box, this would make all the difference; (i) of all those whose first click on Wikipedia *was* "view source" on the main page and who were temporarily intimidiated by the displayed code but who nevertheless went on to edit, none of them as far as you're aware has gone on to complain about the complexity of the main page coding and / or suggested a hidden comment would be useful. Frankly that's such a far-fetched route of steps that I don't see the need. If these hypothetical editors can't find any of the other links we put on every page (and the interaction links are on the side of every page) *and* ignore the edit notice with its links, I really don't see how a hidden comment is going to make any difference at all! Bencherlite^Talk 15:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right, but at the same time, this is minor change to the Main Page wiki markup which really has no noticeable effect, so there's certainly no harm in adding a hidden comment. —howcheng {chat} 00:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is done, it needs less patronizing wording, not like the "No user serviceable parts inside" labels on appliances. Better to include a comment saying the code they are looking at is generated by the Wiki software. The mechanism for editing pages is accessible via the cleverly disguised "Edit" button at the top of every page. Editing is not accomplished by modifying off-line and then uploading the page as a whole. Portions of pages can be edited via the cleverly disguised "edit" links at the right margin for each section heading. - Ac44ck (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

He's not talking about the web-browser's built-in "View source" button. He's talking about the edit button on the main page. (Which nowadays is labeled "View Source" if you're not an admin.)

I don't believe that code is machine generated, but it is very complex and non-typical of normal wiki-code. APL (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and the pages have "edit" links. If the "problem" is that a "new and improved" version says "view source" instead of "edit,", the solution is obvious: change it back to what worked before. What is it about software geeks that insist on fixing things that aren't broken? According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/edit the wrod dates from 1712. And now it's broken because it's a four-letter word? If someone wants to *edit*, why would they click a button that says *view* source? It's ridiculous to think of making things cryptic as an "improvement." - Ac44ck (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

On any page which you cannot edit (because you're not an admin, or you're not autoconfirmed, or whatever), the "view source" link has been in place for years now, so it's neither new nor improved. —howcheng {chat} 00:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen a "view source" link whether logged in or not. I just visited a page without logging in. It says "edit." - Ac44ck (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you see when viewing Main Page? Can you upload a screen capture? —David Levy 03:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict w/ David Levy)

We're talking about the main page. ... because that's the page with the insane, potentially intimidating code. The link there says "View source" for non-admins.

The funny part is, I think this problem was solved when the text of the link was changed to "View Source". People who are intimidated by source aren't going to click on that. It'll be as invisible to them as it is to User:Ac44ck! :-)

The non-nerd crowd will be looking for a link that says "Edit", and by the time they find one, they'll be on a less scary page. APL (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I do see a "View Source" link on the main page, and only the main page. Clicking the "View Source" link tells me I can't edit the page. APL is correct, the "View Source" link has been invisible to me. I haven't seen a need to try to edit the main page. If I did, it wouldn't matter anyway because it is protected. So the purpose of the "View Source" link is ...? My browser can show me the source if I want to see it. - Ac44ck (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your browser displays the rendered webpage's HTML source. The "view source" link provides a read-only version of the same raw text and wiki markup accessible when editing a page. —David Levy 06:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"View source" should show up on any page that's protected from your perspective (e.g. Elizabeth Warren or Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012). -- tariqabjotu 06:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As the OP, I just felt it would be possible someone clicks 'View Source' "just to see what the mark-up looks like". Yes, they should click on any of the other links suggesting them to tutorials or the editing process, but I think it would be worth adding a comment like this to avoid possible new editors thinking "that looks too complex for me" and never proceeding to other pages. (Whether we'd want editors of this ilk is not what I'm considering :-) ) Mark Hurd (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hidden comments in the text is what we used to do before we invented edit notices and the like. If you think that some comment about the complexity of the mark-up language is warranted (and given the number of vandals and idiots who manage to edit Wikipedia without difficulty, I still think that this is a non-issue), then the better page to change would be MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext which (if you "view source") will show you the text that currently appears when a non-admin tries to edit the main page. That at least would have the advantage of keeping all the messages together rather than splitting them between the edit notice box and the wiki markup. Bencherlite^Talk 09:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we get a better image up on ITN, such as this one? The current one is pretty bad looking, even though it was taken probably a few seconds apart from the one I suggested. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. That picture is so offensive to mine eyes that I had to use AdBlock to hide it. She looks like a very uncouth young woman and I don't like to see uncouth people to be honest! Thank you goodbye!!!11 Vranak (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I know there's no policy that says we have to have quality ITN images, but I think a bit of WP:IAR would apply here. I third the request to change the picture.--WaltCip (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I had to hide that one too. Methinks it's the subject matter, not the photographs that are the issue. Vranak (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I can't edit front pages may I make a suggestion about how this sentence is written? So its written like this right now:

• "Euphoria", by Swedish singer Loreen (pictured), wins the Eurovision Song Contest."

Can you guys just change it to:

• "Euphoria", by Swedish singer Loreen (pictured), wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 held in Baku, Azerbaijan.

It sounds better and more detailed. You should state where the event was held. When Olympics and other major sporting events are reported in the news section you guys normally state their venues. Eurovision is popular event in Europe and some parts of the world too. So I think its fair to treat it like it was the Olympics. Also maybe in the future you guys should report more about this event in the news like when the contest's first and second semi-finals concluded would be appreciated. Thanks. Bleubeatle (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You may want to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:In the news. --PFHLai (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not likely to put in the results of the semi-finals; it would then almost fill the section with Eurovision alone, since the semis and the final take place within about four days. — foxj 03:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant just mentioned that the semi-finals or the finals concluded. You don't need to mention the entire result because it does take up all the space. Like when the Rugby world cup concluded last year Wikipedia just said that it did with the host nation New Zealand winning. Something like that.Bleubeatle (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that a preliminary stage of the Eurovision Song Contest receive a level of coverage not afforded to those of any sporting event or (with the possible exception of the presidential election in the US) election. While you are at liberty to propose this at ITN/FE at anytime, or at ITN/C when it is imminent, I cannot believe that it has even the most remote likelihood of acceptance. Kevin McE (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Lithuanian (Lietuvių) Wikipedia has got a bit more than 150k articles, is this block automated? StasMalyga (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What goes in each section is at the discretion of the administrators, there is no automation. The wiki must have a certain percentage of full length (not stub) articles to qualify, even if it technically has over 150,000 articles. Shirudo talk 16:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it up. As far as I know, the stub rule is only for getting on the template (with 50,000) in the first place, so it should have already passed this test. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. If a Wikipedia is listed, it appears in whichever tier reflects its reported article count.

If a Wikipedia were to artificially increase its article count to a dramatic extent (e.g. by having a bot create 100,000 stubs and placeholders) for the purpose of moving up to a higher tier on our main page, we probably would make an exception. But to my knowledge, this hasn't occurred. (Wikipedias did employ such measures specifically to make it into list, which is why we instituted qualitative criteria.) —David Levy 18:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that more accurately, if a wikipedia should be on the list, it follow the tier it should be on. Because the stub counting was only added after the list existed (before that we did depth and then nothing) and there wasn't a systematic analysis of all wikis when it was initiated, the fact that something is on the list doesn't actually guarantee it should be on the list even if nothing has changed. As a case in point, wondering whether the stub counting system was really fair, I did a test a while back on a few wikis where I found a clear cut distinction between most of the wikis, and those we normally exclude but I did find one wiki which probably didn't belong on the list. I never posted this as I planned to do a more detailed writeup but never got around to it. This was a while back, and I don't have the results on hand so I don't know if the wiki is still on the list, but it does emphasise that we can't say for sure all wikis belong on the list according to the defacto criteria. Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the points above, but for the record I had a quick look at the Lithuanian Wikipedia. Very few of the articles I came across were one-liners, they have GA and FA processes in place (both small, but organically growing and with good standards), and the Main Page content is appropriate to the Wiki's size and actively encourages people to get involved. It's a great example for Wikipedias of a similar size. —WFC— 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I found my old results. The one I wasn't sure belonged was Esperanto. At the time of my test, based on my own fairly random criteria for size (I don't understand Esperanto), looking at random articles I got 35 stubs, 15 short articles, 6 disambiguation pages, 5 articles of an okay length and one article of a good length. (I have the list of articles as well.) I also noted from a brief look Português may be worth looking at in more detail. (I think I did a very quick look of perhaps 10 - 20 articles without properly recording.) This was back in 2010 so things may be quite different by now. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Was this left absent from the "on this day" section for the 28th? Or am I blind? Jersey John (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember that Coordinated Universal Time is used for the current date and time here on Wikipedia. I'm assuming you are in the United States, and judging by the timestamp of your post (01:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)), you may have been expecting to still see the May 28 items on the Main Page (since it was still the 28th in the United States time zones), when if fact the Main Page has already advanced to show the May 29 items. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I know full well about that. I checked the appropriate date in the history. It was still not posted. My question still stands. I realize the British English world has pretty much taken complete ownership of the English language Wiki, but we still exist over here even if that is rather inconvenient to you. So was it left off or not? Because it seems that it was. And if so, if I am not simply just blind and missing it, then the next question is "Why?" Jersey John (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This comment is highly unhelpful. Please remain civil and refrain from making accusations, especially ones you cannot substantiate. Modest Genius ^talk 11:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I went back and checked for the dates of the 29th, 28th, and 27th, just to be completely sure. Not listed under Holidays and Observances. So... why? Jersey John (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's right there on the May 28 entry. Chris857 (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be where you linked me, but it was left off the main page on the appropriate date. Compensating for time zone difference. It simply was left off the main page. Jersey John (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That is not possible. The actual page is Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 28 – this is the actual template that actually appears in the "On this Day" section. According to that page's history it was never changed to remove "Memorial Day in the United States (2012)".[10]. You may be confused with the May 28 article itself, which is a totally separate page that is linked from the Main page – which apparently was the one that was never updated. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It was not left off the Main Page. I distinctly remember seeing it there yesterday, May 28, during the appropriate time, UTC. And, as Zzyzx11 pointed out, there were no changes during the day that changed that. The appropriate Selected Anniversaries (On This Day) page, in this case Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 28, is automatically included on the Main Page, so it's not possible that someone "forgot" to cycle through to the next date or anything like that. It was there. You just missed it. Also, holidays that shift around are generally not placed on the associated date article because it's not something about that date in particular. Sometimes, you might see "the earliest/latest [holiday] can occur". -- tariqabjotu 03:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also archived at Wikipedia:Main Page history/2012 May 28 which was created by a bot on the day.[11] I guess you overlooked it because it wasn't the first entry on the line. You overlooking it is certainly more plausible than multiple page histories being falsified. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It is important to protect wiki pages properly during events such as the Diamond Jubilee, including all templates used in articles. The template Template:CPW and Template:Charles, Prince of Wales had a picture of genitalia (this image) in it and it appeared in the article Charles, Prince of Wales (and other related articles) for quite some time. Could someone please protect those templates and any other templates that can be used in a malicious way. Thank you. BeŻet (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted [12] : it displayed on Elizabeth II and the Diamond Jubilee articles. --Inops (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not "artist unknown" but Tinted engraving by John Chester Buttre (1821–1893), after the portrait by Gilbert Stuart (Wetman (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC))

I just looked at the 'History' tab of the Main Page and noticed that it is not keeping track of changes on the Main Page. When the semiprotected Main Page is changed by someone other than the ones generally producing it, that is recorded, however the page seems to appear to change about once every day, if not slightly more or less frequently, and those page changes are not recorded on the history tab. This provides no static reference to past changes and makes the article not list who changes it, and when. I think the main page should be archived like other pages so that someone can look up past versions of it. This should be kept on a tab, like the other tabs for other pages so that people can easily find it. It seems doubtful that it would take an infinite amount of memory in comparison with host of other pages that exist. It also seems doubtful that it is not already stored in memory on some computers at Wikipedia, it is simply not made accessible to the average user.67.206.186.61 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, most of the text seen on the Main Page is from transcluded templates that rotate daily. This is partly used so the page content automatically changes at Midnight UTC instead of having someone manually do it. If you'd like to see past versions of the Main page, please go to Wikipedia:Main Page history. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the addition of articles with the most views this hour would be a good addition to the main page as a better news section. This shows what people really care about at the moment and does not have to be updated manually. It would make the main page a much better news source. Right now most of the articles on it are about the jubilee, which is not even mentioned on the main page. The following link shows the top 25 pages with most views this hour: http://inkdroid.org/wikitrends/. I did not see a good suggestion in the "forums above"; If there is a more appropriate section, I'll gladly move the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.33.151 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC) 76.2.33.151 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would make it better at all. It would simply document trends (I recall Game of Thrones being on that list last night, after the recent season finale) and trends are for Twitter, not Wikipedia. Also, who knows the quality of the articles that would end up being listed - currently articles need to have a minimum standard of quality/sourcing to appear on the main page. Our "In the news" section isn't perfect, but we are an encyclopedia more than anything else. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 17:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• please add interwiki links for Urdu and Punjabi languages in the main page of english wikipedia. Rachitrali (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We include interwiki links to Wikipedias containing more than 50,000 articles (which also must meet a minimum quality standard). Sorry! —David Levy 04:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The bold link should go directly to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS#1981:_From_GRID_to_AIDS since the early history of the disease is what's specifically being referenced. It's annoying to be linked to a page twice removed from the thing people are most likely going there to read about. --66.188.120.168 (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact in question is also at AIDS#History, so it's contained in the article located at the bold link. —howcheng {chat} 15:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations to the Commonwealth monarchists worldwide for successfully maintaining the quality and pulling off the timing of today's featured article. One single possible day -- not per year, at all! -- is an extremely difficult target to hit on a collaborative work. (And, sorry, but because I have had to explain it before - NOT sarcasm. Respect.) - Tenebris 02:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Should've been on February 6, not June 2. The timing is actually wrong. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I guess the weather in London is pretty crappy around then. Not good for street parties. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Today is the anniversary of the coronation. The accession would have been the anniversary of a very somber occasion, the death of King George VI. That's why 6 February was commemorated, but not celebrated. Coronations are delayed to allow for a proper period of mourning, after all. Imzadi 1979 → 04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

But the Coronation was in 1953. 'Usual rearranging of dates for convenience.' On what date in 2015 will she reappear on the front page as '... the UK's longest reigning monarch'? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Diamond Jubilee is about the anniversary of the Queen's accession (her father's death), not the coronation. Many less familiar readers will believe she ascended the throne on June 2, 1952. They'll get the accession/coronation dates intertwined. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes...glorious weather for the past two weeks and then just as Jubilee comes along...BAM! And an FA is an FA; no matter how much you might dislike the subject that's not what makes it a good article. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

True about ascension rather than coronation ... but which one has always had the most global awareness? Which one will have the most coverage now? Call it the first televised truly mass media event, after the trial run of WWII. Or, if you prefer (for a happier example of waiting periods than periods of mourning), consider why the engagement never gains as much press as the wedding. On which day are the vows made? - Tenebris 15:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.209 (talk)

Yes, today is not the anniversary of the accession day (though I think we posted it in ITN when it happened). However the various official celebrations are happening this weekend, celebrations of royal anniversaries are often set rather arbitrarily, and we're not telling the reader that this is the anniversary of the accession. Hut 8.5 16:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Les familiar readers could easily misundestand, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Especially those who inexplicably read too much in things they see .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.118.187 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

(reset) It is a normal part of such events that it rains. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

(grin) -- yet better than snow - Tenebris 00:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.189 (talk)

And yet another piece of perfect timing, for another very appropriately highlighted feature. (Just five hours away now.) Tell me, are there more extremely rare and important events than there used to be, or are passionate Wikipedians becoming extremely good at anticipating those events to make and protect the relevant articles in advance, so that they can be highlighted when the time comes? - Tenebris 17:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.131 (talk)

Actually, this is the second time that the article is appearing on the main page, we normally don't feature an article multiple times, but since this isn't happening for another 105 years, Raul, the Featured Article director, made the call to put it up. But yes, we do have wonderful people working on things like this. It makes me happy to see that you're happy. This is also Sven Manguard 18:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the last sentence he enjoyed a long and peaceful retirement a bit WP:WEASELy long by what standards? He died at 58 not a really that only and his retirement was only 15 years and peaceful is equally as vague Gnevin (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The link in the site notice for the Wiknic is missing a single colon after the http. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wiknic notice box is in the way of the pages I'm viewing. If I scroll down, the Wiknic box moves with the screen. It's annoying... Maybe somebody can remove the Wiknic notice box. Flygon's friend- Smarter than the average bear! 01:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to link to London or life imprisonment in ITN? I thought it had been established that common placenames weren't to be linked on the main page and the term "life imprisonment" is fairly self-explanatory. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:18pm • 05:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it a problem for you that they are linked? London, I can agree is superfluous, but in my opinion it doesn't hurt anyone to have it linked. (I know that it not in line with current policy.) Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is definitely a relevant link. Sentences of life imprisonment mean very different things in different jurisdictions. If the item described a well-known case, I would definitely have followed that link to have a look at what it would mean in practice for that individual etc. Links on wikipedia aren't just for things that the reader might not understand, they're for anything that the reader might want to read more about as context to the blurb. /81.170.148.21 (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There are different forms of "life imprisonment", either way it is still imprisonment for the duration of one's life or a prison sentence where it is unlikely the guilty party would still be alive. It is a problem because the Main page has always been a good example of overlinking and because past discussions established that common terms should not be linked. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:19am • 23:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

While I also feel that common terms should not be linked, it seems that past discussions have established the opposite. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're explaining why we should link such terms. If you read the article, you would find that in fact in a number of countries life imprisonment often does not mean 'the duration of one's life or a prison sentence where it is unlikely the guilty party would still be alive' as parole is either always available (in some countries), or in others even if a life sentence without parole is a possible sentence, it's very rarely handed down. (Note that this isn't just a minor point, although our article doesn't explain this that well, in a number of countries is fairly rare for a person to actual remain in prison for life.) BTW, as Joefromrandb has said, past consensus has established we are much more generous with links on the main page given it's purpose to serve as a gateway to readers (rather then being an article on a subject). Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"An Australian coroner rules that a dingo was responsible for the death of Azaria Chamberlain in 1980. " Admins take action against this stupidity now!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.89.147 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What stupidity? The one that caused you to ignore that very informative box above directing you to WP:ITN/C where you are welcome to express your views civilly? 109.149.78.250 (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. It was a strange child abduction case, by which, it has me questioning: "What took the coroner so long?" Either way, is there a reason for this story to be linked to the front page? This story is not notable enough to be front page material. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on WP:ITN/C, it would appear other editors disagree with you.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you from the United States, KyuuA4? The Azaria Chamberlain saga is extremely well known here — perhaps more so than any other Australian controversy. This finding is of wide interest to readers around the world. —David Levy 22:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And, if it was a story which was unknown to people, then we certainly wouldn't want to inform people about something they don't know about. We must stop the spread of knowledge at all costs. PLEASE DON'T LET PEOPLE LEARN ANYTHING NEW THROUGH THE WIKIPEDIA MAIN PAGE. THINK OF THE CHILDREN. --Jayron32 22:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The story is well know in North America (even being referenced on an episode of Seinfeld, and turned into a movie starring Meryl Streep and Sam Neill), and in Australia the coroner's final report was quite big news when it came out (to the point I wanted to throw my shoe through the TV just to get it to stop playing). Although I am inclined to agree with Jayron32, we should be suppressing as much knowledge as we can. My real concern with ITN is the Kings won the Stanley Cup, that has to be a joke, right? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You're objecting to them being up there because you don't like the team? :P And I have to agree with Jayron too...I mean, so what? SO. WHAT? Why do people take ITN so god-damn-seriously anyway? It's a tiny part of the project, and it's not as if the dingo-eat-my-baby story is actually doing any harm being up there. It was decided, by the community - that it should be up there. You can hardly complain if you chose not to have a say or weren't around to do so. --Τασουλα (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still bitter from the conference finals in the 1993 Stanley Cup playoffs (20 years is a long time to hold a grudge, but it's the longest commitment I have ever had). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this latest coroner's finding that the dingo did it. The Chamberlains had legal representation. Did the dingo? HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[13] judging by this incriminating photograph I'd say the restaurant is more to blame, and thus in need of legal representation... --Τασουλα (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't know where the phrase 'the dingo ate my baby' came from, but when I saw the story on the main page, I felt all warm and fuzzy at my ability to extract another cheap laugh from Niles Crane's flour child. 109.149.78.250 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As the dingo was never caught, apparently he was found guilty in absentina. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that a band in the Buffy TV series was called "Dingoes Ate My Baby", surely there was enough cultural awareness of the story in the US. Probably due to the movie. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Azaria who? ... Azaria Chamberlain ... newsworthy? No, no, not newsworthy, no, not noteworthy at all ... only one of the most well know & publicised fatalities in twentieth century Australian history ... but enough of that who won the Stanley Cup this year? JIMp _talk·cont 06:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not received credit on my talk page for several ITN nominations, one recent. I'm sure this means that a lot of people aren't being credited for their efforts. Do we need to create a formal procedure to make sure these actions are performed? __meco (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We need to counter the perception that these messages, intended to serve as simple notifications, are "formal" awards handed down from above.

If you're aware that one of your nominations was successful, the absent message wouldn't have notified you of anything. If you enjoy having it on your page, you're welcome to place it there yourself.

If you want to ensure that others receive their messages, you're welcome to deliver those too. Anyone is. —David Levy 17:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What David said. There is no formal process in place for a good reason. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I give myself ITN credits because I like to have them on my userpage, but there shouldn't need to be a process for it. It doesn't mean anything, and you clearly don't need the notifications seeing as you are aware of the success of your nominations. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason I am remarking about this is that I would think, simply from a general understanding of human nature, that many people would be eagerly awaiting these acknowledgments, just like barnstars (although they canot be anticipated) and similar notices from DYK. I doubt that everybody are as indifferent about this as you all. I don't care to place a notice on my own talk page. Nevertheless, I think these little tokens have importance, and I'm quite sure several, perhaps especially novice users, will be disappointed at an apparent oversight of their effort knowing that these notices exist. I propose that, given the somewhat disdainful perception so many people have towards these, that we either make an effort to place them on all pages where they are merited, or abandon their use altogether. The present situation doesn't seem consistent or satisfactory. Also, as I seem to detect some irritation or resignation at my inquiry, I'll abstain from participating in any would-be further discussion. __meco (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Users who are aware that their ITN nominations were successful and are "eagerly awaiting" these messages have misunderstood their intended purpose. They're notifications, not trophies bestowed upon worthy editors by persons in charge of something.

As explained at Wikipedia:In the news, no one possesses special authority to deliver these messages, so why don't you post them yourself instead of complaining about others' failure to do it? —David Levy 23:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO, DYK is totally different than ITN. In DYK, someone has been proactive and taken the initiative on his own to improve an article or subject that has been (in most cases) neglected due to Wikipedia's systemic bias or whatever reason. That is something that should be awarded or acknowledged. Here on ITN, it is instead primarily based on current events. And a lot of times, especially with fast breaking news stories, it ends up being whoever is the fastest to update the relevant article(s) and post on WP:ITN/C first. This type of race is not notable IMO. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This image likely fails the fair-use criteria for two reasons, and thus should be removed from the Main Page:

• It primarily depicts a three-dimensional representation of a copyrighted cartoon character, and is thus a derivative work
• I cannot tell where it was taken, presumably in Nashville, but it is irrelevant as most ballparks, as professional sports venues, have terms of entry that prohibit visitors from taking images licensed for commercial reuse without the express written consent of the team. Therefore, it is unlikely that this image could be sufficiently free for the Main Page. It should be removed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Yes, the Herschel Greer Stadium website says: "Guests are permitted to bring cameras and video equipment into Greer Stadium provided that they are intended for personal use only." Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You make a good case, image removed. I should point out that image copyright is far from my strong suit, so if another admin feels I've erred, they should feel free to revert my edit. Jenks24 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have looked closely when I saw it among the upcoming FAs (where, until recently I think, it didn't have a photo). In any event it occurs to me that we have a whole bunch of mascot photos at Commons that should be deleted for these reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Per: Nashville Sounds, "to helm" is no synonym for "to manage." Managers have LED the club, or people have MANAGED the club, but Managers have not "helmed" the club. Somebody has errored their grammar and it should be fixed. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a grammatical error ... see how we define it at Wiktionary: "(by extension) To lead (a project, etc.).". I would change it not because of that but because of usage: while it's popular in the sports pages, it's too colloquial for an encyclopedia. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Daniel, it's not technically incorrect, but it could definitely be improved. I've made this edit to the blurb. For future reference, it is better to report these things at WP:ERRORS. Jenks24 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No one complained yet?! Lugnuts (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Patience.. that DYK queue has only been up for about 15 minutes :) - filelakeshoe 08:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Twelve when that was posted. Oi! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Think of the children! 92.80.11.110 (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Forget the children, what about my head? The main page is threatening me with physical violence! 74.74.117.22 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, if we know something like this is going to be controversial, it should just be left out!!!! Have some sense people!!! Also, who is responsible for this?Cosprings (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But is it at all controversial? Noone has complained about it (at 14:18 GMT), all of these comments are jocular. FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just too absurd to complain about. It doesn't quite have the pounding subtlety of Gropecunt Lane. Or maybe it lacks sexual references? I've noticed that the vast majority of complainants are Americans, and the media is more likely to condone violence as opposed to sexuality.--WaltCip (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If head was replaced with the c word then we'd be flooded with complaints... Its a playground taunt really. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to complain that I had not had recourse to a Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells reference lately. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with all of you? Children read this website, children should not be exposed to such base vulgarity. Cosprings (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What "base vulgarity"? Are you seriously suggesting that it's OK for children to be exposed to horrific massacres, cannibalism, ethnic cleansing, horror movies ... but not to a rather insignificant intensifier? Malleus Fatuorum 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you really read what I wrote and this is how you respond? Where is my comments did I say anything even resembling what you have suggested? Seriously baffling. I give up on trying to communicate logically and comprehensively with anyone anymore. Not if people are like this.Cosprings (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Vulgarity is subjective. It is the responsibility of children's parents and other guardians to raise them properly, not Wikipedia's editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a creche for all the world's children. (e • nn • en!) 13:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

However, it is the responsibility of a parent to assume whether or not Wikipedia has bad words in it, like f***ing, and most parents would most certainly assume not. Wikipedians can be blocked from editing if they put bad words on Wikipedia; if you don't know what I am talking about, read Wikipedia:Child protection. --J.R.B. 11:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Child protection is most certainly not about censoring swearing. A parent's responsibility is to impose their own level of censorship, and if they feel a few swear words here and there is something they don't want their child to see, then it's up to them to stop their child visiting the website. We routinely feature death, genocide, violence and war on the front page without an eyebrow being raised; Rwanda will soon be main page featured and if I were a parent I'd be more concerned about children clicking through from there to Rwandan Genocide than about a few fucks and cunts. GRAPPLE X 13:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you really think about what I wrote? If you want to produce a children's encyclopedia then feel free, but somewhere else. Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)0

He isn't thinking about what you are writing now, if he already gave up. Art LaPella (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Was he ever thinking? Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Another f-bomb is scheduled in a few hours, at midnight in the Wikipedia time zone. Art LaPella (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a hook for a wonderfully gory giallo exploitation film in that queue; let's see which invokes more ire. GRAPPLE X 21:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Prime Ministership" is not a proper word, the correct term is "Premiership". Please correct. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS above. --69.158.118.187 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is commonly used as a word -- not sure whether it technically is one (although it is shown here) -- but I've changed it regardless. -- tariqabjotu 12:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a dreadful pun involving Premiership League here somewhere. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the OP aware that at least one country (the one I live in, Australia) has both a Prime Minister and several Premiers? Makes that opening statement seem rather silly. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, I didn't see the "errors" section, or else I would have posted that there. And in response to HiLo48, all you have to do is visit my user page to see that I'm Canadian, we have a federal Prime Minister and provincial Premiers as well, that doesn't change the fact that the proper term is Premiership and that "Prime Ministership" is not correct in the English language. Tariqabjotu, thank you for correcting. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's in the dictionary. Wiktionary,Merriam-Webster.

It's in newspapers. The Guardian, (Although the distribution of the google hits suggests that it's primarily an Australian and Indian usage. So this may be an eng-var issue. The BBC, for example, seems to almost never use this phrase.)

However I think it's pretty clear that it's wrong to say that it's not correct English.

APL (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because a newspaper or website uses it does not make it right. For example, a study a few years back found that about 30% of Canadian government papers wrongfully used American spellings and terms. That didn't make it right. "Prime Ministership" is a neologism at best, and just poor grammar at worst. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

EB uses it too: [14] Rmhermen (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

EB uses it in several articles actually, including in the titles of some. The validity of the term seems well established, it's in encyclopedias, news media, multiple dictionaries (Collins, Oxford, etc), political journals like this one by this professor of government, the National Archives of Australia, published books and so on. It would appear you're mistaken on this occasion, Fry. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Experts in the field would appear to contradict your viewpoint. Unless you're suggesting that you're better qualified to comment on the validity of political terminology than a Rhodes Scholar and professor of government who has taught at Essex, Princeton and the University of Wisconsin. Personally, I'll side with the expert. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case, since it's decently widely accepted, I've changed it back. "Prime ministership" is clearer about the position in question here. -- tariqabjotu 03:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Widely accepted does not make something right, and "clearer" is rather laughable as far as I'm concerned, it was linked to the article about the office, and even if a few people get confused, they're here to learn, not to have grammatical neologisms used to keep them in the dark. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As HiLo mentioned, premiership can refer to the (separate) position of premier. If it referred solely to the position of prime minister, it wouldn't be a problem. But we are requesting that, to fully understand the story, people either (a) know who Yousaf Raza Gillani is, (b) be familiar with the Pakistani political system, (c) click on the link, or (d) presume it's referring to a prime minister position. That's too much, especially when another acceptable formulation conveys the meaning more directly. -- tariqabjotu 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Some sources mioght support the use of the "word" prime ministership; that does not mean it has consensus. Time for compromise: "The Supreme Court of Pakistan retroactively discharges Yousaf Raza Gillani (pictured) from the post of prime minister due to his contempt of court conviction." Kevin McE (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the blurb as it stands currently. If it absolutely had to change, I think 'office' would be a better term than 'post'. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually have a problem with "prime ministership"? Otherwise, right now it's just Fry's complaint and there's really no need to change it given it's been demonstrated that "prime ministership" is an acceptable phrase in English. -- tariqabjotu 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Prime ministership" does sound off since it's seldom used. I'd like to use Kevin's blurb although I wonder if "discharge" is the right word. Why not "disqualify"? –HTD 07:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fry, 'prime ministership' is not a neologism: the OED quotes it as being in use from 1846 [15]. While I don't like the word either, it is not incorrect by any logical fallacy. 109.149.78.250 (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. My Google search earlier came up with an Australian newspaper article using the term in 1941 in the National Archives, and a transcript of a House of Commons debate from the UK in 1979 where they used the term there too. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The word might have some citations, and they may date back some time, but it is certain not in widespread common use: the phrase premiership is far more frequently used, and used far more frequently in high level publications, so the preference for the unfamiliar and rarely used term, even if its meaning is easily guessed, seems counterintuitive and not in keeping with general practice. There is more to getting appropriate phrasing than not being incorrect. In terms of googlehits "Cameron's premiership" outranks "Cameron's prime ministership" by more than 13 to 1. Are those arguing for prime ministership suggesting that articles such as Premiership of Margaret Thatcher should be moved to Prime ministership of Margaret Thatcher? If they do not believe that this would be an improvement, why are they defending the word in this context? I see several internet headlines that refer to Gilani's premiership on Google news, not a single one referring to his prime ministership. Gillani's article uses premiership twice, and prime ministership not at all. Prime ministership is (in part) underlined in red by my spell checker, premiership is not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we move the articles. Simply there's no reason to change the main page after the fact when it's not actually incorrect or likely to be misunderstood, particularly when there are legitimate reasons why the PM term may be preferred (whether or not there are also reaons Pship may be preferred). Even more so since there is a suggestion of WP:Engvar here (above it was mentioned in India, perhaps the same applies to Pakistan). Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Simply there's no reason to change the main page after the fact when it's not actually incorrect or likely to be misunderstood": ironic, if you look at the edit history of the template and how the word was introduced. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay I admit I didn't look at the history and wasn't aware of [16] so apologise for that. But although I don't know if I'd agree the change, I still don't see any reason to change it back. Generally speaking, because of the desire to avoid wheel warring, we don't really practice WP:BRD on the main page. If a change is made even if arguably it shouldn't have, provided it isn't wrong, it's generally left be even if some feel the original wording is better. Consensus to change may result in a change as well, but it's been clear for a long while there's no consensus here. As I've said, I've seen no evidence the change can be regarded as wrong. If anything, I see many additional Google News results suggesting the phrase is common in Pakistan even in other cases like candicy for Prime Minister. In fact, while as I said, I don't know if the change was necessary, I'm reluctant to fault TA for it. From the description below, it sounds like it was a resonable decision at the time. Anyone trying to fix errors in the main page has a bit of a hell of a role to play. If they take too long to fix errors people yell at them for taking to long. If they make a change which seemed resonable at the time, people yell at them if they don't agree with the change. Edit: I should also make clear that TA's actions don't fall in to what I said anyway even if I still don't know that it was necessary. Note the key phrasing likely to be misunderstood. Whether or not this was correct, there was apparent concern premiership may be misunderstood which was the reason for the original change. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Incidentally, a simple Google News search found [17] (already linked above), [18] and [19] so your claim doesn't apply to searches for me. Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

From a U.S. point of view, where we seldom read about prime ministers or premiers, I would take it for granted that "premiership" means being a premier. And my main experience with the word "premier" was from a Canadian making a speech about how Americans ignore them, after I confused their premiers with their prime minister. Art LaPella (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Kevin McE - I don't understand your absolute position on this. As I've already said, it's a common enough expression in my country, for obvious reasons. Its meaning is also 100% obvious. So to me, it IS familiar. It's VERY intuitive, rather than counter-intuitive as you claim, for anyone looking for logic in language. Yes, I know you can argue that English isn't logical, but that won't allow you to say it's intuitive! I wouldn't be confused by Prime ministership of Margaret Thatcher. And nor would you, really. You just wouldn't like it. And that's not a reason for any decision in Wikipedia. Now, I'm not taking an absolute position on this. You can believe what you like. I'm just pointing out that your argument is hollow and illogical. HiLo48 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine. If people really believe that the choice of words of one admin, changing the initially posted blurb without any discussion, deserves some sort of precedence over the vast bulk of common use of the phrases in question, let it be. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's NOT what I fucking said!!!!! Misrepresenting what others say will never, ever help you win an argument!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Whereas swearing proves the reasonableness and impeccable logic of your viewpoint beyond question. Congratulations, I must concede to you (and look at the indentation: it wasn't a direct reply to your comments) Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you just ignored me pointing out how poor your logic was. Thank you very much for that. And you think I showed poor manners? Great! HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh please. I changed the blurb because it was wrong. As the associated article (and the Supreme Court decision) says, he was no longer PM of Pakistan as of April 26 and all orders made since then are null and void. Whether that ought to be reflected in the infobox of the article is still a matter of debate, but that retroactivity is a critical part of the story. The original blurb implied he was no longer PM as of sometime this week, period.

I've reworded the blurb and, in the interest of not making this blurb even longer than it already is, I removed the mention of the Supreme Court. Probably an unsuitable change for you as this is just the choice of one admin. -- tariqabjotu 21:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in to say that Kevin's compromise wording seemed pretty reasonable to me. I would be mildly misled by premiership, given that the US has neither premiers nor prime ministers, but clearly the precedent exists for it to be so. The compromise wording makes it unmistakable and avoids the argument entirely. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 21:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that Tariq has made a change. Obviously an admin making a change needs to choose a wording, but if that wording is controversial, the mere fact of it having been chosen by an admin does not give that word selection an assumption of suitability that requires extraordinary argument to override it. I believe that Tariq is a reasonable enough person to not expect such an elevated status to be given to his preferred phrasing, and consider his closing comment above to be out of character for him. Kevin McE (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't 'merely' chosen by an admin, it was also supported by myself and HiLo, and backed with evidence. In fact, if Tariq's original choice of wording was taken as implicit support by him for that wording, there's more support for his original wording than any of the alternatives at the moment. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 22:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong with my comment? Perhaps you meant otherwise, but I see an emphasis on the fact that my wording and change of the blurb was undiscussed. People make changes to ITN (and other sections on the Main Page) all the time without any prior discussion or a request on WP:ERRORS, and most of the time there's no furor over that. The fact that you have/had a problem with prime ministership should not make the decision to change a wording on the Main Page any more or less acceptable -- as this is commonplace and, in some ways, necessary. Likewise, should anyone have an issue with the mention of the Supreme Court being omitted, I'd expect the argument to not hinge on the fact that its omission was "undiscussed" or the "word choice of one admin". -- tariqabjotu 22:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That is misrepresenting me. I did not object to the fact that you chose a phrasing without it being previously discussed: I objected to the assumption (not made by you) that once a phrasing had been posted, that even in the face of evidence that the word is not in common use in at least some ENGVAR regions, and that alternatives are far more widely used, and that wikipedia articles bound by wp:commonname do not use the phrase chosen, and when compromises have been proposed and gained support, that that some presumption of greater suitability of the posted version exists. Do you believe that there should be such a presumption? Having seen your willingness to edit your own posts in the past, I assumed you did not, and in the light of that, your final sentence seemed out of character. I apologise if this is not out of character, in which case I have evidently overestimated your reasonableness in the past. Kevin McE (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you actually name someone who either 1) Opposed the compromise? 2) Thought the prime ministership version was better then the proposed version? I haven't actually seen any of that in this discussion which was primarily about whether prime ministership was wrong, or should be replaced with premiership for which my reading of this discussion, there remains no consensus. There are also people including me saying it's not nearly a big a deal as you are making it out to be, without necessarily objecting to using the compromise if some people feel it is that important (but who do object for a variety of reasons to changing it back to premiership even if that was the original contributors wording). I can't speak for TA, but my impression is he was saying he wasn't willing to edit the main page based on Fry1989's single questionable objection which is resonable and keeping with the way we usually handle the main page. The fact that the single objection came from someone who provided no sources and kept insisting prime ministership was wrong in face of evidence to the contrary surely didn't help convince TA there was any merit to needing to change to any compromise version. Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't direct enough in my previous statement. Simply put, I don't know how Probably an unsuitable change for you as this is just the choice of one admin. is discordant with the belief that content on the Main Page is subject to change. -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if a consensus has been reached, but I thought that I might make a comment about this controversy. According to Merriam-Webster Unabridged online dictionary (subscription required, Merriam-Webster Unabridged), "prime ministership" is a variant of "prime ministry," which is defined as "the office of prime minister" or "the term of office of a prime minister." "Premiership" is defined as "the position or office of a premier." To be clear, "premiership" should NOT be used because it conveys that the person held the office of premier, not a that of prime minister. Either "prime ministership" or "prime ministry" is correct, but it seems that, according to Merriam-Webster, "prime ministry" is the more common variant. (See this for the Merriam-Webster which does not require a subscription.) *Also, I believe that users and editors should not be rude or belligerent on this talk page. The goal of the discussions here is not to air out personal disputes, but to reach a consensus on what edits should be made on the article page. Thanks. Dar5995 (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No personal disputes here mate. It just seems that some facts I stated didn't fit a myth in some other people's heads. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, belligerence and swearing have no place on Wikipedia talk pages (not saying you did any of that, but others on this talk page have been going at it). Dar5995 (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Funnily enough, despite the original complainant being Canadian Premiership of Stephen Harper has yoyoed between that title and Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper with any WP:RM ever followed. There was some discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premiership of Stephen Harper where it was claimed the term Premiership is not used in Canada. Meanwhile, Prime minister uses prime ministership once and premiership never. Prime Minister of Australia used prime ministership twice and premiership one time. Howard Government has yoyoed between that title, Premiership of John Howard and Prime ministership of John Howard. Prime Ministership of Gordon Brown was created when someone moved Premiership of Gordon Brown to that title without discussion (which was quickly reverted). Ditto for Prime Ministership of Tony Blair, Prime Ministership of David Cameron and Prime Ministership of Benjamin Disraeli and probably more (same person did the moves). Funnily enough, we have a 2001 special election to the prime ministership created as a result of a poor naming for an article. Both L.N. Sinha and Andrew Fisher used prime ministership but not premiership. (The later uses it extensively including as a section title.) Some more articles which use prime ministership at least once (haven't checked if they use premiership) Janardhana Poojary, Elahi Bux Soomro, Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Manmohan Singh, Ben Chifley, Benjamin Netanyahu, Kim Campbell, John Howard, Sam Hinds, Souvanna Phouma, Gordon Brown, Joop den Uyl, John Turner, List of Prime Ministers of Australia, Liberal-Conservative Party, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Australian federal election, 1966, 2012 Papua New Guinea Defence Force mutiny, Australian Labor Party leadership spill, 2010, Salman Khurshid, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, David Lange, Deputy prime minister, Fijian Association Party. I could go on and on but I think these are sufficient to make the point. All these hints of some sort of wikiwide consensus doesn't seem to fit with the facts on the ground. Unsurprisingly since when we have two options neither of which is incorrect, we accept both options since we never require wikipedia wide consistency and engvar in particular encourages use to follow local usage if there are multiple options when it doesn't cause undue confusion. And so far, I haven't seen any say they actually didn't understand the term prime ministership other then believing it was an odd or wrong term (which isn't the same thing), as people have said premiership is far more likely to cause confusion. Which doesn't mean we have to use prime ministership, but does mean there's no reason to avoid the term prime ministership, like say Lakh, just because it may be rare in some places whereas the term premiership seems to be common and also I think accepted even in places where the term prime ministership is common. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Prime ministry" is also an acceptable term as a variant of "prime ministership" (see Merriam-Webster). Since premiership is seemingly ambiguous (since it can refer to the office of premier), it should be avoided in this context, because here it is a prime minister, NOT a premier. Dar5995 (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I dislike Google hit counts since they can be incredible misleading particularly if not subject to careful analysis. But since one was used above.... Supposedly "harper's premiership" has 766 results whereas "harper's prime ministership" has 7,630. In reality if I actually look at the results, I find pmship has 65 whereas premiership has 135. Meanwhile "clark's premiership" has 1,420 supposed and 138 actual results while "clark's prime ministership" has 254 supposed and 53 actual results. "rudd's premiership" has 172 supposed and 68 actual results. "rudd's prime ministership" has 196,000 supposed or 301 actual results. "gandhi's premiership" has 2610 supposed or 326 actual results while "gandhi's prime ministership" has 43,400 supposed or 235 actual results. "gillani's prime ministership" (following above) unsurprisingly finds nothing while "Gilani's prime ministership" has 5450 supposed or 85 actual results while "Gilani's premiership" has 18500 supposed or 201 actual results. "Sharif's prime ministership" has 48 supposed or 15 actual results while "Sharif's premiership" has 857 supposed or 158 actual results. "mahathir's prime ministership" has 190 supposed or 41 actual results while "mahathir's premiership" has 6,490 supposed or 380 actual results. So if these results actually mean something (I'm not convinced they do) it seems while there is a preference to premiership in some countries, the UK is one of the few where the preference is significant. I definitely don't see any reason we need to avoid prime minister like the plague as some here seem to be suggesting. (The fact that prime ministership is not common in the UK is not a good reason in itself any more then we avoid certain terms and spellings just because they uncommon in the US.) Even Google Ngram only shows a 2.5 to about 5.5 times difference in recent times [20] which doesn't seem that large considering we can premiership refers to a lot of things besides someone's prime ministership. Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The German invasion of the Soviet Union is not mentioned? Are you kidding? The Chesapeake–Leopard Affair is more important than the start of the biggest war in the history of the world? --93.188.37.239 (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dunno why. Doesn't seem to have been on in 2010 or 2011 either (based on talk page) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Operation Barbarossa#Reasons for initial Soviet defeats is tagged as needing more references, thus making the article ineligible to appear on the Main Page. —howcheng {chat} 15:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It would have been Alan Turing's 100th birthday tomorrow - is it too late to get in a mention for the father of computer science and artificial intelligence? Richerman (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Added to OTD. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it usual to include birthdays in OTD? I thought it usually highlighted anniversaries of historically important events, and while Turing is undoubtedly of great historical importance, his birth was not. Kevin McE (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Centenaries have been included before; Dickens' birthday was listed this February, although that was a 200th, rather than 100th, birthday, and he's a wee bit more important than Turing. I'm not fussed either way on this particular one but there is precedence for it being done. GRAPPLE X 19:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd !vote against anything that turns OTD into a birthdays column, even a centenaries of birth column. Kevin McE (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not common, but we do feature births and deaths on centennials. —howcheng {chat} 21:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure others would agree it's worth a mention: "Google Home Page". 2012-06-23. Retrieved 2012-06-23.. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC) - hey look, I've even already retrieved it tomorrow.

Just another view, amazing we're all looking at this website, advocating free info for the world, etc on devices that wouldn't be possible without the birth of Alan Turing. Perhaps his "birthday" isn't important, but his existence (by virtue of his birth) is, per Google and the BBC etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So, the centenerary of the birth of one of the most important people in the development of the computer doesn't belong in 'on this day' and it isn't newsworthy? - Incredible! Richerman (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he gets a single line "100th anniversary of the birth of Alan Turing" at the top, then he's just in the list of births, between 1910 Milt Hinton and 1916 Len Hutton... and yet he's "the father of computer science and artificial intelligence". Wow, the price of fame, eh? When's he going to be next "in the news", exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

thats one of those words that i feel like a lot of people won't know what it means. could we make it a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLO (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that when we agreed some time ago that the word was the best succinct description of the situation, although not widespread through many ENGVAR regions, that we would do precisely that as a matter of course. Kevin McE (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Chilean airline giant Lan and Brazilian airline Tam are to merge to form a massive airline called Latam. It will be Latin America's largest airline. Is this news viable for presentation on the main page?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18560343 http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/06/22/brazil-tam-completes-share-swap-for-lan-merger/ http://ilovechile.cl/2012/06/22/lan-tam-merger-official/60569 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.12.150 (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

News stories should be debated at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)