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.

Could we have a worst Today's Feature Article tommorrow? Like, I don't know, a feature article on Eric, it's a friend of mine, playing smushball in a local team. Actually, I don't think I can have a photo of him worst than Kydd's one... I mean, after Bulsomethin the pokemon, Cynna Kydd the worldwide unknown australian netball player. What the f*** is netball?! Is it another sport invented by a country so they can win a gold medal at the olympics? Something like softball or whatever? :) Ok, how do we can enter the Today's Feature Article selection so we can avoid those kind of things in the future? JeDi

Netball was actually developed in the United States. Tntnnbltn 10:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

HA! --liquidGhoul 11:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so? JeDi

It's obviously not "another sport invented by a country so they can win a gold medal". Otherwise Australia and New Zealand wouldn't be the world champions. Can you deduce who would? --liquidGhoul 13:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude about it. —Cuiviénen 14:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. There was no need for JeDi's rant at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

here is information regarding Featured Articles and the process that nominates one for inclusion on the main page each day, if you want to get involved. I think it's a good FA if it teaches someone something. What point would there be to feature articles that 'everyone' knew about? Where's your sense of curiosity? All the (rhetorical) questions you posed above can be answered by following the link Netball in Today's featured article. Follow a wikilink and learn something instead of complaining. --Monotonehell 12:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this selection is, essentially, performed by one person: Raul654. He is a kind of Today's feature article monarch, deciding alone what article will be on the main page. And, in two months, I have fall twice in diagreement with his choices. Frankly, I don't think his opinion are more important than mine. It would be reasonable to have a college of people deciding those kind of things, don't you think? At least 3. I'm not saying *I* should decide, but if several people contribute to the final decision, I would find the decision more acceptable.

And yes, I am curious. Look at my contributions if you doubt of this. But I am not curious at all when it is question of a proutball player being fired by his national team for a scandal about things I don't care! I mean, just read the preview of the article on the main page. This is just uninteresting, it's a non-event! And what if I create an feature article on Ribery's decision to quit the Olympic de Marseilles, would you think it would has its place on the main page of Wikipedia??? I won't troll on this, it's just that sometimes, I found this main page, which is what people who discovers WP see at first, does not represent the true value of this site.

PS: did you notice that during the last week, in the Did you know section, they put 4 articles on the same subject: A french car manufacturer named Simca!! JeDi

Apparently you are unfamiliar with how things work around here. Before things can be done, there need to be people to do it. People who work hard are rewarded for their work, such as by presenting it on the main page. People who complain nonstop on the talk page while contributing nothing productive are ignored. Get to work and stop complaining. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 17:54

Have you contributed to an article to get it through FAC. It is not an easy feat, and the people who work hard for that should get their work exhibited. It shouldn't be based on some subjective crap, it should be based on whether it is an FA. All featured articles should get their day on the front page. If it is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, then it obviously does represent the true value of the site. If today was my first day of discovering Wikipedia, I would be impressed that such an obscure subject has such a good article. --liquidGhoul 13:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit of a misunderstanding - Raul654 is the director not the "monarch". Initially for an article to become an FA there's a whole nomination/review/concensus process that involves a lot of editors. Secondly the candidates for the main page process also involves a lot of discussion. Follow the links at the top of this page in the "Today's featured article" section to learn more about the processes involved. --Monotonehell 13:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You all seem to be missing an improtant point here. If you check out the statistics, you will se that in the last 10 months 304 FAs were created. In those 10 months there were exactly 304 days. That means that articles are being created at a rate of one per day, and as a consequence, there is not much of a "selection process" involved for the person in charge - it's really just a matter of deciding which article is featured on which day.

Shouldn't this raise a wider concern though? Allowing for a backlog of FAs - which there probably is - it still seems that at this rate we're not creating enough of them. Are the criteria to strict? Eixo 22:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with this being FA is the fact I nominated Thierry Henry and it was rejected and after reading this article I can't see how it is much better. It's not really. There both sports people so it's easy to compare and the barely a difference in my opinion. One is rejected on is given FA status. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Might have something to do with the fact that T.Henry is actually notable, and people would have certain expectations and know what to ask for. C.Kydd, on the other hand, is much less famous. It's hard to pick on unknowns. --64.229.176.139 07:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the reason why it was rejected was taht it was lacking refernces. That is what the people who object wrote and I think that I agree with them about the lack of inline refernces. Jeltz talk 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm more concerned about is why are we letting the Female Cyclist Vandal choose the featured article? --155.45.81.25 11:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain? --Monotonehell 12:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:155.45.81.25 the WALRUS is trolling. -- 64.229.178.241 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been called many things in my life but I have to admit that's one of the stranger ones. Raul654 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My Raul654 is not a walrus. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a walrus, a communist but he is not a porn star. --maru (talk) contribs 06:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:155.45.81.25 claimed to be the WALRUS. --64.229.176.139 07:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My Raul654 is not a walrus. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a walrus, a communist but he is not a porn star. --maru (talk) contribs 06:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Finally, a quote that I recognise! Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it, Pell-Mell} _{If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell} Hail OneCone International! 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

I would like to propose the addition of ((motd)) to the main page, which will show the Motto of the day, which has been administered by (unofficially) myself, (officially) User:Childzy and User:Geo.plrd.

What say you (other than for me to reduce the length of my signature...)?

Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it, Pell-Mell} _{If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell} Hail OneCone International! 08:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose the addition of ((motd)) to the main page, which will show the Match of the day, a daily football result from around the world. Piet 08:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but having a quote of the day was so 1980s. See fortune.-gadfium 09:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said when this was asked at WP:CP#Motto. :There is no significant difference between these mottos and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor. Please keep it in userspace. --Quiddity·(talk) 09:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. No need to be abrupt arseholes (this isn't directed at gadfium or Piet). Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it, Pell-Mell} _{If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell} Hail OneCone International! 10:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks. I was being concise; would you prefer I ramble on for many paragraphs about the ambiguity and subjectivity of humour, giving examples of "approved mottos" that I disagree with, and explaining my theory that most of those dont even quality as mottos, but are rather bumperstickers or taglines? Regardless, I'm not so inclined. Simple and straightforward is easier. --Quiddity·(talk) 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Piet: that template won't show football results... Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it, Pell-Mell} _{If not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell} Hail OneCone International! 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User space, not front page material. Can you explain how it showcases the best of Wikipedia? and Hunterd please change your signature. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 10:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the mottos are debated as to whether or not they are any good... the same is done for Featured Articles, Featured Images, Fatured Lists, etc... Therefore, what mottos are shown are the best of what Wikipedians can come up with. Oh, and I have changed my signature. I suggest you do the same - it's just as long as my new one (Midnighttonight). David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it,} _Pell-Mell 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Like food, humour is not appreciated the same way by all people. As such, ((motd)) should stay off the Main Page as long as humour is a key ingredient of it. I'd rather have "Quote of the Day" taken from Wikiquote. --64.229.204.28 13:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved to User talk: Merovingian. -- 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved to discussion page so it gets more attention

Can we switch it back?--Peta 00:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It works wonders preventing off-topic posts; I only think it should be more compact.--(clovis) 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed the last two entries in this talk page; they are not about the main page. Some people don't bother to read a header, no matter how big or red typed is it. Up here we discussed whether this is the best way to prevent these posts.--(clovis) 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, except for that little "two people sucking on a jellyfish" icon.--Eloquence* 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a big improvement, makes it a lot easier to go to the right place for discussion. The more compact the better, but most of links are very useful. Piet 07:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

At the funeral of the the late Māori Queen, a new king was selected. Please update ITN accordingly. This suggestion on the candidates' page has been left unattended and ignored. Where are the admins ? -- 64.229.228.203 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to improve the successor Tuheitia Paki's page first. Piet 07:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, it seems like there's something in there about some eurovision song more often than not. I never wanted to know about all these songs and their entirely uninteresting quirks that somehow keep getting put up on the main page. --Someones life 07:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We can take about 3-3.5 DYK updates per day if the admins are efficinet and on the ball - ie 18-20 noms per day. Unless we get 18-20 suggestions which are NPOV, Verifiable, sourced, and long enough, then there is no competition and they get in by default. If you want something more interesting, then please create or dig up something interesting so that the admin can have an embarrassment of riches to choose from. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK is going to get more and more pointless and stupid as topics slowly run out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.86.80.89 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Next time, we'd have to make do with American Idol songs haha. --Howard the Duck 10:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is getting stale, isn't it time to change the criteria for DYK? I don't think it is necessary to reward for creating new articles when there are over a million articles. I know there are a lot of interesting articles which need to be created, but if it is not the reality that we are getting varied and interesting DYK, then it should be changed. There are so many articles out there that would be of much more worth for the readers of the front page. --liquidGhoul 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there are varied and interesting articles being created, and I don't think we're "running out" (then again I'm inclusionist). The varied and interesting articles are not getting on DYK because the authors don't know or don't care how to get on there, while a small group of editors with narrow interests do. Maybe we need to get the RA patrol to do more nominating, rather than self-noms. Or somebody needs to run a script that finds all non-stubs created in the last 5 (or less) days.--Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not wrong. I have started a tonne of articles, and got the first one on DYK a couple weeks ago. --liquidGhoul 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not enough guys know about DYK, we should have a DYK patrol. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for adding something to DYK are too strict. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, it needs to be good quality to be on the main page, so you need NPOV, sources, decent length, that's all.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is unwise to adhere to the notion that every eligible (i.e. non-stub, well-referenced, etc.) candidate on the Suggestions page should make it into DYK. If we keep doing that, then no matter what, we get repitition of subjects, based on the contributions of well-intentioned editors with narrow interests; if someone starts 20 articles on (let's say) notable medieval court jesters over the course of a few weeks, we'll end up with a famous jester in DYK once a day for three weeks. A couple court jester DYKs in a short period might be fun, but after a while people might understandably get bored of them. A better solution would be to update the DYK a little less frequently (say only twice a day). That way the admins can be a little more selective and showcase a broader range of DYKs, though at the expense of leaving some behind. (note: I posted a similiar opinion on this last week, but it has been archived.) Andrew Levine 18:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm not even mad, but is someone deliberating staggering the creation of Eurovision song articles so that there will be one in the DYK section for the next 10 years? How many of these songs can there even be? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The lil text boxes do not follow grammar rules very well. Example: "'Did you know...' lists facts from new or newly unstubbed articles to nominate a fact for inclusion see Did you know." Also, "'In the news' items are listed as they are added there is no subjective order." I'd fix it, but I can't reach those boxes in the edit :) Lovok 14:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. violet/riga (t) 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OMG! I'm the grammar Nazi and you're correcting ME? I am ashamed, so ashamed. *Does penance* (Thank you) --Monotonehell 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pulkovo Aviation flight 610 has crashed in the Ukraine, I know no article has been created for this yet because it has only been about 5 hours since it happened and details are sketchy still, but is there any way to get this on the ITN section without an article? 170 people dead, 30 bodies found, Anapa - St. Petersburg flight, crashed at 1137 UTC. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC) BBC source

An article exists (Pulkovo Airlines Flight 612) and is listed on Portal:Current events. In the future suggest items at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. --Dhartung | Talk 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know where to suggest them, I just couldn't find the article in question because I had the flight number wrong and was wondering if it could still be mentioned even without an article. Thanks -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"In the news" is about how the news has affected Wikipedia articles: it lists articles that have either had major additions or are totally new due to a current event. It is not about the news itself, and thus cannot list news that doesn't have an article mentioning it. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dark, that's exactly what I was wondering when I came on here. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody to make short title more clear to average readers. Too many people assume it's Ukranian plane crashed and this misunderstading hurt Ukranian airlines. Can you make it clear that it's Russian airplane crashed during transit over Ukranian territory. "in Ukraine" is too vague. Thanks in advance. --TAG 21:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.224.60 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Issue was addressed. --TAG 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In the news should say,"Grigory Perelman refrained from accepting the $13,400 of the Fields Medal."

The mathematician has spent a lifetime on his work and now they want to give him a risible amount of money. It would cost him a few thousand dollars for airplane tickets, hotel expenses, and taxi fares in Spain. It is an insult. Take a look how much Nobel Peace laureates get (a meaningless award with lots of money).

Also, Perelman didn't say he wouldn't accept part of the $1,000,000 of the Clay prize if it were awarded to him.

Please add the $13,400 to the In the news.--Patchouli 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First, details should be left in the article. Moreover, Grigori Perelman has apparently also quit his job and disappeared. It's not just about the money. --64.229.227.18 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, invited speakers at big conferences, like that one in Madrid, often get reimbursed for their travelling expenses. --64.229.227.18 12:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The announcement regarding the Fields Medal is ITN-worthy. Perelman's eccentricity is not. Patchouli, don't forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. -- 64.229.4.34 15:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that today's feature article Watchmen, has a link to a spoken version. The project pages for Spoken Wikipedia mention that Daily feature articles with spoken versions will cause the link to the spoken version to appear on the front page. Where is said link? CB Droege 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Should've asked for this at WP:ERRORS yesterday. --64.229.206.90 12:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't sure if it was an error with the FP, or one with the Spoken Wikipedia project page CB Droege 18:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That military fellow in the photo next to the notice of the William Wallace anniversary doesn't look much like Braveheart. I don't know who he's supposed to be, but the placement makes it look like a bleedin' anachronism. -- Christofurio 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Fixed. ~~ N (t/c) 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Christofurio, if you don't know who that's supposed to be, try looking for the words "(pictured)" in the text. Or move your cursor to the image to get the ALT text on screen. Or click on the image. Whether the picture is next to just the first anniversary, or first two anniversaries, or all five anniversaries depends on the size of one's screen and the chosen font size. -- 199.71.174.100 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that the first person in the list and the picture are both military leaders, some confusion is very likely at first glance. ~~ N (t/c) 11:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering the wardrobe of Antonescu in the picture ? It should be obvious he was not the guy in the 1305 event. -- 64.229.206.90 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Who put the underlines on the links? Is this some sort of a change? --Alexie 23:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a glitch that sometimes manifests. Please try bypassing your cache. —David Levy 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't work. Well, would you look at that. Opening it in a different window worked. I'm using Firefox with this, and I was using Internet Explorer when the underline glitch appeared. --Alexie 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the frequency of this problem, should it be included in the header or the FAQ? --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I hummed and harred over including that in the header. An early draft had it in but we are limited for space, so I had to leave out quite a few of the less often reported annoyances. --Monotonehell 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It happens to me infrequently but regularly, usually just for a couple of hours, and I'm using IE. It doesn't bother me so I haven't changed my preferences or anything, but I think it's still curious why it happens. BTW it's not happening to me now, I don't know if it's still happening to the previous poste. Usually my experiences of it are consistent with other users, even with other browsers. --Anchoress 00:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, this also occurs in reverse. (I have underlined links enabled, and my links' underlines sometimes disappear.) Bypassing the cache always works for me. —David Levy 00:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest making the database of wikipedia (3.7 GB) downloadable so that it can be downloaded and burned into CDs and then distributed to people who don't have a fast internet connection.Just imagine having the biggest encyclopedia in the world on your computer. By the way, I don't mean downloading just a small part of wikipedia, but I mean the whole encyclopedia.

meno25

Everything is downloadable at http://download.wikimedia.org in the form of an SQL dump, but that's not a usable format for most people. Raul654 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would help with photos and other multimedia, but the vast majority of Wikipedia is text. The advantage of having access to the latest version seems greater than having immediate access to an obsolete version. Regardless, someday a CD version will be available, probably as an offshoot of the Wikipedia 1.0 project -- a stable collection of core topics and important articles. Also, take a look at the SOS Children CD version of Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone want Wikipedia on their computer? Most of its articles are produced by non-specialists and tend to be poorly researched. In an ideal world, Wikipedia would be closed down immediately and global education saved from dumbing down even further. Save up some money and buy yourself a proper encyclopedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.62.51.220 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC).

User:193.62.51.220, Wikipedia will be less bad if there is less vandalism from your IP, e.g. [1], [2], [3] ... -- 64.229.206.90 13:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people don't have constant internet access. Mathiastck 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Compliments to whoever chooses them. Illmatic? Watchmen? Icons of a more intelligent, underground popular culture and great articles at that.

Rather compliment to whoever creates them; they are chosen for their quality, not their content.--(clovis) 12:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In the line "Perelman has apparently declined the award." the word "apparently" seems inaccurate, implying that whether he has declined the award is in dispute, a claim that the sources do not back. "Perelman has declined the award." would be more accurate.

I agree. It's now a statement of fact that he has declined it Ade1982 09:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. ~~ N (t/c) 11:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Should've used WP:ERRORS. Please see instructions at the top of this talkpage. --64.229.206.90 13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mercury is featured and called the smallest planet on the same day that poor Pluto is demoted. Poor, poor Pluto. --Nelson Ricardo 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And in on this day, it says Voyager 2 passed Neptune. the last planet in the solar system', sorta. Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the oncoming suicide of Pluto in the news.--(clovis) 00:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, poor, poor pluto. What about poor Mercury! The true smallest planet has been stripped of its title for 76 years by some poser "dwarf planet" trying to pass itself off as one of the cool guys. I think it's due time for Mercury to be credited for its achievement as the TRUE SMALLEST PLANET! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've read the "smallest planet in our solar system" bit, it does seem pretty damn mean. Who decides what articles go which days again? --Kinst 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair about that, this article was schedule about two weeks ago, long before this ever came up. It's placement is purely coincidence. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Poor Pluto though... --Kinst 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here lies, Pluto. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • Snakes on a Plane}} 01:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record - the mercury article was updated within hours of hte IAU's decision - this is somethign we should be slapping ourselves on the back for -- I wonder how long it'll take that other reference to update. Raul654 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110154 Not long it would appear. Rafy 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Weird, my print edition still shows Pluto as the 9th planet. And the U.S. only has 48 states. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 03:10

Nope - "[Mercury] is the second-smallest major planet (after Pluto), having a diameter of about 3,030 mi (4,880 km) and a mass about one-eighteenth of Earth's." [4] Clearly they are an unreliable source. Raul654 02:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See, this should be included in the Signpost or better placed as it is -1 for Britannica on that one. People need to know that we are faster and more reliable. Lincher 03:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371890 is still not updated two days after the IAU vote. Maybe someone should report this to EB:ERRORS. -- 199.71.174.100 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not updated. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 00:34Z

What is with the blatant pro-astronomy bias?! 3 of the 4 sections of the main page reference planets of the solar system. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 00:03

Agreed. From now on, no more articles about anything in the universe. --Nelson Ricardo 00:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We can still have articles about fictional stuff, since those are in our heads, not the universe. And free lunch can stay, since there's no such thing as an it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 00:06

Um, where is your head? --Nelson Ricardo 00:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In the pile of purposely-dumb jokes you didn't get. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 00:09

The answer is obvious - the Greys have taken control of the Foundation and are using the main page as a propaganda forum. Raul654 00:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Is today Wikipedia Astronomy Day, or what? The astronomers have taken over this place! :o) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd think they'd get Zeta Reticuli to featured status then... or maybe, they're trying to warn us about something!!! Perhaps Pluto, angry and depressed from its demotion today, is planning on flinging itself past Neptune (as Voyager 2 has done), and kill Mercury! HEAD FOR THE HILLS... oh wait, that's not going to help, is it? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping to see at least 4 Pokemon articles on the front page tomorrow, to redress the balance. Soo 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pokethulu, got to consume you all. Mathiastck 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reached 10,000 milestone. Add it to Main Page. --Haham hanuka 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Congratulations! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've alerted signpost. -- Zanimum 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone has managed to hijack http://en.wikipedia.org and http://www.wikipedia.org to a for-profit search site of some sort. I was able to get to this page by linking in from the netherlands one. I was unclear how to get this information to someone who can do something about it. 155.91.28.231 21:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it's working now. Maybe you mistyped it? Hyenaste ^(tell) 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely working now. Sandwich Eater 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There are various mispelled sites like http://www.wikpedia.org/ (without the second letter i) and http://www.wikipdia.org/ (without the e) out there. I don't know what this is called though, but there's an article about this on Wikipedia somewhere. --HappyCamper 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Typosquatting. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Recently, I raised the issue of the article count lag on the Main Page (this is now archived). Several helpful users replied to me, saying that a lag of up to 100 isn't a big issue. Now, however, the article count is not a LAG, but the exact opposite--the Main Page displays it as 7216 more than stated at Special:Statistics. Can somebody please fix this? 202.156.6.54 08:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be viewing an outdated version of Special:Statistics. Please try bypassing your cache. —David Levy 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's according to the header at the top of this page. Which could well be true but the probably bit seems a little heavy handed to me. --Melburnian 00:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If we take out the "probably" then it would be worse. ;) It's just a last chance catch all to try to help people find better help for questions that won't get answered here. Considering the high percentage of posts we still get here that "should be" elsewhere despite the big red glaring text at the top of the page and the notice you noticed. ;) (I count 17 out of 44 topics) --Monotonehell 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the problem, but I think something along the lines of "Attention: What you're about to post may not belong here" is nicer (and more accurate if 27 out of 44 are "on topic" ;) )--Melburnian 03:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What if it says "Attention: Please make sure what you're about to post belongs here by browsing the links provided", or something catchier than that, but you all get my drift. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, too. It is a bit on the rude side. --Nelson Ricardo 04:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. --Chris Griswold (☏) 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You know why? I just realised had the definitions of "probably" and "possibly" mixed up in my head for some weird reason, probably. ;) --Monotonehell 02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading the featured articles for some time now and find them very interesting, but I am somewhat surprised at the standard of editing of many of them. If an article has been deemed worthy of appearing on the main page of the Wikipedia, surely it is not too much to ask that whoever sets up that day's page checks the articles for basic things, like spelling, grammar and typos? It does the image of the Wikipedia no good at all to feature articles that contain such glaring errors. I proof them when I have time, but it's something we shouldn't have to do to a featured article that has made it to the front page, as it were. Please note, I am not commenting on the factual content of the articles, rather the quality of their presentation to a potentially huge audience. I know also that it may be seen as a sneaky way of getting everyone to proof read more articles, but proofing is better done before publication ;-) --Phil Wardle 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Featured Article process can be brutal and I don't think it usually lets through articles that are full of errors. There's a bit of a change, though, the moment it gets posted to the front page. The irony is that these articles can attract some of the least experienced Wikipedia editors -- and yet, almost every time, the article is improved at the end of its having been featured. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that articles are promoted to featured articles status several weeks to several months before they ever are posted on the main page. Therefore, typos and other errors can creep in over that time. The other problem is that anything that is linked on the main page is usually not be protected from editing, and so the featured article of the day does attract users who are not careful with double checking for errors. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't they fully protected like the images that are about to go on the main page? -- Froggydarb ^croak 00:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see User:Raul654/protection. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. -- Froggydarb ^croak 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up on Talk:Main Page/Archive 77#Main page footer.

Brian0918, if you are still trying to set up a ((Main Page discussion footer)) that sinks to the bottom, you may want to talk to Omicronpersei8 about his 'Bottomtalkbar'. Happy editing. Good luck. -- 64.229.176.139 07:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ! It works now ! :-) -- 64.229.224.60 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It displays garbage on the screen for those who do not use monobook. Please remove it.-gadfium 08:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

How unfortunate! It worked pretty well on my screen. --64.229.227.178 13:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What garbage? I switched to classic like you said, and didn't see anything weird. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 00:20Z

I apologise if I was curt earlier. I have tried this in five different browsers, on two different operating systems, all with the classic skin. I see the footer you intend "Report an Error ... On this day", but it is at the bottom of my browser window when I first enter "Talk:Main Page", not at the bottom of the page. It overwrites existing text at the bottom of the window, and when I scroll the window, it scrolls along with the text. I most commonly enter the page in diff mode, so the footer is obscuring text I wish to read. However, the effect is clearly visible in normal viewing mode.

Just for the record, I tried a sixth and seventh browser and they did not display the text at all in the classic skin. However, I am reluctant to change my primary browser to either Lynx (web browser) or Links (web browser) to overcome this problem.

If you still can't reproduce it, I'll post a screenshot.-gadfium 01:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of Wikipedia displays right for me, but when I go onto the main page, the skin changes and it says I'm logged in as Rtiru! --Gray Porpoise 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you using a public computer or a computer that someone else may have logged onto Wikipedia from? The computer may have cached the Main Page, in which case you should clear the cache (Ctrl-F5 on a PC). —Cuiviénen 21:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's my computer. --Gray Porpoise 21:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's displaying correctly now. --Gray Porpoise 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is your computer, are you sure no-one else has access to your computer? Carcharoth 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure. I'll just wait a few minutes if the problem comes up again. --Gray Porpoise 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is most likely because your ISP performs some sort of proxy cache, and the user you're seeing had his page in that cache before you did. You may find some help at Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users, who have the same sort of problem. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Incase it helps, I've had this happen at least three times with a different user showing up each time, and I'm not on AOL. Nobody on my IP address has an account. Whenever it happens, a purge of the cache normally clears it if a straight reload won't, and I don't think it allows you to edit the erroneous user's account settings or anything like that. It has only been happening within the past two months. --81.132.80.88 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed how small the foreign language versions of wikipedia are compared to the english version. I was wondering whether there are any automated translation programs that could create pages for the foreign language versions of wikipedia and translate the content from the english pages into them. Even if the translation was a mess, it would provide a lot to work with. Plus editing grammer is much simpler and quicker than generating new content (yep).

-anon

That's one perspective. At Wikipedia:Translation into English it's recommended that one should never use machine translation to create an article. That said, the languages for which the best machine translation is available (e.g. French, German) are Wikipedias that are fairly successful on their own and there's no need to discourage editors there by "helping" more than is needed. Many of those editors have a working knowledge of English anyway and certainly many use the English Wikipedia as a resource. Anyway, have a look at the Wikipedia:Embassy project. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Most translators will tell you fully automated machine translation takes more work to fix the errors in than just translating directly. What professional translators do use is machine aided translation and translation memories to help speed up the process. But as machine translation improves perhaps we will get to the point where just a bit of final editing will be needed to produce a good translation. We're not there yet. - Taxman ^Talk 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, it's a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V:&action=edit. --zenohockey 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Again ? (See above #Wikiversity ?.) Looks like a recurring minor problem. --64.229.227.178 13:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't if this happening to anyone else but when I am on the main page it doesn't show my user name and talk page. It shows Sujitnair01 instead and I even log out and go back to the main page and it still shows me logged in as Sujitnair01, who I am not.

But when I click around, everything goes back to being normal. Mr. C.C. 07:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's back to normal. Mr. C.C. 07:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see above #Bug. -- 64.229.227.178 12:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if it were possible or appropriate to put the results of the major stock indexes on the main page...?--Xlegiofalco 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That isn't really something you'd expect to find on an encyclopaedia. Our coverage of 'current events' extends purely to those articles created or updated as the result of recent happenings. Wikinews might be an appropriate host for that sort of thing if it's technically possible. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I know we had quarterly stock chart images, published as articles, at Wikinews a while back. Even if we just had a monthly article of where stock indexes were at, that would be warmly welcomed. However, until we get more articles for Wikinews, the front page itself is not set up for quick stats like that. I am planning to propose a more dynamically updated front page, like the portals, in the next week or two. -- Zanimum 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering the amount of traffic Wikipedia as a whole gets, the reference desk is a bit slow. Maybe it should get a little more attention? There are two types of help pages on Wikipedia - for editors and for users. The former will eventually find their way becuase they will come here more often. Users, however, are often first time visitors (all editors start that way). So they need a a clearer pointer what to do when they don't find an answer. Else they might be lost to us (for a while anyway). So maybe the following might be placed somewhere under 'Welcome to Wikipedia':

If you cannot find an answer to your question in Wikipedia, you might ask at the Reference Desk.

DirkvdM 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure really. Refdesk is something that exists solely because if it didn't we'd have chaos. I don't really think we should encourage this service to get any larger, as it often wastes the time of our editors, who could be contributing to the quality of the end product, and simply encourages people to not read our articles for their answer. Just my thoughts. -- Zanimum 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. A lot of the answers to those questions come out as "read this article". Also, it doesn't really take a huge amount of time from anyone. If you know the answer, it doesn't take long to answer a question. --liquidGhoul 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, a lot of people (like me) hang out just at the ref desk and use that as a starting point to browse Wikipedia, which may lead to copy-editing. Thus, one gets more of a variety of people working on articles, which seems like a good idea. DirkvdM 06:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And the ref desk can activate lazy visitors, like this one. He probably thinks "well, I could have done that myself" and maybe next time does. Without the ref desk, he might have left. That, however, requires the politeness of Nowimnthing, as opposed to Richardj, but that's a different issue. DirkvdM 06:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely certain if this is the best place to write this, so bare with me if it's wrong. But a lot of articles seem to have all their references listed twice in the references section. Ie.

1. Site one 2. Site two 3. Site one 4. Site two

Is this an error that only I'm getting? Will it be fixed soon? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I got the same error a short time ago. There is discussion about it here, amongst other places. Adding ?action=purge to the end of the article URL seems to fix the problem. Tntnnbltn 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, brilliant, thanks. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whare is the code of this page I like to look at it20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right click, "View page source". dposse 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are actually refering to a Wikipedia page that is protected from editing, the "edit this page" link is replaced by a "view source" link. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I created a favicon which I would like to submit as a possible replacement for the current Wikipedia favicon. I attempted to upload the file to Wikipedia and also Wikimedia Commons, but neither site would upload a .ico file. The icon can be seen here. Ic3b3rg 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it; it's more characteristic and symbolic than the W. However, I recommend that you post this somewhere at the village pump to get more attention.--cloviz 00:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah! That's the same icon used in the Firefox searchbar! Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The article of the Samba was created in 2004 ! I think that if the DYK rules are no longer followed, this is no fun anymore. Hektor 07:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It may have been created in 2004 but it is 6 times bigger than it was two days ago. Expanded stubs are specifically allowed by the DYK rules. --Cherry blossom tree 09:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was 1,200 characters on July 8, 2006 which is significantly larger than the 1,000 character rule to define a stub.Hektor 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On August 31, 12, Emperor Caligula of Rome was born

Please read the top of this page. What does it say to do if there is an important event not mentioned in the "On this day..." section? Definitely not post here. —Mets501 (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just noting that doesn't take much more time and effort to move a comment to the appropriate place (or explain that OTD doesn't do births) than to snipe at newcomers. Zocky | picture popups 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

it is a version in romanian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.78.208.10 (talk • contribs) 17:12, August 31, 2006

Yes, there is a Romanian Wikipedia. (From m:List of Wikipedias) -- Vary | Talk 17:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the above question arised due to -a previous discussion- ("I noticed how small the foreign language versions of wikipedia are compared to the english version."):

Nearly 1.5 million articles compared to "more than 50,000" ... WOW! Straight facts are:

de.WP: 457,575
es.WP: 147,956
eo.WP:  56,925 (O.K., here it's true.)
fr.WP: 353,234
it.WP: 191,264
nl.WP: 223,659
[...]

Since the German WP is going to have 500,000 in the next few months it would be useful to reselect that numbers. "More than 100,000 articles" or even "more than 250,000 articles" come into my mind. Think about it. --32X 11:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It does give the impression of all other languages as rather puny compared to English, which is not quite the case. A cut-off line of 250,000 would return only four other languages, but 100,000 would give ten, as opposed to today's fifteen. Eixo 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See a discussion at Talk:Main Page/Archive 77#Languages section that links to previous discussion, which I'm sure links in turn to more previous discussion. The current version is actually a streamlined version of one that had both 100K and 1K bars. And just to be pendantic, all of those numbers are "more than 50,000" and some users see ((wikipedialang)) as a quick navigational aid for speakers of those other languages, who might be better served looking at other major language editions, rather than an awards podium for the benefit of English language Wikipedia. There must be a novella of relevant discussion in the archives of this page and Template talk:Wikipedialang. - BT 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 500,000 are "more than 50,000", but ... hmm, how should I say what I really mean? Maybe that'll do it: "Haha, these suckers only have only about a handful of articles while we have millions of it." We're keeping the WP up to date, extend it and try to remove POVs when we see them but then there's such a distorting (but true) mention on the main page. It's just wrong. --32X 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

O.K., I've rewritten my request at Template_talk:Wikipedialang. Please update the link there as soon as this section gets moved to the archive. Thanks in advance. --32X 15:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've always wondered, why are templates used on the main page (such as ((Main Page banner)), ((Wikipedia:Today's featured article/((CURRENTMONTHNAME)), ((Did you know)), etc.)? Is it easier on the server or something? Isn't it easier to just have the words on the main page?--Richard 01:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'Featured article' and 'on this day' are automagically updated at 00:00 UTC when the tamplates are used (the month/day is in the template name). The other sections are in templates as it makes it easier to edit without making accidental edits to the main page code as the main page does have a lot of html markup. The server does caching so there is no difference if templates are used or not. --Clawed 01:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this has probably already been brought up and I will be chewed out mercilessly, but wouldn't the main page look better if the "Did You Know" bar was aligned with the "On This Day" bar? I mean, it just looks kind of awkward to me the way it is now, given that the "Today's Featured Article" and "In The News" bars are aligned. Furthermore, I don't think it would really use up much extra space - the OTD bar is currently higher than the DYK bar, yet the lengths of the actual sections usually seem to be about equal, meaning there is a space at the end of the OTD section. I know I'm probably completely out of my mind (especially as I've only been using Wikipedia for about a week), but it just doesn't seem right to me - I get a twitch just looking at it. Am I completely mental, or has this been discussed already? Sorry for wasting so much space. –Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.86.217 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC).

Indeed, this has been discussed. (But that's okay; your post is on-topic, so you're already ahead of the game!)

There's no way to align the title headings in question without creating a large gap within one of the columns much of the time. This doesn't appear to be true at the moment, but it isn't unusual for one column to contain a short section at the top and long section at the bottom, while the other column features the reverse. Under the current layout, this results in overall balance (two columns of the same length with little or no empty space). And of course, we can adjust the sections' length (especially that of In the news, which can easily have entries added or removed) to accommodate day-to-day fluctuations. —David Levy 03:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey all, for two days in a row the featured pic has been 'moving'. As in, its more than a picture, but a film. Placing them on the main page uses up a lot of bandwidth for some of us (curse you Telescum). And are they really 'pictures'? so can they really be the featured picture of the day? Hmmmm. --210.86.80.89 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Today's picture is 2.6M, which is entirely too much for the mainpage. Maybe there should be a small static version for the mainpage, and a link to the animated version? Zocky | picture popups 05:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They are considered pictures, they are animated gif files. Yesterday's wasn't so large, but I agree with Zocky that today's is too big. My advice to you is to get a better ISP. -gadfium 05:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, someday we'll all get better ISPs. But the fact remains that a huge number of us are still on dialup, for various reasons, and this isn't really the place to discuss that. When dialup is extinct, then maybe it will be OK to have a 2.6Mb gif on the main page. Rbean 05:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm compelled to agree. Especially overseas large images will load very slowly, and there is no directive to tell all browsers to "load this image last". A scaled-down or static version would be harmless enough. Deco 07:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

An even more important concern is bandwidth. Wikipedia gets a lot of traffic, and 5% of it goes to the mainpage. We should be careful to keep it to a reasonable length. This picture needs to go off the mainpage ASAP. Can somebody upload a static version, or a much smaller animated thumbnail? Zocky | picture popups 08:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 08:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use the word click here. Explanation. --- FourBlades 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read the arguments against using that phrase (some of which obviously don't apply), but I was unable to think of a more intuitive link. Do you think that "View the animation" would be an improvement? (It doesn't seem like one to me.) —David Levy 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

According to W3C webpage about this recommendation, I think yes, it should be "View the animation", where only the word 'animation' should be made as link, the way the website use the word "Get Amaya!" there, where only the word 'Amaya' is used as a link. By the way I'm not a web design expert anyway. There may be better ways I think. I raise this issue so that Wikipedia is not viewed as 'device dependent', only expecting computer users with mouse use this site. --- FourBlades 09:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

From 1996–1999, I accessed the Internet primarily via a television appliance. I couldn't literally "click" on links back then, but I always understood what that term meant (and never took it literally). To me, this is similar to how people "dial" pushbutton telephones.

Nonetheless, I've implemented your suggestion. —David Levy 09:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did the Edvard Munch stolen paintings thing make the "in the news" section"? I mean, $800+ Million megastar Mel Gibson's DUI/tirade never got a mention.--Greasysteve13 09:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple: the "in the news" section is for articles updated substantially with new content, not necessarily about news items that are being covered in the entertainment media. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-03 17:36Z

the paintings have cultural value. Mel Gibson does not. the paintings look nice. Mel Gibson does not. the paintings are of actual importance. Mel Gibson is not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.80.89 (talk • contribs)

Are there any real responses?--Greasysteve13 12:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this thing so much more interesting than anything to do with Mel Gibson. In fact, I didn't know the paintings were stolen, and it was never on Australian news that they were found. I am very glad Wikipedia filled me in. We aren't a tabloid, and we shouldn't be publishing something about a celebrity every time they do something wrong. Could you see what would happen? --liquidGhoul 12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You must be watching the wrong news. Try ABC & SBS ;) --Monotonehell 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I only watch ABC and SBS news, I must have missed it. I must admit, I haven't watched the news much this week. --liquidGhoul 13:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Much resepct, you'd understand about non-biased NPOV then ;) --Monotonehell 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson's antics aren't exactly encyclopedic. While the theft and return of an artwork that permiates all facets of culture is. Sounds a bit subjective I know, but there's a clear difference between someone being a prat and an international treasure being returned. I didn't reply at first because I thought you were joking. --Monotonehell 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Mel Gibson press coverage in non-tabloid press was about the Mel Gibson press coverage, not about the event itself. We could have gone with "English-speaking tabloid press works itself into a frenzy over movie star's behaviour", but that's about as newsworthy as "dog bites man". Zocky | picture popups 13:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought it was ironic that Mel Gibson is both richer and more well known. Who does he have to kill to get to the "in the news" section? I also think it's ironic that he'd get in if he stole a painting.--Greasysteve13 23:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Paintings are stolen all the time. Yes, the Scream is easily in the top ten or twenty reginized paintings, but it ain't exactly the Mona Lisa.--Greasysteve13 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A Jew or some famous Hollywood star would do the trick nicely. --maru (talk) contribs 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

uh... huh. --Greasysteve13 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The honest answer

Wikipedians are an elitist cadre. Calling a community build on the openness of participation elitist may seem absurd but think: what kind of people are nerdy enough to hang out at an encyclopedia all day? Highly intellectual cultural nerds. We are among the few who have a general interest in knowledge and keep up with the news that matters. The vanity of our personalities dictate we embrace high cultural knowledge and abhor tabloid swill. The Mel Gibson story was primarily reported by the entertainment news media. So we ignore it and scoff at the idea of contaminating our main page.

There are exceptions. If a pop culture event is overwhelmingly widespread then it may appear on the main page. The verdict of the MJ trial was reported.

lots of issues | leave me a message 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't explain the Steve Irwin thing.--Greasysteve13 08:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin was an extremely well known environmentalist, and there are many Wikipedians who appreciate his contribution to conservation awareness. Mel Gibson is a git, and shouldn't be put in the same boat as Irwin. --liquidGhoul 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But wasn’t Mel Gibson just as beloved until the incident which he may have killed his career. Furthermore, he is considerably rich. And besides, what does being “beloved” have to do with getting into the news? Al Zarqawi, anyone?--Greasysteve13 08:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of your additional questions? You got your answer. Mel Gibson is for the tabloids, and Wikipedia is elitist. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I was addressing liquidGhoul’s specious reasoning.--Greasysteve13 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Italian mainpage [5]. Why cant our main page be as nice looking, ours looks kinda boring as it is? --Xlegiofalco 13:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We've had that discussion before. Put simply, the Italian page may be seen as nice by some but others (like me) think it's disgusting. violet/riga (t) 14:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you go --Monotonehell 15:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is of course a simple solution. If you prefer the Italian layout, simply set this page as your homepage/portal into the website, in place of the current one (or create your own in userspace.) That way, everyone's happy! GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that page is outdated. They updated their layout recently, and we have yet to update ours. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-03 17:33Z

Their mainpage looks like that because they're Italian.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 21:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with violetriga. I think our main page is nice, and - no offence - but I think the Italian one is hideous. Worse than the my.yahoo homepage, and that's saying something. Anchoress 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think ours is definitely better. Some of the overlap in the Italian page is weird.UberCryxic 02:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Italian Mainpage looks disgusting IMO, but that's not the point. The point is that this is an encyclopedia. Looks are not important as long as it's dignified. What matters is function, content, and ease of use. Maadio 15:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Use ((editprotected)) on this page to propose an edit. ????

Why put ((permprot)) on this talk page ? This is wrong. To propose minor edits to correct minor errors anywhere on Main Page, go to WP:ERRORS. To propose an edit to ITN, go to WP:ITN/Candidates. To propose an item for DYK, go to T:DYKT#Suggestions. .... I'm removing ((permprot)). -- 199.71.174.100 05:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Should Steve Irwin's unfortunate death be mentioned on the front page events?--Exander 05:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:ITN/Candidates. It's there already. For more tips, scroll to the top of this talkpage. -- 199.71.174.100 05:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Should Steve Irwin really be on the front page? I mean his death is unfortunate but his death isn't exactly up there the president of Mexico and the Ugandan Civil War ending. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.67.43 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

Most people probably care a lot more about Steve Irwin than either of those things. I mean, come on, the guy was a world icon.PiccoloNamek 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You honestly think more people care about an environmentalist than a 20 year civil war which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and displaced millions?! Get your priorities straight. Directed at PiccolloNamek. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.67.43 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

You'd be surprised. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS}} 07:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"You honestly think more people care about an environmentalist than a 20 year civil war which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and displaced millions?!"

Yes, I do. I'm not saying that it's right, I'm just saying that it's the truth.PiccoloNamek 07:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, i see you point in that case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.67.43 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

You mean, more people where you live care more about Steve than a 20 year civil war. I'm sure that a substantial majority of the world's population has never heard of Steve Irwin. Zocky | picture popups 07:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably the same number of people who can't locate Uganda in an unlabelled world map. --64.229.223.88 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin was a world-renowned environmentalist, wildlife documentarian and television star. He was more famous than his own country's prime minister (and arguably the most famous and popular Australian on the planet). His death is unquestionably of international importance, and his article has been updated appropriately. —David Levy 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I too agree that Irwin should be on there. He's famous in many parts of the world and the story has been run very high up in a lot of the press today. I personally first found out by seeing it on there as Wikipedia's the first site after my email I vist in the morning. Honestly, keep it there (just for today perhaps). Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 08:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

He had a fan base of something like 500 million people, and I remember hearing once that he was the most famous celebrety. He has done a lot of good things for Australia, and the world, so I think he deserves a place on the main page. --liquidGhoul 08:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, George Best's death was taken off the mainpage as a result of it not being of political or some other kind of relevance, so as much as I like a reminder of important deaths in case I miss them, using that example suggests Irwin's death shouldn't be used. -Nichlemn 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

George Best (who I have never heard of by the way) died from illness, and was expected to die for over two months. ITN does not reserve space for expected or natural deaths. It was totally unexpected for Irwin to die. --liquidGhoul 09:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unexpected? IMO it was way overdue. He'd been living on borrowed time for a lot longer than George Best. Anchoress 10:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Grow up. --liquidGhoul 10:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The guy made a living by antagonizing dangerous animals. If you couldn't foresee his death three years ago, you're the one who needs to grow up. --Descendall 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you two (Descendall, LiquidGhoul) grow up for making fun of a dead person in a terribly condescending manner. Especially when it's posted in a discussion about the notability of his death in relation to his appearance on the main page; you're needlessly provoking people this way. Stop being so childish. Nobody could have expected this to happen, no matter how obvious you try to make this seem. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about. Where have I made fun of Irwin's death? I am incredibly saddened by his death, and am sick of people joking about it. That is why I told him to grow up. Read what I say before making such accusations. --liquidGhoul 09:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, because I fully expected him to get killed by an animal. The entire draw of his show was watching him almost get eaten by various predators. Remember that Tredwell guy who used to screw around with bears? You know, the guy who everyone knew was going to get eaten by a bear? Guess what, he got eaten by a bear. You know the guy who used to bother animals in Aulstralia? He got killed by an animal there. Here's another stunning prediction that will blow your mind: at next year's running of the bulls, in which people antagonize bulls and runn in front of them, someone will get injured by a bull. Steve Irwin's death was fully predictable, and in fact was probably the most predicted death in the world other than the Pope's. --Descendall 01:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

One meassure of notability is to count Interwikilinks in a bio. The Steve Irwin article only exists in 7 other languages. John Howard, in comparaison, has articles in 19 other languages. Not sure if that means Howard is more famous, though. Going blatantly off topic here, but any Australian with more interwikilinks than Howard? Shanes 09:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Numerous editors of various languages' Wikipedias literally run down checklists to ensure that heads of state receive articles (regardless of whether they've heard of them). This isn't true of environmentalists or television hosts. —David Levy 09:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But looking at a few other heads of state, I'm not really sure so many languages are using checklists like that. Shanes 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Australia, being a very large country in which English (widely spoken as a non-native language) predominates, would logically be near the top of such a list. Australia also contains more Wikipedia editors than many nations. Those who speak languages other than English are likely to contribute articles about their prime minister to the appropriate Wikipedias. —David Levy 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Either way, Kylie Minogue and Nicole Kidman beats them both hands down, checklists or not ;-) Shanes 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we've encountered the Internet / attractive female celebrity factor.  ;-)

Of course, both Minogue and Kidman are very famous. If either were to die in a tragic accident, this most likely would make In the news. —David Levy 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. And, of course, I totaly agree that Irwin should be on ITN now. I'm quite sure his tragic death has been in the news all over the world today. It certainly has in Norway where I live. I just couldn't help thinking about famous Australians when you said that about Irwin being arguably the most famous Australian on the planet, and tried to find a way to rank them. But it's a rather tasteless and silly thing to do, and I regret it already. Shanes 10:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How come we are arguing over the unexpected death of Steve Irwin appearing in the In The News section, and yet the retirement of a tennis player who has reached and passed his retirement age gets on with no fuss at all. I never thought that the retirement of sportspeople deserved inclusion and surely it is not an uncommon occurence. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 10:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even notice he was there, that's a really good point. --liquidGhoul 11:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"One meassure of notability is to count Interwikilinks in a bio. The Steve Irwin article only exists in 7 other languages." (-- Shanes) - really? I count 29! —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some counterweight to some above remarks:

1. I had never heard of Steve Irwin until today.
2. I hadn't heard he died.
3. He is not in the news here - I checked. Not a major headline, not a small article, nothing.

Agassi I have heard of :-) Piet 11:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Le Monde (Fr) has nothing on its front page either, but NRC Handelsblad (Nl) and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Ge) do (quite prominently even). Piet 12:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's breaking in your part of the world now [6]Melburnian 12:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we're just a bit slower :-) Still, I'm sure many people here would have stared at you blankly if you had asked them yesterday who Steve Irwin was. Of course now that I've read the story I understand why it's all over the news. Piet 12:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's right. he's well known in teh English speaking world. This IS an English language part of Wikipedia after all right? (82.44.79.30 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

It was prominently on the news here in the Netherlands. I've seen it prominently on the news on the Belgian and German channels as well. They showed a full repeat of his interview with Larry King on CNN and did even more coverage on his death. It's a pretty important subject, it seems. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's right, it received a lot of attention although with a short delay – probably when journalists noticed the attention it received abbroad. And I think many people do know him here, but not by his name, more as "that Crocodile dude". I'm sure they'll know him now... Piet 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note the blatant Aussie bias today on the Main Page: Steve Irwin, emu, and bathroom singing (obviously practiced by Kylie and AC/DC). ;-) --3M163//Complete Geek 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It would have been something else if stingray was the FA. --Descendall 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bah. Prime example of people thinking Wikipedia must be just like Britannica. And people sticking their noses so high to pretend they never heard of the man (who at least in the US, is impossible to escape if you have cable)? You just look silly in that pose. --Dhartung | Talk 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of him, and I am not prone to nose-sticking. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that perhaps you watch an unhealthily small quantity of television? Probably your state medical service can help provide you with some additional television watching equipment. Anyway, go and Arbitrate. You can do that while you watch TV if you like; I'll let you. -Splash - tk 22:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to concede this point. I'll go and examine my nearest state medical facility to rectify this problem. Why don't you tell Raul654 to Arbitrate? Eh? Discrimination! Discrimination against users with S's in their usernames! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I do want to point out that having heard of someone is not a criterion for being on "In the news" — there are many events and people that many people will not have heard of prior to the event occurring, but are still clearly notable, and vice versa: there will be many "popular" people or events that many people have heard of that clearly don't merit mention. In this case, I don't think Irwin deserves to be mentioned. Was he popular? Sure. But does his death have a significant impact on the global scene? No. Also, I would disagree with those who argue that Irwin was considered a key figure in their field of expertise, a criterion for being on "In the news"; Irwin was more of a celebrity, in my view, rather than a "key figure". He may have been an expert, but his contributions were more from the celebrity standpoint more than from the scientific viewpoint. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another way to look at it: his contributions to the awareness for wildlife in Australia (and all over the world) was of massive importance. Perhaps the greatest of all people in the world. His words on the importance of preserving natural habitat were brought to many more people. His reach was larger than any scientist's. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say he belongs because his article has been substantially updated because of current events which, I thought, was the point of ITN? To show off our substantially updated articles that give background to the news stories. So you may not have heard of Irwin before, but seen his death in the paper and wondered what all the fuss was about. You click on Wikipedia and our up-to-date article fills you in. Or is this no longer the point of ITN, to show off our up-to-date content? Skittle 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the lead story on the NBC Nightly News right now. They had a full story, and now they're interviewing Jack Hanna live. I think we can keep in on the main page. --Maxamegalon2000 22:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. dposse 03:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple question... does it do any harm having it on the main page? Why fuss about it? If people think it's notable and you can't think of a good reason not to put it on the Main page, what's the big problem? I seriously don't understand making an argument like that. I'm sure steve will be out of the news in no more than a week anyway. Let it pass. Meanwhile, use your time for something useful. Maadio 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

by the way.... what is happening to the world steve irwin died, king of tonga died, peter brook died, andre agassi retired and so did michael schumacher. and i agree with person above let him be on the main page, he was a good person and didnt antagonize animals, he helped save numerous animals from extinction....and made a little reserve park owned by his parents into the biggest zoo in australia......and he died doing what he loved.give him some credit.....

Yahoo Canada is linking to Wikipedia from their main page. Concerning sting rays, related to Steve Irwin. Marcus1060 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That might explain all the vandals over there recently. No wait, Canadians? Oh it can't be them. ;) --Monotonehell 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally! We're nice, eh! On the other hand, it's still yahoo... --Quiddity 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put up a straightened, smaller-filesize (470kb vs. 750kb) JPEG version in the Belton House article, and it might be good to reflect that on the main page. New image is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Belton_House_2006.Giano.jpg . TotoBaggins 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The gif->jpg converted image is very blurry. It's noticably lower in quality - noticably less crisp. Raul654 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. It's peculiar that this image was uploaded as a 64-color GIF in the first place, but any lossy compression will further degrade its quality.

I performed a lossless conversion to PNG. This resulted in a file 25% smaller than the GIF, but the thumbnails were much larger (because MediaWiki automatically used 24-bit color). Their visual quality was superior, but probably not enough to justify files more than twice the size. —David Levy 02:31/02:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this has been mentioned before, but according to the new up and running [page counter], [[Image:Steve Irwin cropped.jpg]] is the #77 most viewed page on Wikipedia today. I see no reason for this other than the fact that new users at Wikipedia are clicking on the images, hoping they will take them to the related article. Perhaps we should consider using ((click)) on the pictures on the main page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the reason we don't is to do with Safari/text-based browser users more than anything else; but that might just be a pack of lies. Anyway, sounds like a good idea to me. Batmanand | Talk 14:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Breaking the standard user interface is rarely a good idea. Most everybody knowns that clicking on a picture brings you to the image page -- and the ones that don't quickly figure it out. In the long run, making exceptions to this will do nothing but confuse people. Raul654 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Raul generally knows what he is talking about, so I suppose we say "fair enough" and fold our metaphorical tents. Batmanand | Talk 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't put all the 50.000+ and 25.000+ interwiki links at the left side.It's empty anywhay, and replenish the botom space with the remaning or part of the remaning interwiki links.--Pixel ;-) 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this image? Tntnnbltn 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes exacly.Why was it removed in the first place?Now ther's empty space at the left.We could fill it, at most to the leghth of the page.--Pixel ;-) 21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think the interwiki links allong the side are better. Empty space serves no purpose I am aware of, but maybe it is some browser compatability thing. Also, non English readers will find them much more easily there, which seems like a tremendous benefit IMHO. juicifer 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You could replace 50.000 by 100.000 for a limit, because most of the articles in the over 50.000 list are very much larger than that, for instance: German almost hits 500.000. Floris V 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are articles about Eurovision coming up so regularly in the Did You Know? section? I know it's not as a bad as having one almost every day as it was a month or so ago, but still, there are much better things to put there. User:Eraysor 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• DYK requires people to write articles, find interesting facts from them, and then submit them for acceptance. Someone who likes Eurovision is helping out. If you want to do your part, feel free. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-06 19:40Z
  • The issue is that right now every nomination at DYK conforming to the guidelines is accepted and displayed on the main page, with no discretion on the part of the admins. This means that every single eligible Eurovision article gets featured on the main page eventually. So adding more articles on other subjects is not a useful way to reduce the number of the DYKs on a single repetitive subject appearing on the front page. What is needed is less frequent updating of DYK, which will allow admins to exercise more discretion in choosing from among the submissions. Andrew Levine 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, if people put in enough options for the admins, then we wouldn't need to keep all of them, we would chuck the ones which aren't so interesting. This sounds like that kerfuffle over Cynna Kydd being the front FA, with people complaining it was boring! Well, please help create more quality articles and challenge the other articles to be left off! Article writing is always needed. OK, I also encouraged Bravada and BigHaz to get involved, so please create a petition on my talk page and sign. Or go to WT:DYK and try to change the policy. There are also lots of eastern European stuff on DYK because of the hard work of guys like Ghirlandajo, Piotrus and Halibutt, etc. Hats off to them for all their hard work. They are the real superstars of Wikipedia. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course nobody is contesting that creating articles for Wikipedia is a good thing. Please do not confuse creating new articles with nominating them as DYKs. The former is very beneficial to Wikipedia, but what does it gain for the main-page DYKs to be so repetitive in character? Andrew Levine 03:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The only requirement for admins is that a given set of items that appear on the main page at the same time are as diverse as possible (ie, there shouldn't be 4 items related to the US in the DYK section at the same time). There is no requirement that the same or similar subjects should not be repeatedly covered over an extended time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 02:32Z
      • I know well that that's the only requirement regarding diversity. My point is that similar subjects are being repeatedly covered over an extended period of time, and as the near-weekly complaints on the main page (see archives) are showing, users don't particularly like this. Andrew Levine 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Whats getting dull is the constant whining. Read some new artciels and make some suggestions. --Peta 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There are two things you can do. Go create some articles (a majority of plant and animal articles have yet to be created), I just added a frog article now. The other is go searching for some interesting new articles, and add them to the suggestions. You get a lot more appreciation for doing something, than complaining about it. --liquidGhoul 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point a bit. I have in fact created many articles and nominated several for DYK and they were accepted. The problem is that nominating new DYKs does not change anything with regard to this matter. If every submitted DYK is accepted and displayed without prejudice, what effect would this course of action have on stemming repetition on the main page? Don't get me wrong, it's good that BigHaz and Blnguyen have been creating new articles, but what does it accomplish to see articles on the same subject repeatedly displayed on the main page? Isn't the fact that they were created already beneficial enough? This is not idle complaining; I am trying to help people understand that the situation must change. Andrew Levine 03:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Is the situation really as bad as you make it seem? Only 8 of the last 200 entries mention "Eurovision". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 20:46Z

• In other words, since there are about 6 DYKs in each update, about 50% of the time (one in two updates) there is an article in this narrow subject linked from the front page. That, to me, is a big deal, especially given the visibility of the front page. Andrew Levine 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I looked in my DYK collection and see 8 Eurovision DYKs, 19 for BigHaz and 3 for Bravada. Since 3 were shared, there are 27 distinct DYKs, and the fist came on July 22, and the next on July 31. So even for the last 26, it was a 39 day span, so 2 every 3 days. There are about 2.5 updates per day, so 15 DYKs per day, so 2 DYKs every 7.5 days, so actually one DYK every 3.75 updates. So not too much....Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• If there are enough articles then not all will get a go. So force the play by getting more noms if you want to expunge the Eurovision entries. Or go to all the WikiProjects and encourage them to nominate themselves. Even for perfect efficiency we can only get 24 per day, but at the best of times there is only 2.5-3 updates per day so then if you get more than 15 everyday then we boot some. You only have to find another 5 suggestions per day...Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• You still haven't explained what benefit there is to displaying repetitive DYKs. That the articles were created is the only benefit. On the other hand, for putting too much on a single subject in DYK, there are downsides, but no positives. Andrew Levine 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are negatives, but it hasn't reached the point of being excessive that there is an imbalance. If you feel that it is already too imbalnaced, you can try to propose reform at WT:RFA.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand what the process of promoting administrators has to do with this. Andrew Levine 05:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, WT:DYK.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)