Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Reverting possible vandalism by 213.22.62.188 to version by Moar Cats. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (484889) (Bot) |
← Blanked the page |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--- Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. This "section edit button" is important, so please use it. --> |
|||
[[Category:Main Page]] |
|||
{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 127 |
|||
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|algo = old(3d) |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|||
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}} |
|||
<div style="right:10px;" class="metadata topicon">'''{{Currentdate}}'''</div> |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors}} |
|||
=General discussion= |
|||
{{Shortcut|T:MP}} |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
<!-- --------------- |
|||
Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so have the courtesy to use it. |
|||
------------------ --> |
|||
== September 11 == |
|||
The featured article (with photograph) is going to be [[United Airlines Flight 93]] [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/September_2008] and the featured photograph is going to be [[:Image:WTC-Fireman requests 10 more colleages.jpg]] [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/September_2008]]. Don't you think this is too much emphasis being placed on the (admittedly tragic) event? Wikipedia is supposed to maintain balance; there's an awful lot going on out there that isn't 9-11 related. Having both these on the front page isn't going to help charges of US-centrism that are often levelled at Wikipedia. And yes, I know it was a massive event with world-wide repercussions, but I just think having both the featured slots on this one event is too much. [[Special:Contributions/81.156.124.178|81.156.124.178]] ([[User talk:81.156.124.178|talk]]) 08:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Here's one way to look at it: both the article and the image are so high-quality that they've achieved featured status, and if they're going to be recognized on the main page (as featured articles and featured images should be), what more appropriate time than on September 11th? This ''is'' a lot of emphasis on one event, but the repercussions and implications of that event were global in scope. [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 12:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Why not save one of them for next year? --[[Special:Contributions/76.64.76.141|76.64.76.141]] ([[User talk:76.64.76.141|talk]]) 15:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: That is a good point, but 168...'s is better. [[User:WBOSITG|<font color=#000000>'''weburiedoursecretsinthegarden'''</font>]] 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think it is better at all. Why not save one for next year? There's no rush. This is the seventh anniversary - think what massive coverage there's going to be on the tenth: will ''all'' the photos and articles on the page on that day be related to 9-11?. And it kind of ironic having the brush-off to the German Wikipedia above because 800,000 articles isn't a particularly special figure, yet ''every'' year 9-11 is featured prominently, and this year, the seventh anniversary, is not a special one as anniversary-keeping goes. As Wikipedia has the systemic bias built in of having a majority of American editors, who have American interests and worldviews, I don't think this is ever going to change. But I think it is ''not right'' to have such overwhelming emphasis on this one event. [[Special:Contributions/81.157.194.19|81.157.194.19]] ([[User talk:81.157.194.19|talk]]) 07:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::To say that 9/11 is an American event is like saying the 2008 Olympics is a Chinese event. –'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Howard</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">the</font>]] [[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">Duck</font>]]''' 11:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Are we going to be commemorating the 2008 olympics on the main page in 7 years time? Thought not. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:If someone manages the same with the [[11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings]] we may well do much the same on march 11th.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 12:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's true that the 7th anniversary is relatively unimportant, and that the 10th anniversary is likely to be huge. On the other hand, how long is the usual waiting period for featured articles and images to appear on the Main Page? Do they usually have to wait a year or more after achieving featured status before appearing? If the answer is no, then why single out a certain topic just because it tends to get a lot of annual coverage? [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 15:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::And yet it's not in On This Day...bizarre. [[Special:Contributions/199.89.180.65|199.89.180.65]] ([[User talk:199.89.180.65|talk]]) 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The last paragraph of [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Preset options]] states "to maintain some variety of topics on the Main Page as a whole, an event should be hidden if it also is the featured article or the featured picture for that particular day". [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] [[User talk:Zzyzx11|(Talk)]] 02:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I like how a massacre by Muslims was replaced with one by Mormons [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The time period is highly variable. Some articles wait only a few weeks, some a few years. There's definitely nothing unusual about the TFA being related to an event that happened on that day, nor was it extremely accelerated time for it to get on the main page. However there is something unusual about having the TFA + 2 TFPs concerning the same event on the same day [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I too think that there is a little overemphasis on the terrorist attacks, as they does not represent a world view of 11th September - considering billions of people on the Earth with thousands of years of human history. Yes, have a prominent article or image, but there's no need to have a 'WTC Special' of Wikipedia for today! [[User:MathiasFox|MathiasFox]] ([[User talk:MathiasFox|talk]]) 15:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Image:110908WP.png|thumb|right|300px|Main Page on 11 Sep 08.]] |
|||
:i for one think wikipedia puts too much attention on US articles/news but its September 11 and you know what, it wouldnt really hurt to remember what happened by featuring the articles related. Its not like the article doesnt deserve to be featured by wiki standards. so i agree with 168... there is no better time. [[Special:Contributions/99.237.118.115|99.237.118.115]] ([[User talk:99.237.118.115|talk]]) 03:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Too much attention? How often do U.S. news articles appear in "In the News"? I can think of only four in the last six months or so: McCain winning Republican nom, Obama winning Democratic nom, Palin being selected as McCain's running mate, and Gustav making contact with New Orleans almost exactly 3 years after Katrina. That's rare to get that many in this time span. Most of the time, U.S. news doesn't get featured. As for U.S. articles getting featured A: Does it matter if they're FA's? B: We have a pretty good mix of "U.S." and "non-U.S." articles featured and C: If you feel like a "non-U.S. article" (which btw what would constitute a "U.S." article and a "non-U.S." article?) should be featured, then pick an article and get it up to FA status. [[User:Anakinjmt|Anakinjmt]] ([[User talk:Anakinjmt|talk]]) 12:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::There are two US news items in ITN right now. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 12:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't really count the U.S. Open bit though, because that's just a global sporting event that just happens to be taking place in the U.S. I get the U.S. Open is only held in the U.S., but there are players from all over the world that come, and it's a prestigious thing to win on the planet. It's like when Atlanta held the Olympics in '96: in the U.S., but global prestige from winning there. And I didn't see the federal takeover bit, so that's 5. Still rare to have that happen. [[User:Anakinjmt|Anakinjmt]] ([[User talk:Anakinjmt|talk]]) 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::So due to recent events, this is an unusual amount? Let's bookmark this talk.[[User:Lympathy|<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#fef;background:red;">Lympathy </font></span></small>]] [[User talk:Lympathy|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 15:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The odds of seeing one U.S. news item on the Main Page, at least as often as I check (which is about once every other day) is rare, so yes, I'd say this is an unusual amount. If you want to bookmark this talk (whatever that means), go ahead. [[User:Anakinjmt|Anakinjmt]] ([[User talk:Anakinjmt|talk]]) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Actually there were 3. the hurricane article very recently got changed from pointing out the fact that its coming towards US to deaths in haiti. then right before there were 2 of obama's VP and mccains VP. then phelps article. there were more that i cant remember. but this is all within the last month. <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.82.15.17|209.82.15.17]] ([[User talk:209.82.15.17|talk]]) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Yes, [[:Image:Wikipedia Main Page April Fools' Day 2007.png|like Wikipedia's Front Page hasn't been event specific]] before. [[Talk:Christmas_kettle|Never in the history of Wikipedia]]. Never. --[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] ([[User talk:293.xx.xxx.xx|talk]]) 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually I'm not aware of anything like this before... We definitely have had TFAs and TFPs on days related to them before. We've also done some silly stuff on April fools but with a variety of articles intended to be humourous rather then articles specific to April Fools day. But I'm not aware of us previously having a TFA & 2 TFPs about one event on the same day (albeit an anniversary). This doesn't mean it's wrong, it is however the first time we've done it AFAIK [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Now we have half the page just on 9/11... ;) - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::So, one particular day 7 years ago featured the largest terrorist attack on (correct me if I'm wrong) English-speaking soil in history, dealt a massive blow to the economy of one of the most powerful nations on Earth (which, thanks to the global economy, had a ripple effect all around the planet), provided incentive for two wars, and had far-reaching political consequences within the United States ''and'' the United Nations... and when the seventh anniversary of that day is prominently featured on the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, this causes outrage among readers just because the original event didn't happen in ''their'' country? [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Nothing to do with where it occurred. Do we really want one event dominating the page, as it does right now - featured article, picture of the day and lead DYK with photo. Lots of article exposure and three photos out of a possible five. There is supposed to be balance on Wikipedia; there is none right now on the front page. I don't think I've ever seen it so skewed. I think the decisions of whoever put these up is distinctly lacking. [[Special:Contributions/86.133.215.165|86.133.215.165]] ([[User talk:86.133.215.165|talk]]) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Whilst they may be related, they are not the same articles and each has proved it's merit on Wikipedia through different channels. I think they are timely and diverse enough to be inclusive in a holistic respect to an event without domineering the main page. [[User:Lympathy|<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#fef;background:red;">Lympathy </font></span></small>]] [[User talk:Lympathy|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::86's opinion is one that I understand; my previous post was in response to phrases like "U.S.-centrism" and "systemic bias" in favor of "American interests" (the last phrase, ignoring the presence of quite a few other American nations on two continents, is deliciously ironic). It *might* be a little over-emphasized today, although as a U.S. citizen I certainly feel that the event's importance is being marginalized by some editors here. [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::This is a conversation that pops up frequently and I understand it. In this instance the event is substantial enough to warrant several inclusions so long as they focus on something different. I am non-American and very loosely associated with the event so as to speak impartially. PS. I too am wary of US-dominance on such things. [[User:Lympathy|<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#fef;background:red;">Lympathy </font></span></small>]] [[User talk:Lympathy|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(outdent) TFA and TFP are scheduled independently of one another. TFP is selected a week or so in advance, sometimes earlier, and the pictures are taken roughly in the order they were promoted. This one happened to be scheduled almost [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:POTD/2008-09-11&oldid=231773219 one month in advance] because I happened to have a 9/11 photo, which by the way is the very first 9/11-related TFP to appear on 9/11: [[Template:POTD/2007-09-11|2007]] was a spacecraft, [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 11, 2006|2006]] was Salzburg, [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 11, 2005|2005]] was a praying mantis, and [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 2004|2004]] was a Gothic church. [[Template:POTD/2008-01-21|Earlier this year]], we had another 9/11 photo which appeared far from the anniversary, because when that photo came up in the rotation, it was nowhere near 9/11. There is no site-wide conspiracy to make today's Main Page 9/11-centric; it just happened that way. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:But ''should'' it? Surely there should have been checks made to make sure this kind of bias didn't occur on the main page? And if there aren't any such checks, ''why'' aren't there checks? Surely the people putting up the photos, the people putting up the featured articles and the people putting up the DYKs all have a responsibility to check on what the content, or proposed content, of the main page is going to be, to ensure that exactly this kind of bias doesn't occur? It just isn't good enough to shrug and say 'it just happened that way'. Don't get me wrong, I have no beef with this topic in particular: it's the fact that one topic has been given overwhelming and disproportionate emphasis.[[Special:Contributions/81.157.194.138|81.157.194.138]] ([[User talk:81.157.194.138|talk]]) 07:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Bias? It's one day where TFA and TFP are similar, it could be argued that this should be done every day? I digress, clearly this is not a bias but a coincidence. [[User:Lympathy|<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#fef;background:red;">Lympathy </font></span></small>]] [[User talk:Lympathy|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::You confuse cause and effect: the cause may be coincidence; the effect is bias. [[Special:Contributions/86.134.25.139|86.134.25.139]] ([[User talk:86.134.25.139|talk]]) 15:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Bias infers that the main page is not impartial, when I would say it is completely impartial. In your instant I believe it is perceived bias when in reality it isn't. [[User:Lympathy|<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#fef;background:red;">Lympathy </font></span></small>]] [[User talk:Lympathy|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::How can the main page be impartial when over 50% of the area on the page that is given over to articles covers just one topic? That shows ''complete lack of impartiality'' in the choice of what goes on the page. The fact that 9-11 gets the featured article, the picture of the day, a featured sound/media slot and a DYK clearly shows bias. Not perceived, but actual bias. How can it be anything but bias when the page is so weighted to this one topic? [[Special:Contributions/81.157.195.33|81.157.195.33]] ([[User talk:81.157.195.33|talk]]) 10:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: The topic was the start of a war that affected England, the US, anyone flying in and out of the US, and several Middle Eastern countries and their inhabitants. I think it should get some recognition. And changing articles/pictures so they don't match is bias. If the articles/pictures happen to mathc, then that means they both are good quality. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/24.21.123.235|24.21.123.235]] ([[User talk:24.21.123.235|talk]]) 01:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Responding to an earlier comment by 81: Bias is, by definition, a cause... but none exists here. The cause here, however, is that we had a number of articles which earned places on the Main Page, and there was exactly one day on which these articles would be topical. The effect, however, is that you and a few other viewers got yourselves all twisted up about the evil Americans taking over Wikipedia. Now, as the day of our conquest was 4 days ago, can we let it rest? [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 12:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== On this day (September 11) == |
|||
So.......... I guess nothing of note happened on September 11, 2001 since it's not mentioned in the "On this day" section, right? --[[Special:Contributions/12.43.115.201|12.43.115.201]] ([[User talk:12.43.115.201|talk]]) 12:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*It's covered by Featured Article and Featured Media in place, that's why it isn't at "On this day". (And in a few hours, Did You Know?) - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 12:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::[[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Preset options]] says 'Also, to maintain some variety of topics on the Main Page as a whole, an event should be hidden if it also is the featured article or the featured picture for that particular day.' [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 12:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::FWIW I think there's a case for an exception here. The main article is about one of the events, not the attacks as a whole. Some readers may well arrive looking specifically for [[September 11 Attacks|9/11]] in 'On this day...', and be puzzled by the omission. [[User:Mcewan|Mcewan]] ([[User talk:Mcewan|talk]]) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Going out on a limb here, but what about placing a banner at the top of the MP that mentions the event? –[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Way too much overkill for an encyclopedia. I think a FA is enough. [[User:Lympathy|<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#fef;background:red;">Lympathy </font></span></small>]] [[User talk:Lympathy|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 14:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Agreed. We don't have banners for the anniversaries of far more important events, so why this? [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Just out of curiosity here, what would you consider "far more important events"? You make it sound like 9/11 was a simple attack. [[User:Anakinjmt|Anakinjmt]] ([[User talk:Anakinjmt|talk]]) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I don't know what Algebraist was alluding to but 9/11 is fairly insignificant in world history but tragic to those close to it. So please keep it in perspective. [[User:Lympathy|<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#fef;background:red;">Lympathy </font></span></small>]] [[User talk:Lympathy|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I wasn't alluding to anything specific, just to the fact that a lot of the things that have happened in human history are more important than this one. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 15:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Again, such as? Can you name an event? It truly sounds like you're saying 9/11 is just another Oklahoma City bombing, when it was something more than that, at the very least due to how it led us to the War on Terror, the overthrowing of the Taliban, and the damage done to a terrorist group, and it could be argued it led indirectly to the war in Iraq, the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein, and the change of government in Iraq from a dictatorship to a (mostly) democratic government. I'm not saying it's the biggest event ever, but Algebraist seems to be implying that 9/11 isn't a major world event, which I think it is, just as much as Nero burning down Rome. I don't know if he's American or not, but if he is not, can I just ask that you please try to be a bit more respectful in regards to events like this? Ultimately, its importance is an opinion to a degree, but not something that should be marginalized in the way that you're implying (or at least how I'm inferring it). [[User:Anakinjmt|Anakinjmt]] ([[User talk:Anakinjmt|talk]]) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I don't think that's a reasonable inference. Nobody is saying that the September attacks were not a major world event - any line of argument along those lines would be clearly ridiculous. The amount of attention being paid to this (non-milestone) anniversary on the main page is maybe a little unusual, but that's just the way the main page works, with stories selected more or less arbitrarily. It's certainly a precedent for the featured article to pertain to a particular anniversary or event corresponding to the day of its exposure on the main page, although I can't remember if the same applies to the featured picture. Either way, I don't think anyone is complaining about the level of coverage being devoted to September 11th today on-Wiki - but anymore would perhaps be slightly morbid and excessive. That is just my input as an disinterested observer. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] ([[User talk:Badgerpatrol|talk]]) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Agreed. I don't know if anyone is denying that September 11th was a major world event. What Algebraist is saying that it's clearly not the most important world event of all time at least for a lot of people. In terms of all time events, there are far more significant events in the eyes of many people, e.g. the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and other events in WW2. The birth of Jesus Christ and the Islamic prophet Muhammad are likely to be seen as more important to many, regardless of what the person actually thinks of these people. (And for Jesus, his death and for Muhammad the time it's claimed he had his first revealation). Even in terms of recent events, there are many that people will find more significant, e.g. the collapse of communism, the 2004 Asian Tsunami, probably even the start of the Iraq war (and many people will dispute it's a direct result of September 11th). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 08:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(outdent)I'm not saying there aren't other major world events. It was just his wording that got to me. If he had said "other major events" there wouldn't be an issue, but he said "far more important", like 9/11 was some minor thing. I just kept getting the idea that he was thinking that the U.S. blows 9/11 way out of proportion, like it was really some trivial thing. That's all that bothered me. [[User:Anakinjmt|Anakinjmt]] ([[User talk:Anakinjmt|talk]]) 14:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Half the page is sufficient coverage. We don't need more. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 14:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Not just the FA. Also the FP and a rare featured sound. And, at the moment, the lead item DYK. [[User:APL|APL]] ([[User talk:APL|talk]]) 14:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Fair enough. Points taken. I still think the omission from OTD may appear odd to some, but not a big deal. [[User:Mcewan|Mcewan]] ([[User talk:Mcewan|talk]]) 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I think pretty much the entire world knows about 9/11. I don't think it's needed, especially with all the 9/11-related things already on the Main Page. [[User:Anakinjmt|Anakinjmt]] ([[User talk:Anakinjmt|talk]]) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Bomb blasts in New Delhi == |
|||
There is an ongoing series of bomb blasts in New Delhi. So far at least 5 blasts have been reported and 12 people killed. |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/122.162.60.204|122.162.60.204]] ([[User talk:122.162.60.204|talk]]) 14:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Please suggest new items at [[WP:ITN/C]]. '''[[User:Spencer|<span style="color:#006400">Spencer</span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Spencer|<span style="color:Coral">T♦</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Spencer|<span style="color:Coral">C</span>]]</sup> 15:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Train crash in LA == |
|||
Heard about this on CNN, despite all the coverage about Hurricane Ike. 4 confirmed deaths in Hurricane vs. 20 confirmed deaths in train crash. Oh wait - I forgot about all the financial losses from Hurricanes. MONEY MONEY MONEY PRECIOUS GREEN PAPER (orgasm) (dies). Anyway, does this merit a mention in the news section? [[Special:Contributions/24.3.14.157|24.3.14.157]] ([[User talk:24.3.14.157|talk]]) 22:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Maybe. The best place to suggest this though should be [[Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates]]. [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk:Simply south|talk]]) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: If this happened outside the U.S. this'll be posted in a jiffy. [[Special:Contributions/119.95.21.132|119.95.21.132]] ([[User talk:119.95.21.132|talk]]) 01:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's already on there. Look closer. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 02:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Actually, if this really happened outside the U.S. and beyond the coverage of CNN, this'll take many, many jiffys to get an article created, de-stubbed and expanded, and then take ''eons'' to be posted, if posted at all. --[[Special:Contributions/199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] ([[User talk:199.71.174.100|talk]]) 07:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Of course, we're always biased against everything except what's on the main page and we're biased toward what is. If there's no coverage of the train crash and there is of the hurricane, it can't be because the hurricane has been active for several days and the train crash was only a few hours ago, no, we must be biased toward the financial implications of the hurricane, because that affects Wikipedia somehow, perhaps the amount of donations we get is inversely proportional to the damage caused by disasters on the main page. Or perhaps Wikipedia is just a front for [[NOAA]] to push their pro-hurricane POV. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</font> 06:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Why did this show up on my list of contributions? Has anybody else had anomalous entries from your IP address? Nobody else has been in my house, so how does somebody do this? This happened to me a few weeks ago, and somebody from my IP address edited the Norm Macdonald article. Why would somebody "hijack" (I don't know if that's what they did) my computer just to make lame edits? Sheesh. [[Special:Contributions/24.3.14.157|24.3.14.157]] ([[User talk:24.3.14.157|talk]]) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Complain to Comcast. Maybe you're sharing the IP with other Comcast customers. |
|||
::::: Or maybe a neighbor of yours is enjoying wireless internet for free. --[[Special:Contributions/70.50.202.150|70.50.202.150]] ([[User talk:70.50.202.150|talk]]) 05:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Almost certainly your ISP shares IP addresses amongst multiple customers. This is one of the reasons why it's a good idea to [[WP:WHY|create an account]] if you intend to edit wikipedia more than a couple of times. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 05:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Thanks, Genius. I always wanted to say that without being sarcastic:) [[Special:Contributions/24.3.14.157|24.3.14.157]] ([[User talk:24.3.14.157|talk]]) 07:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Rampant Pro-Rail bias on [[Main Page]] !!! == |
|||
:<small> Note: The section header was [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=238530715&oldid=238530635 not added] by {{user|NE2}}. --[[Special:Contributions/199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] ([[User talk:199.71.174.100|talk]]) 07:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC) </small> |
|||
It's pretty clear that the [[railfan]] admins have taken over. [[2008 Chatsworth train collision]] in the news, [[John Bull (locomotive)|John Bull]] as the FA, [[Sutton Tunnel railway accident]] in DYK, and [[Liverpool and Manchester Railway]] in on this day. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 05:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Ha, that's great. First there's a massive debate about whether we're oversaturating the mainpage with 9/11 coverage/tributes, now we're halfway to selling Lionel sets on the sidebar. Oh, what is this w(orld?)ikipedia coming to? <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.3.14.157|24.3.14.157]] ([[User talk:24.3.14.157|talk]]) 06:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: Most of these trains consume environmentally-unfriendly fuel and give out stinky exhaust fumes. Maybe we should get [[Hurricane Ike]] on ITN to bring in some fresh air. (Already on [[WP:ITN/C]]!) --[[Special:Contributions/199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] ([[User talk:199.71.174.100|talk]]) 06:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Heh, the two crashes would probably be considered anti-rail propaganda, and the other two from railroad boosters. So I think we have neutrality :) What an odd coincidence that they all ended up there. The TFA and OTD were selected long before the news of the crash and the DYK (which has now cycled away) would have been nominated before it. A perfect storm, as it were. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] ([[User talk:JayHenry|talk]]) 06:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Anti-rail propaganda? That's great. I guess Conservapedia will have to include [[Luddism]] on the list of Wikipedia biases! [[Special:Contributions/24.3.14.157|24.3.14.157]] ([[User talk:24.3.14.157|talk]]) 11:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think this is still caused by the vast "Wikipedia's Conversion to 9/11 Memorial Site" conspiracy... consider: the 9/11 attacks were caused by airplanes, so today we flood the mainpage with spam related to alternative forms of transit. It's harder to crash a train into a building. Why must we Americans dominate ''everything''? Oh noes! Needz moar Brittish katz! [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 12:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I know that was intended as a joke, but you realise of the several rail related main page items, only 1 was in the US, right? The rest were British (mostly English) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Aha, I didn't fully read the John Bull blurb... saw New Jersey and thought US. Other than that, I was aware, yes... although there seems to be a tendency in the US to think of locomotives as being a mostly American phenomenon, even for those of us who know it's not true. I'm not sure why, unless it was the tremendous importance of the American transcontinental railway to the formation of our nation. [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Ironically outside the US anyway, nowadays people tend to see rail in the US as in a rather poor state and definitely not even close to being a world leader[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I've never gotten the impression that Americans (of which I'm one) regard rail travel as "a mostly American phenomenon." It's rather well known that our infrastructure lags far behind those of many countries. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 06:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Hmmm, interesting. "Seems to be" might have been my operative phrase... if other people haven't gotten that impression, then my (mis?)perception might be regional, local, or even just personal. [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 12:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::168, I couldn't agree maor. [[User:Ceiling Cat|Ceiling Cat]] ([[User talk:Ceiling Cat|talk]]) 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{MAOR KATZ}} |
|||
:::::Thanks. I suspected that would get your attention :) (Ceiling Cat iz watching me...) [[Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8|168.9.120.8]] ([[User talk:168.9.120.8|talk]]) 19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::He's watching everyone... --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#090">talk</font>]] // [[WP:ARK|<font color="#4682b4">ark</font>]] // 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::::::We're such tools. Mrow! [[Special:Contributions/24.3.14.157|24.3.14.157]] ([[User talk:24.3.14.157|talk]]) 05:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I ''really hope'' someone configures the [[Wikipedia:abuse filter|abuse filter]] to block anyone who says "m(oa|ao)r". --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 12:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:But, but, why? Can't sleep, the cats are watching? (we are, ya know. watching and [[History of cats#Europe|breathing]] yur infants air!) [[User:Moar Cats|Moar Cats]] ([[User talk:Moar Cats|talk]]) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||