Talk:Main Page/Archive 150

Archive 145

←

Archive 148

Archive 149

Archive 150

Archive 151

Archive 152

→

Archive 155

picture illustrates the wrong news item

Can't wikipedia manage to put the picture in the "news" section next to the news item it illustrates? This has been a nuisance for years!--24.85.68.231 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

One difficulty with that is unpredictable user choice of the browser, screen resolution and font size, as well as the modular nature of the main page - it's several sections can change any time. Materialscientist (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you bothered to take a look at this discussion page's two massive sections on this very topic? --72.197.202.36 (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Because there's no easy way to reliably put it next to anything other than the top item and still allow the section to re-size naturally to fill your browser window at any size. (There may be a hard way of doing it, of course. See discussion above.)

Because wikipedia does not have free-for-mainpage images for all new stories, it is not possible to always illustrate the top story the way professional news sites do. APL (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What they said. ;)  f o x  16:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

??? What ???

1. A Japanese multinational conglomerate (headquarters pictured) investigates how some of its customers were accidentally sent back in time to the year 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.156.146.237 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a calendar? Rodhullandemu 00:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not just say Sony is investigating problems with its products...? How did this even make in the news? Alvin6226 ^talk 06:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC) >.> Disregard. Alvin6226 ^talk 06:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

http://edu-centers.blogspot.com/

EOKA

Perhaps make it clear the EOKA campaign starting on this day in 1955 really is Greek Cypriots and not Turk Cypriots. The Turks had the Turkish Resistance Organization and a Turkish-British paramilitary taskforce to keep order. Only the Greek community tried to get rid of the British who sided with the Turkish community.Eugene-elgato (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC) see under On This Day errorsEugene-elgato (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"International Joke Day" WTF?

Why is this listed in the observances? It's called April Fools' Day. Someone please change this, the page is protected from editing. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 01:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You can edit Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 1 and change it. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 01:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That page can only be edited by administrators while it is transcluded on the main page (others may see an edit link but be unable to edit). I guess somebody thought that writing "April Fools' Day" instead of piping a link on International Joke Day would be too big a hint that something unusual is happening on the main page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good job

Big fan of the current April Fool's Day page. Thanks to all that were involved. Remember (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks everyone. I always love seeing the April Fool's page. (I just wish the OTD section could have different stuff from last year. ) Alphabet55 (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought someone had snuck in and vandalized the front page again... Then it struck me. Good job :-). 152.7.20.77 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

cue comments from confused readers....another great april fools day main page! Antimatter--talk-- 03:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

ROFL! Great job, as always :-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice job - love seeing the front page on 4/1. Haven't logged on in a while, but glad to see we still have our sense of humor. :) 140.247.152.175 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

wondeful - my compliments to all involved in the pages and in the articles themselves! A double bluff / hoax on April's Fool's Day (Wife Selling) brilliant and stunning. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April fools!

Haha! Awesome page, the best one ever. I particularly liked ITN. -- œ^™ 06:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree - this has to be one of the more awesome ones I've seen. --Daniel Blanchette 07:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What's with google and their animal translations and sending people back in time on Wikipedia stories? April fool's jokes should be subtle! The wife selling thing which has happened (making one dive into citations and history to see if that's a joke or not) is clever, sending people back in time, not clever! 82.132.136.205 (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Best Main Page ever. Una Laguna^Talk 09:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This Main Page is AWSOME :) Yosy (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is *amazing*. Ray^Talk 17:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lame. Insane Clown Posse should have been up today. --NE2 22:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION, question

Does April Fools' touch only the main page or other articles as well? In other words, is the thing about wife selling for real or it's just an April Fools' thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wife selling is 100% real.  x o f  08:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Dear God! I had no idea that such a thing could have ever been a part of British civilisation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Learned something today! :D  x o f  08:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the things placed on the front page on April 1st have to pass the same strict rules as on any other day of the year. They are all true, referenced and as accurate & unbiassed as we can make them. Rejoice in the fact that the world is such a weird and wonderful place! SteveBaker (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a meta-joke. For the last couple of years the April Fools' main page has been filled with items that look like hoaxes, but are completely factual. APL (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That was the beauty of this one, demonstrating that our true life is indeed stranger than anything we can make up. Even the perception of 'time' can be argued to be solely a function of perception and measurement (interaction), so 'sending back in time' is not inaccurate. True humour meaning twists are rare, these days. Re wife selling, check out the novel "The Mayor of Casterbridge" by Thomas Hardy. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.61 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

They're all real and true. But they're just worded in the craziest ways possible. i.e. PS3 Time Travel.  Marlith (Talk)  02:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ps3 TimeTravel?

"A Japanese multinational conglomerate (headquarters pictured) investigates how some of its customers were accidentally sent back in time to the year 1999." Someone needs to reword this now.Its very misleading. If you don't know what I am talking about look at the news.98.82.151.242 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's intentional. Check your calendar. --S-man (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The cool thing is that it's still accurate. The days fall out the same way in 1999 and 2010. APL (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems a little flip and clever. I.e. not clear at all, in fact quite obtuse. Vranak (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked your calendar, as suggested above? APL (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd think that senses of humour weren't so hard to find. 205.200.18.71 (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I happen to have a fine sense of humour. However, this is not the place for oh-so-witty obfuscation. In fact it's not even the obfuscation that is so offensive, it's the notion that someone thought this was a good idea. I like to think that Wikipedia is a bastion of good sense, and this gives me the contrary impression. Vranak (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha, Great April fool news items. --Theo10011 (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent stuff. If you can't take a day of silliness, maybe you really need to rethink your worldview, mate. Must everything be deadpan serious?

Let me get this straight -- if someone called you silly, would smile and laugh and not mind? I do hope not. Therefore we can infer that silliness is not very high in the echelon of values. Compared to, say, maintaining the decorum and dignity of Wikipedia. Vranak (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, I would smile, laugh, and don't mind at all. Specially today. Have a nice and silly day today, sir. 200.255.9.38 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"the decorum and dignity of Wikipedia"? freshacconci talktalk 10:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Have you seen the rest of the internet? I reckon that 99.99% of the content available on the net is incredibly juvenile, facile, and just plain silly. So you can understand why some of us would want to keep Wikipedia serious; and where it does diverge into humour, that that humour at least be somewhat funny. Vranak (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, some great works of satire, say Alice in Wonderland or Candide, are quite silly. And yet, many consider them among the greatest works of literature. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is absolutely how I respond to being called silly. Even in a professional setting. APL (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the internet, today is International Internet Falsehood Day. 's like you have no sense of tradition.--65.184.187.242 (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think that the blurb about the "Japanese multinational conglomerate" should at least mention the company's name, which is Sony. It should say "Sony (headquarters pictured) investigates how ..." or "Sony (headquarters pictured), a Japanese multinational conglomerate, investigates how..." Anyway, great April Fool's jokes. I especially like the DYK and ITN. Just wondering, is everything in the ITN true? RG104 (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - everything here has to pass the same rules as any other day. SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything in ITN is true; if you don't like it, you should see some of the one's we didn't put up! Physchim62 (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be true, but it is also unclear. Why on heaven's name would you put 'a Japanese multinational conglomerate' rather than just 'Sony'? Is clarity and simplicity so alien a concept? Yes, I understand the intended humour... but it just not sit well with me. Moreover, the 'sending back in time' bit is patently obtuse. Vranak (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

it is called having a slight sense of humor (or atleast letting things sly for others on April 1). If everything was clear and to the point then it would not be nearly as funny. the main page looks awesome today. good job ppl! -- Ashish-g55 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I could not agree more with slight. Vranak (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If it said "Sony", it wouldn't be nearly as funny. Describing it instead as "a Japanese multinational conglomerate" sounds as if it may be a company involved in science fiction-y tech. You know, you can remove that stick from your rear every now and then—the rest of the world won't mind. TaintedMustard (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia?

This is an encyclopaedia, NOT a stupid little joke site. The front page is appalling and needs to be reverted at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.87.236 (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is also a site where vandalism is not tolerated, but, seeing from your edits, you just want all pages that in your opinion "aren't worthy" to be deleted. Grow up, and grow a sense of humor while you're at it. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mind if I interject? Tough, because I'm going to. I support the deletion of that article, I also think that the front-page is highly distracting because it stopped me from actually doing the research I needed to do as I was too busy laughing. But you are now going to be reported for personal attacks and insults, you are out of line. You need to grow up. 92.29.130.164 (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I the one making personal attacks? Because calling another editor's work "bullshit" is definitely one. That being said, in the interest of level-heads, I will no longer participate in this conversation, as it has the possibility of degenerating. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an encyclopedia. It will never be a true one, since it can be edited by all kinds of users. It's only one day a year, and it's (In my opinion) better to laugh than to be serious at least one day of the year. Vancyon 11:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is why uncyclopedia exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.130.164 (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Unencyclopedia provides deliberately false information for humorous purposes, whereas the main page today is all true, encyclopedic, and referenced information, merely presented to the reader in an unusual or surprising wording. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, have a laugh. Evilgidgit (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that I should point out that all of the things placed on the front page on April 1st have to pass the same strict rules as on any other day of the year. The team who prepare the April 1st "stuff" continually fight off demands that we break those rules and publish only falsehoods - or replace our entire front page with the Uncyclopedia page or something equally intolerable. The only restriction (that I'm aware of) that is relaxed for April 1st is in the DYK section where the 'hook' doesn't have to come from an article that was created or greatly expanded in the last week - but rather during the last year. However, many of the entries (including mine about Picoazá) have indeed been greatly expanded in the past week - and pass the DYK rules just as any other day. Nothing on the front page today is untrue, or unreferenced or anything like that. All we do is deliberately seek out factual items that seem counterfactual or are perhaps very surprising on first sight. Things you see on the front page on April 1st could have appeared here at any time - we just saved up the weird shit for one day. So smile, and be entertained by the fact that someone once made a good living telling people the time using a pocket watch or that a small village in Equador voted a brand of foot powder in as their mayor and that the "T" in "T.Rex" isn't necessarily an abbreviation for "Tyrannosaur". If you are totally humor-impaired, think of it this way: We are doing you a service by getting all of the silly stuff out of the way on just one day so that we can return you to in-depth articles about Japanese railway stations and close-up photographs of copulating insects for the next 364. Seriously - many articles are greatly improved by the April 1st team - almost all of the DYK and OTD entries required some fairly serious research work to bring them up to scratch for the day, and we'd certainly have one less FA if it were not for this effort. SteveBaker (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that every April 1st since this started, people leave outraged comments thinking that these little bits of humour are made up. It's all real, people! Just click the links and see what articles they're referencing! Very well done this year, BTW. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that in the end, the lowest impulses have prevailed over decorum and correctness. You may claim we have no sense of humour, but I think it is that we have a higher sense of humour. Still, it's really not a big deal, but I had to register my displeasure. And Deathphoenix, did you honestly find it 'hilarious'? Were you really laughing? Please be sure to be honest and sincere, if you have any interest in social agreement. Vranak (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfruitful back-and-forth

Wow! If your idea of "lowest impulses" is presenting a true story so that it appears to be a hoax, you must lead a tremendously boring life. :-) APL (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC) *shaking head* I see what you are trying to do. I am not impressed APL. Vranak (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I should hope so. My intentions were not particularly obscure. APL (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I am going to refrain from saying anything untoward. Vranak (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Ah. I see now it's me who failed to get a joke. APL (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Not at all! "I've tried to be a serious man..." Vranak (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

'Most people' who use English WP regularly know that on April 1 the articles are 'presented in a slightly offbeat manner.' Note the reference to computers (but not computer games) and 'not quite insects' (Beatles): but nothing to offend Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly -- but if we kept every tradition going merely for being accepted tradition... it does not bear thinking about. Vranak (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Only if it is 'mostly harmless' (and there are usually lists all over the place of newspaper creations etc). 213.120.5.139 (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

TFA vandalism

Is someone going to protect Wife selling, or is the dogmatic attitude of "we don't protect TFAs" going to persist? Why on earth should editors have to waste their time dealing with childish nonsense like this? Hardly any constructive edits have been made to the article.

What on earth is the point of working on material like this, if nothing is done to protect it from idiots? Parrot of Doom 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

yes - what a bunch of idiots to think that Wikipedia should have hoax articles. Rather ironic really - If an IP did this sort of thing on any other day, it would be reverted very quickly - yet you "proper registered sensible users" are allowed to go against the rules whenever you want. One rule for IP's, another for the rest. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a single thing you see on the Main Page today is a hoax, it's just an attempt to lighten things up for a day. If you don't like it, you're under no obligation to read it. FWIW, I completely concur with Parrot of Doom. Frankly, I think people should refuse to revert vandalism on TFA and see how long this "TFA is almost never protected" keeps up. I applaud any admin with the stones to protect it, though. HJ Mitchell | April Fool! 19:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the joke. Wife Selling is a completely encyclopedic, historical topic, just a surprising one. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do have to admit for "falling" for the DYK one about the Queen - later realising that Britain didn't have a queen at the time. :D 188.221.79.22 (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." while this is the spirit of Wikipedia it's not the reality. You can't even say to people login and then you can edit because many pages are locked down only for admins to edit, including ironically this front page 'anyone can edit' wording itself. I think the time has come to stop mis-informing people with the anyone can edit clause on the front page template and give a more accurate "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, where does it state that anyone can edit absolutely everything? Secondly, the vast, vast majority of content on Wikipedia can be edited by absolutely anyone. A tiny minority requires users to log in. An almost insignificant number of articles require that edits be approved by consensus before they are enacted by an administrator. If you wish to propose an adjustment to the protection policy, take it up on the policy's talk page or garner more support on the Village Pump. This isn't really the forum for discussion on an issue that goes so far beyond the scope of the Main Page. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are, as I write this, 3 240 182 articles on Wikipedia. There are ~6400 mainspace pages protected from editing at any level. That means that 0.1975% of articles are protected. Furthermore, there are currently 1594 fully-protected mainspace pages. A quick glance over these shows that the vast majority are redirects . Even so, including these, 0.0492% of mainspace articles are editable solely by admins. I think that "Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" sounds better than "Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit 99.8025 percent of, or 99.9508 percent if you create an account". _sdda^sbagyonaled.J 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the most popular pages that are invariably locked, and the most wanted to be edited, included TFA which is not unusual. If consensus is not prepared to remove this false claim how about clarifying by something like "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where anyone can edit most articles." Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's also a false claim. Something more accurate would read along the lines of "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where any non-incapacitated person with a computer and Internet connection who has not been banned, blocked, or prevented from editing by the government of the country of their residence can edit most articles." Nufy8 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"... unless the database is locked for maintenance." APL (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free (although online, meaning that connection charges may apply; also, the "libre" connotation of "free" might be subject to applicable local laws) encyclopedia which anyone is invited to edit constructively, regardless of their actual ability or willingness to do so." Is 100% precision and total lack of ambiguity really necessary for any website's tagline?

• "Welcome to Facebook. It's free, and anyone can join." Actually, most folks probably lack the access necessary to join. Also, there are plenty of opportunities to spend money on Facebook, so it's not exactly 100% free, right?
• "Flickr: Share your photos. Watch the world." Some photos, of course, aren't welcome, and you wouldn't really be watching the world so much as viewing the tiny fraction of the photos being uploaded that you actually have time to see, given the average number of photos uploaded per second, the average processing speed of the human brain, and the average performance of the network that delivers said photos to said brain. (One of those variables might just be lower-than-average for a high percentage of the people who complain about WP's tagline, IMO.) ;) Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 00:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC) sorry, just bored at the moment, and this is one of those perennially annoying issues

• There's a lot of missing the point here. In "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", "Free" does not mean "free, as in beer"; it means "free, as in free of copyright, free of commercial influences, free of bias... etc". "Free" here does not imply anarchy. "That anyone can edit" does not extend to an open invitation to those opposed to those principles, or the various policies we have, and particularly the Five Pillars, to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for their personal projects. Facebook or MySpace we are not. Most major websites, and we are in the top ten most visited, will reject illegal material. Rightly so. Rodhullandemu 00:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said! 72.197.202.36 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are some redirects protected? --Магьосник (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Because some misguided editors think it's amusing to redirect articles for comic effect; others have a political axe to grind, and believe that existing consensus or policy is just plain wrong. You'll see that these people rarely engage in constructive discussion on Talk pages; they just plough on until they are blocked. Rodhullandemu 01:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the general population understands that due to the infractions of a few misguided individuals, a few pages need to protected. The general spirit is still the same though: everyone can edit. You may have to register if you want to improve an article that attracts a lot of petty vandalism, but it is well-understood, I think, that this is an exceedingly small price to pay in order to best cope with the odd deranged editor. Vranak (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, true. Rodhullandemu 01:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What part of this is sad exactly? I mean, I get the 'vandals exist and that's lame' part, but sad? Is it really that much hassle to deal with them? Vranak (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think an idea along the lines of "it's sad that there are people who would rather be immature and destructive than help build this reference" is what was meant. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can still constructively edit a page indirectly. If the page is protected, you can make your suggestion on the talk page and if consensus agrees with it, an admin will probably add your suggestion to the article. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 02:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since when was beer free? 87.114.125.248 (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See Free as in beer. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

LHC

Collisions between two 3.5 TeV proton beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider set the world record for the highest energy man-made particle collisions. - Kittybrewster ☎ 08:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

... yep, that's what it says.  f o x  09:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

as opposed to the record ... - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, try and be a bit less cryptic. What exactly is the problem?  f o x  09:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "world" is otiose. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the official name for records like that, hence world record.  f o x  10:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that and we cannot reasonably exclude the posibility of higher energies offplanet.©Geni 15:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I lol'd. 8D  f o x  15:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Records always exclude the unknown, only what has been recorded--118.90.114.59 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If "world" is removed, the preceding article should become indefinite ("the" to "a"), IMHO. 68.76.158.234 (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please help me getting a laugh, it says "world record for .. man-made particle collision". What is exactly the problem? Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The word 'world' is most certainly not 'otiose' in this instance, because there are other record that this could be referring to. In this instance it could be referring to a record for the LHC itself, ignoring the results of other particle colliders. Also the record could be geographically based, as in a record for CERN or any other European research institution. Thus adding the word 'world' clearly shows that this record is not just for this collider or organisation, but for the whole world. --Daviessimo (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that the point is raised, I must concur that it does sound a little otiose, more suited to track times than particle collisions. Vranak (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So does "record", of course - we could simply say that it is the highest-energy manmade particle collision without that. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Vranak (talk)

Computer games and insects

Why does the Wikipedia front page have to be so obsessed with computer games and insects? Surely there are other things in the world or the universe of interest also. Someone with time on their hands could monitor the subject matter of the front page over time and point out if it gives too much attention to particular subjects. 92.24.134.65 (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give your own statistical analysis then? Because every time I have seen someone bring actual numbers into it, there seems to be less of a bias than is claimed. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a pretty even coverage. Yesterday there was a horrorcore duo, few days ago a hurricane, a film, a car, and some hills. Feel free to look.  f o x  11:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it is the second video game this month, but most people (including, until recently, myself) unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes working of TFA would be very surprised at the amount of thought that goes into choosing the TFA- it achieves a much broader spread than of the full list of FAs (the media love to tell us how biased we are towards video games and American popular culture, but you see surprisingly little of it on the MP).

So far this month we've had:

• some hills
• a moon
• a typewriter
• some horses
• a bridge
• an ancient battle
• a song
• a king
• a video game
• a bird
• an actress
• a magazine article
• a biotechnology firm
• a nazi
• a novel
• a lemur
• an explorer
• a composer
• a book
• a road
• a princess
• a hurricane
• a dinosaur
• an admiral
• a political history
• a film
• an engine
• some dancers

and a cuddly toy. I'd say that's an excellent topical and geographical balance, especially when you compare it to the list of FAs. I hope that helps, I don;t have the patience to come up with statistics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a point that, in the grand scheme of things, video games very much do get an imbalence, when you consider number of topics and other factors. That said, the answer is VERY simple -- people who work on video game articles tend to make FAs. The reason is probably related to the fact that game lovers have a lot of free time, or perhaps are very 'tech' and thus are likely to be here, or whatever else, but it's simply a natural systemic bias. As for insects -- and I'm assuming the OP means how there's so many FPs of insects on the main page -- that one is even easier to explain: it's really easy to make free and high quality pics of insects, so there are a lot of them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A better question is why does one man get the power to chose which articles are featured each day. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 14:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Because he's good at it. APL (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Or a different (more complete?) answer is a typical one for wikipedia. 1) Historical reasons 2) It works 3) Anything else will lead to more drama i.e. more time wasted and more ill-feeling between editors 4) Proposed alternatives have not appealed to many so has been shot down faster then you can say Raul654. (After wasting a lot of time searching thorough the archives, I finally found this memorable proposal as a page of its own.) 5) We've added processes to help satisfy some of the requirements people have (like WP:TFA/R) 6) Jimbo likes it like that as does the WP:cabal 7) Most people don't really care 8) Of those who do care, no one has had the stomach to put up with the very long and ardous process any possible change is going to entail before probably still failing Nil Einne (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading that proposal. It gave me a good laugh. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 23:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We get a lot of insect photos because our very talented photographers take lots of great insect photos. I do my best not to show more than 3-4/month but we really just have a lot of them. We go through phases like this ... a lot of historical restorations all bunched together, or birds, or opera posters/sketches ... it all depends on what people submit to WP:FPC. howcheng {chat} 07:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: If you want more front page articles about X - go and improve some articles about X to the point where they meet the FA criteria. Since more or less 100% of FA's make it onto the front page, and no articles that are not FA's are ever placed in the "Featured Article" spot, working to bring articles up to standard is the only way that the balance can be altered. It's really hard work to meet the FA criteria and to push your pet article through all of the hoops to get here (trust me - been there, done that, scored two out of three attempts so far!) It would be harsh indeed to tell the author of a hard-won FA gold star that (s)he isn't going to get his/her day in the limelight because there have been too many other articles of the same general type already. SteveBaker (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the two could be combined into computer game debugging? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we're getting lots of insect pictures because there was recently a massive donation of insect images to Commons. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 10:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. POTD is way backlogged right now -- all the FPs you're currently seeing were promoted about 1 year ago. howcheng {chat} 16:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare

Hi there - I'd greatly appreciated if anyone reading this could watchlist the article for the next 24 hours. I'm probably the only editor with it watchlisted, and I'll be out for the next 24 hours. The last bit of vandalism took 3 minutes for me to pick up. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If the page is being consistently vandalised, why don't you request semi-protection? --Yarnalgo _talk to me 03:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on West Virginia Coal Mine

Where is the story on the WV coal mine explosion where over 25 people died, we just had a story on a chinese coal mine. DWood 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

As usual, suggestions for items should be made at WP:ITN/C and there's already a discussion about that topic. 131.180.22.184 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FCC Ruling

Just a general remark but I think that the court decision on Comcast's lawsuit against the FCC is significant enough for a in the news mention. It's a significant decision and has a significant effect on the internet. -Vcelloho (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It got discussed to go up here, but got very little support. Does it have a significant effect on the Internet? Or are ISPs doing this anyway, court ruling or no court ruling? Does it affect other businesses, outside Internet service provision, or other countries outside the United States? Not really. Physchim62 (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) What's with the sudden rush of people suggesting items here? Candidates for the ITN section should be proposed at WP:ITN/C, where this has already been discussed and rejected. Modest Genius ^talk 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Final Four

Why no mention of the Final Four? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.68.252 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Final who? --Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 17:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Final Four. Please discuss it here. Art LaPella (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is too minor a tournament to be put on the ITN. We can't put who won national tournaments from around the world. There are too many (Indian Cricket League, various national rugby tournaments, etc.). We also can't just put the Final Four since it's American and that would be bias. RG104 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It gets some worldwide attention, and is equally notable to some tropical cyclones that go to INT. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

I don't think NCAA basketball gets a lot of attention. I have been to many countries and had never heard of it before I came to the United States. Many people in the US don't even know about it. It isn't as famous as the NFL or NBA. And what do cyclones have anything to do with the Final Four? RG104 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, I really doubt more than 1% of the US population have "never heard of it." About 25% of the country watched yesterday's game (among TVs turned on) and it gets higher ratings than the NBA finals every year, usually by a significant margin. Other than football, the NCAA basketball is the biggest sporting event in the US. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose now's not a great time to say I've never heard of this and haven't the foggiest what you folk are on about.  f o x  10:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's sorta consensus in the discussion page no admin has the guts to add it there. –Howard the Duck 10:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be half and half, really.  f o x  10:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some people you really can't convince no matter what you do, while some who originally opposed are now either neutral or support it. –Howard the Duck 10:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

All I can do to that is shrug. It's becoming staler and staler, so by the time a clear consensus is reached it will be moot.  f o x  12:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Which proves why ITN is a joke. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 14:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm against it appearing so maybe a bit biased.  f o x  15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The oppose-rs who eventually switched to neutral/support probably just waited for this blurb to get stale so they've won anyway. Weee for them. –Howard the Duck 16:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.158.71.26 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

!vote is 10 support, 5 oppose by my count. 2:1 is generally considered a consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

consensus does not mean a poll. if the 5 extra supports say the same thing or dont say much then its not really clear consensus. -- Ashish-g55 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-read that sentence and see if it sounds wrong. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, one of those oppose votes was based on the false belief that there's no international coverage of the game, which has been disproven. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There also is a mistaken impression that any athletic championship other than the highest in its sport is automatically excluded. (If that were true, no association football championship other than the World Cup would qualify.) —David Levy 20:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't have that impression, but I do feel that if there is a limited number X of suitable events then they should be the highest X competitions. I'm not convinced that this is the second (or even third) best basketball competition in the world. Modest Genius ^talk 20:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

On what do you base the assumption that "there is a limited number X of suitable events"? I don't recall such a concept even being discussed.

It was determined that the top championships in all major sports automatically qualify (assuming that the requisite article updates are performed), not that all other athletic competitions are automatically disqualified. The idea was to eliminate needless discussion of sporting events that meet a specific, relatively clear-cut standard, not to impose said standard as the only valid justification for inclusion. It was understood that other sporting events were to be proposed and discussed on an individual basis, but we now have users basing their opposition on noncompliance with a nonexclusive criterion.

In this instance, editors have provided ample evidence that this year's championship game is exceptionally noteworthy and has generated an unusually high amount of interest and media coverage in the United States and abroad. —David Levy 22:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. What I was getting at was that if a total of (say) three events in a particular sport was deemed to be a reasonable level of coverage (there is obvious differentiation in that regard), they should be the three 'top' competitions in that sport, for some given interpretation of 'top'. It would be weird if, say, four golf stories per year were posted, but that only three of them were Majors and the fourth was some minor PGA tour event. I guess this boils down to setting the bar at some level of importance, above which everything gets posted. I follow your argument that this particular event in this particular year is uniquely notable, and have not challenged it in any way. I'm still opposed to this item, but can understand the arguments in its favour. I was making a point about sporting events in general. Modest Genius ^talk 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'm saying that I don't recall any agreement to place arbitrary limits on the number of items pertaining to particular sports.

Whether sporting event X is sufficiently notable is debatable, but other events in the same sport are relevant only in the respect that their existence might affect the cultural standing of sporting event X (i.e. the public cares less about about sporting event X because it's been deemed inferior to sporting event Y). If multiple events from the same sport (such as the seven association football competitions other than the FIFA World Cup listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items) happen to be sufficiently notable and result in the requisite article creations/updates, so be it.

What constitutes "sufficiently notable" is subjective, and I like your description of "setting the bar at some level of importance, above which everything gets posted." But what you actually advocate is "moving the bar until only a predetermined number of things remain above it." —David Levy 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, there are no arbitrary numerical limits. I'm more getting at "moving the bar until a number - that we're comfortable with - of things remain above it". There's a need for the tensioning of the number of items vs their importance (or we'd end up with a news ticker), and a balance between different topics (including different sports). Given the different levels of international public and media attention given to different sorts of events, there are obviously going to be different bars set for different types of events. Modest Genius ^talk 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that we should have a predetermined quantity of items based on a particular sport's level of international public and media attention (and I'm aware of no such agreement within the community). It's the event's attention that matters. In no way will our readers benefit from the decision to omit a highly notable event (while retaining week-old items) simply because there happen to be other highly notable events in the same sport. A fan of sport X is done no harm by a mention of sport Y.

Furthermore, a key factor is the existence/nonexistence of a substantial article creation/update, which cannot be considered in advance. So the idea of striking "a balance between different topics (including different sports)" with any degree of reliability is both unrealistic and unfair (as it would necessitate the omission of items for which substantial new content was written on the basis that other occurrences did not result in substantial content creation).

In other words, suppose we decide that topic A is twice as important as topic B, so we want four annual items for topic A and two for topic B. But then only two of topic A's four qualifying events result in substantial content creation, while both of topic B's qualifying events do. For several reasons, it's neither logical nor feasible to compensate by omitting one of topic B's events, so we end up with even coverage of both topics. (Obviously, this is a hypothetical example, but the unpredictability that it illustrates is very real.)

On several occasions, I've witnessed opposition to the inclusion of sporting event Y (for which substantial content was created) on the basis that sporting event X (for which no substantial content was created) was omitted. Although the omission of sporting event Y technically would improve the section's topical balance, it isn't sensible and doesn't occur. —David Levy 02:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we discount opinions stemming from agreement with other discussion participants? —David Levy 20:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

nope i was merely saying dont count number of supports/oppose. that makes it a poll. if an opinion stems from another then it should atleast expand it in some way. and i dont mean it for ncaa, i just meant in general. -- Ashish-g55 20:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course consensus isn't only numbers, but it certainly is partially numbers. It's not like there is a truly right or wrong opinion about most situations on Wikipedia. In any case, it can reasonably be argued that, if anything, the opposes are weaker than the supports. "Not the highest level of basketball" and "not relevant outside the US" are the the main arguments against and both have been countered. The main arguments for it are "more popular than other basketball events covered" and "especially notable this year." The first counters "not highest level" and the second has not really been disputed by anyone.--ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, of course, that consensus is not determined via a straight vote count. You're incorrect in stating that a respondent who believes that another discussion participant already has thoroughly articulated a compelling rationale is expected to invent something else. You literally are arguing that agreement doesn't contribute to consensus. —David Levy 22:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

yes the respondent does not need to invent something new but the weight of support isnt really the same anymore either. if there were 2 good arguments for a supporting side and 1 good argument with double the opposition (or vice-versa). i think the weight of consensus would fall towards the 2 arguments... given they are good obviously. -- Ashish-g55 23:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please try rephrasing the above? I've read it several times, and I don't follow. —David Levy 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

i guess too many lines got mixed together. basically u have:

2 good arguments supporting a candidate

1 good argument opposing a candidate but maybe 2 more people opposed but they just agreed to the previous argument.

i was trying to say if 2 arguments are better then the consensus should still fall towards that. -- Ashish-g55 00:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an invalid generalization. Just as consensus isn't determined via a straight vote count, it isn't determined by tallying the numbers of arguments (or good arguments). It depends on what those arguments are and how they relate to each other and the overall matter at hand. —David Levy 01:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

hence my point initially was not to count 10/5 supports over opposes but read and decide. its upto the posting admin really... 01:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, I agree that consensus is not determined via a straight vote count. I contested the claim that responses should be discounted on the basis that they "say the same thing" (i.e. express agreement with) earlier comments. —David Levy 02:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

i dont disagree with you either. we are pretty much saying similar thing. i never said they should be discounted either but the supports might all be saying the same thing hence its better to read the arguments rather than count the numbers. -- Ashish-g55 04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• So why hasn't this been posted exactly. More people support adding it than not. Any admins wanna grow a pair? ~DC _{Talk To Me} 21:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dream up a good blurb and I'll think about it. Put it on ITN/C, of course. m.o.p 03:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Come again? This was heavily discussed at ITN/C, and an uninvolved administrator just closed the debate and added the item. —David Levy 03:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I pity the admin who added this. He'd be besieged by complaints now. Hey at least the person has guts. Yay for him/her. –Howard the Duck 03:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been up there for two hours, and the world hasn't ended yet? But seriously, props to AuburnPilot for adding it. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 05:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Main Page "semi-protection"

Can anyone explain why the Main Page had to be "semi-protected" about half an hour ago? I can't see the point of this admin's edit – all it does is add a gold padlock to the top of the screen. The Main Page has always been protected from non-sysop edits! Jared Preston (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This would indicate it was nothing more than a silly mistake. ;)  f o x  09:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sank not Sunk

In the On this Day section:

1945 Should read:

American forces sank the Japanese Battleship Yamato, not sunk.

best, 194.80.106.135 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the past participate not the correct usage in this case? It's a historical event.  f o x  12:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, 194.*.*.* is correct. "American forces sank the Japanese battleship..." as opposed to "American forces had sunk many Japanese battleships by the end of the war" Physchim62 (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Right you are, then. Fixed.  f o x  12:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

'American forces sink the...' is also applicable Lefty101 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The On this day... section is written in the past tense. —David Levy 14:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, past tense "sunk" is debatable here and here. Art LaPella (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Americans killing civilians - news section

The wikileaks video about the American Apache pilot massacring civilian Iraqis, is a big news subject in the world right now, and its appropriate to attach it to the "in the news" section on the front page. 83.108.192.164 (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for items should be made at WP:ITN/C. As a minimum, a wikipedia article needs to exist which discusses the story. Modest Genius ^talk 02:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It actually is already being discussed there - the big issue is that we don't have an article on the video release, though we do have articles on Wikileaks and the relevant airstrike. But yes, discuss this over there, not here. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the caption of "unarmed civilians". While civilian Iraqis can legally have AK-47s, having a RPG (a weapon used against light armored vehicles) indicates that they are insurgents, yes? Who else would need one? So these reporters were reporting on these insurgents and the soldiers couldn't or didn't sort them out. I think the text is misleading and unfair to the soldiers. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The helicopter pilots and the subsequent army report said the group they targeted were armed with a couple AKs and an RPG. The leaked video suggests that the pilots misidentified the reporters' camera equipment as weapons, which would match eyewitness accounts that the group was unharmed. It appears that the pilots mistook having a telephoto camera pointed at them as having someone preparing to fire. Regardless of how it happened, the pilots did tragically kill two journalists and ten other noncombatant Iraqis, as well as injuring two children. Given that the soldiers fired first and misidentified what they were firing on, I would say that the criticism of their actions is entirely fair. Dragons flight (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is very inflammatory and seriously misleading. Innocent people die all the time in air strikes by many different countries. The wording is also very biased it makes it seem like american troops gunned down civilians in cold blood. WHat is with wikipedia lately... DWood 14:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

We're not Drudge, but I think anyone wanting more details on the event would click the link anyway. ITN is merely a hook to events of interest, not a legitimate news source; it's nigh impossible to compress all of the world's information into one blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this discussion. If anyone has problems with the article, the place to discuss it is at Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. The ITN blurb does not state either way if the other victims were iether civilians or unarmed, nor does it need to: the news story is the release of the video, not the attack which happened nearly three years ago. Physchim62 (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the wording of the In The News mention of this be changed? As it stands now it seems to indicate the US Military was there to kill the journalists. May I suggest "...showing the killing of suspected(alleged) insurgents, and two Reuters Journalists..." The way it is now seems a little off and kind of biased. Anglom (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The wording implies that they were civilians, so I would have to say it is important. But now that I see the evidence for the RPG, or rather the lack thereof, I am inclined to think they may very well be civilians, and the wording is fair. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To say that they were not civilians would be an NPOV breach. The current wording of the ITN piece allows people to go to the longer discussion in the article and make their own minds up. Physchim62 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

3 months later, wikipedia mobile website is still broken

The site which automatically shows up for mobile phones is still not working and worse yet now just has a page saying it is broken. It has been broken for at least 3 months now. Since nobody wants to fix it why not just shut it off for now and just forward to the main site? See this example: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.51 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Which example? In what way is it broken? Modest Genius ^talk 05:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/disable/ Then click on disable or home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.52 (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it works to me, though only the left hand column of the Main Page shows up. Other articles look fine. Modest Genius ^talk 14:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a problem with Opera Mini for mobile phones than. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.71 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Police open fire on protesters in Kirzikingistindan" but no "Army open fire on civilians in Afghanistan"

Very nice. Great Success. --Athinker (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I fully understand your request. If you have a specific instance that is being widely reported right now, then feel free to nominate it at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. If you simply want a comment on how murderous you think the US Army is, then no, POV is bad. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ye but reporting how murderous the Kirzingistinstanan police is fine right? Hypocrisy. --Athinker (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides, you imply that reporting that the US army opens fire on Civilians is Biased. WTF? What exactly is not Biased to you? Censorship? Hypocrisy wins. --Athinker (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Go to WP:ITN/C. Kill stuff there. Thanks.  f o x  19:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Athinker . . . STFU. --AdamSommerton (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Civility; let's try to live by it please. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, that's the mentality that creates biased front pages to begin with. --Athinker (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In conclusion, hypocrisy wins. --Athinker (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

i am confused... did u want blurb to be worded differently? or not be there at all... i dont get where this hypocrisy is since both items were posted. -- Ashish-g55 15:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a blurb right there about the US military opening fire on civilians. Sorry the civilians in question weren't the right nationality for you. APL (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that hypocrisy has taken place here, maybe you would be kind enough to actually even SPECIFY what story you are referring to. If you do not, I am afraid I must dismiss your remarks as simple rant. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin instructions for ITN

I've drafted Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions (WP:ITN/A) with the hope that admins unfamiliar with ITN will find it a useful but simple how-to. Any feedback would be appreciated, be it from regulars or non-regulars, admins or non-admins. I just want to know if it is simple enough and easy to follow and, from admin regulars, whether I've missed anything! Much obliged, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, though could it be incorporated / incorporate (or replace entirely) the instructions at Wikipedia:ITN#Notes_for_administrators? Seems a bit confusing having two sets. Modest Genius ^talk 00:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The latter is a little tucked away an probably not clear to admins unfamiliar with ITN, which is who ITN/A is aimed at- a sort of "idiot's guide to updating ITN". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ssshhh... don't call them idiots in public. --candle•wicke 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol! That was meant more to mean that even if you are an idiot (and I'm sure that doesn't apply to any admin ;-) you could follow that guide! On another note, I've pointed that section to the new page- ITN/A is more comprehensive and more accurate and actually explains the process. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

the date!

How about putting the day and date in the news section! should would help make it look more professional! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.12.208 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The date is already included at the bottom of the column, below the On This Day entries (it currently reads "It is now 8 April 2010 (UTC)") Modest Genius ^talk 00:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The entries at ITN can be up to a week old, so a date that seems to refer to all of them would be inappropriate. It would even be difficult to assign a date to each individual blurb, as some of them concern ongoing events and a few refer to old events that have only just come In[to] the news. Wikinews provides correctly dated journalistic pieces, ITN provides adverts for Wikipedia articles (where the date of last update is tucked right down at the bottom). Physchim62 (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Language

Another language other than english has passed 1 million articles and another is close, would it not be sensible to include a new category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carf1 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Been discussed to death already, with the conclusion that having a category population one is not a great idea.  f o x  19:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Jewish?

Don't you think this ought to be stated in the first sentence? Peter jackson (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done howcheng {chat} 17:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing Miners

I really think someone should put on the "In the News" section something about the 4 unaccounted miners in the W. Va. coal mine blast whose bodies were found. Iamcool234 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Check out WP:ITN/C#Miners killed. This is an update so it can bumped up. –Howard the Duck 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the only mining disaster with ongoing updates. --candle•wicke 17:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese mining item has been posted already. This one hasn't. –Howard the Duck 03:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Free Education?

The word free needs to be changed, probably to government provided, as it certainly costs money to provide the education and saying it's "free" is misleading. You could only argue it's free for the kids if their parents pay no taxes or no taxes that go to education funding.Roy Brumback (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. It seems you are trying to reinterpret the common meaning of free (as in beer) for some sort of political purposes. Free can not possibly mean anything else than at no cost for the user, since education, just like healthcare, beer or rice, can not be created without cost at some point. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

But if I pay a beer tax which the government then uses to make beer and then gives it to me as "free", it isn't free as I have paid for it, even if they call it the free beer act, and I assume the education will be funded by taxes on the people. So there is a cost to the user, unless as I said they don't pay any taxes, so by your own definition of free this isn't.Roy Brumback (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is free. There is no cost to the users. There is a cost to everybody, or in particular to some individuals within a particular income range depending on the tax system. Those who pay may or may not be the end users. I don't know about the details of this case, and it does not matter. Free means free, not magically appearing from thin air at no cost to anybody. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

English is one of India's official languages. We can therefore assume that as the Indian parliament passed "The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act", the phrase "free education" is an appropriate term to use in connection with it. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

'Government provided' is misleading anyway. You can have government provided education without it being free (i.e. compulsory school fees). Also the article isn't clear but it's possible some of the free education may be provided by private schools, whether they get a government subsidy/funding (in which case while the education may be government funded/subsidised not everyone would agree it is 'government provided') or without (for example there's a reservation 'reservation of 25% seats in private schools for children from poor families' it doesn't mention if there's any legislated affect on private school fees but even if not, they'll need to meet the reservation somehow and this could include providing it for free) Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Will the money that pays the teachers come from the government or not? If so, it's government provided. It's only really "free" if the teachers work for nothing and become volunteers, and only free for you if you paid no taxes to the state so they could pay teachers.Roy Brumback (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The funding may be government provided. Whether that means the education is government provided (as opposed to government funded or subsidised or similar) is likely to be disputed. For many people government provided implies the government is the one directly providing the education, not paying someone else to provide it. Incidentally, while paying teachers is a big component, there are many other costs to providing an education including of course textbooks, maintaining the builds, school supplies etc Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Roy, just for the sake of argument, I'm going to apply your definition of "free" to the ITN blurb. "Children in India gain a legal right to a free education." I doubt if children in India pay the taxes which presumably fund the education, therefore education is free to its recipients (the children) even under your narrow definition of "free." Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 14:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Right to Free education or compulsory education

It strikes me as somewhat POV to say "children gain a right to free education" instead of saying "Indian government pass a law introducing compulsory primary education".·Maunus·ƛ· 09:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the bill introducing the act was passed by the Indian parliament in August last year. As of 1 April this year, the act has become law (and part of the Indian Constitution). According to the present law, then, children aged 6-14 have a right to a free education. It now depends on how the law is implemented and enforced. Pingku (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also as with my point above, compulsory education doesn't have to be free. If you feel the compulsory part is important then something like "children gain a right to compulsory and free education" as used in the article would be better Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Maunus is concerned with the "free part". It is the "Right" part which sounds POV. Saying that free education (or compulsory education, whatever) for children is a "right" is POV. It would more neutral to describe what actually happened (the Indian government passing a law about primary school education) rather than making an implicit judgement that it costs taxpayers' money or that it is a fundamental right. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As has already been explained, the law was passed a while ago. And Maunus suggestion did ignore the free part which is seemingly considered an important part. Note that the right to compulsory and free primary education is recognised by the Wikisource:UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 28) which has been ratified by 194 countries, although some may have reservations none of them seem to related to education at least according to our article which could be incomplete, so even though it may be a POV, it's seemingly a widely shared on. Note that it doesn't really matter whether you believe it should be a right. They have been guaranteed a right in law, even if you disagree they should have been, it doesn't mean they haven't been guaranteed the right. No different say if some country guarantees the right to freedom of speech. Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad analogy "right to free speech" and a compulsory obligation to speak freely is not the same thing. The indian law does not just give children a right it makes it obligatory for children to attend school. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The one named after the law that was passed? "The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act" certainly seems to give children a right (or, in what might be a more POV way of putting it, "seems to recognize the right of children") to a free education. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if a law was passed that gave children the right to be publically flogged for truancy it would still be POV to call that a right in my opinion.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that 193 countries agreed to a convention saying it was a right for children to have a free and compulsory education. Also you seem to be missing the point about rights. Ultimately all rights are a POV. Is free speech a right? Clearly not everyone agrees. If you don't accept that free speech is a right, then the claim someone gains a right to free speech is equally POV even if you somehow feel it's not because it's not obligatory. After all a right to free speech takes away someone's right to not have to listen to the speech (you may say people can go away from the area where the person is exercising their right to free speech or whatever, but that's the point, they to do something because if the person is legally exercising their right in a manner not proscribed by law, they have no right to stop them nor ask someone else like the police to stop them.) Some people feel owning slaves or polluting the environment is a right, not everyone agrees. (Note that if people don't have a right to own slaves, then people don't have a right to be a slave, it may be extremely unlikely that anyone would ever want to be a slave, but the fact remains you're taking away what some could argue is a right i.e. making it compulsory that people don't be a slave.) In capitalist countries, owning land is a right, for a communist, by granting people the right to own land, you are taking away their right to live in a place where they can be free from such evils that come from allowing private ownership of land. There are of course other more similar examples. For example, a right to a fair trial usually comes with the requirement that you either accept a trial or receive punishment without a trial. You don't have a right to simply tell the people to sod off, you don't want a trial or punishment without a trial.

In other words, your idea that if something is compulsory it can't be a right is just another POV. We go by what the sources say, the law says it's a right, the convention agreed by 193 countries ditto, so guess what?

Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Momentary bout of irony?

I got a chuckle out of the fact that the FA for today is the Pink Floyd album that came out after Roger Waters' acrimonious departure from the Floyd considering that just yesterday Waters announced his next tour! Dismas|^(talk) 12:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah, nice! xD  urban f o x  13:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to stifle this, but WP:NOT#FORUM. --72.197.202.36 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a dead topic and will now take an extra two days to archive. Cheers :)  f o x  20:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

TFA

Would anyone be able to edit this line in the Pink Floyd TFA blurb - "and decided that the new material would be included in a new Pink Floyd album instead" - to read "and decided that the new material would instead be included in a new Pink Floyd album"? Its an annoying copyedit that I missed before the article hit the main page. I've corrected it in the article itself. Parrot of Doom 09:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Put it in WP:ERRORS for you.  urban f o x  10:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

About photographer Paul Böhm

Dear friends, I hope there be someone, who may have any information about photographer Paul Böhm, who traveled in Turkey at the begining of the 20th century and made photographs. Thank you for your reply.--Zara-arush (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Try the reference desk, not here.  urban f o x  13:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On this day

With no nameline under the Ba Cut mug, I could have sworn it was Barney Fife.

File:Barney-Fife.jpg [non-free image removed] —David Levy 14:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sca (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Today's news

A 7.1 MW earthqueke occured in Gyêgu, 300 people died. Please write an article 2010 Gyêgu earthquake and add it into "In the news". --222.35.83.138 (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

That article now exists and is "In the news". Art LaPella (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fewer than 40,000 articles link

After reading a question in the help desk from someone who thought that we didn't have a Wikipedia in their native language, I think that the "Wikipedia languages" section on the main page would be more intuitive if we moved the link to the full list from the into of the section to its own bullet that read "Fewer than 40,000 articles: List of Wikipedias". --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would expect the current wording/link (Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.) to clearly convey that the intended message, but I don't object to a more prominent link placement.

However, meta:List of Wikipedias is a complete list (not strictly a list of Wikipedias containing fewer than 40,000 articles), and some Wikipedias with more than 40,000 articles are omitted for qualitative reasons. So a label along the lines of Complete list (as displayed on the interwiki sidebar) would be better. —David Levy 18:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the exact wording should be, I just think that it should be at the bottom of the list page rather than in the intro. I'm trying to see from the point of view of someone who speaks a small language and has a limited knowledge of English. I think I would be far more likely to click a fifth bullet under the list of major languages than a word in the middle of the sentence in the introduction. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a good point. Putting a 'Complete List' item at the bottom would be a good solution; the 'Many other Wikipedias' link could also be removed. For that matter, is the introductory sentence necessary at all? The article count and language of THIS wikipedia is already shown in the banner at the top of the MP. Modest Genius ^talk 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

When the main page was redesigned in 2006, we intended to phase out the banner's article count reference (due to Wikipedia's rapidly diminishing need to seek recognition and desire to avoid implying that we value quantity above quality). Four years later, I'd like to think that we're ready to proceed. —David Levy 00:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think sorting them by article count isn't done to seek recognition so much as to put the languages that will most often be sought at the top. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. I'm referring to the "6,907,522 articles in English" statement in the grey banner. We originally placed the article count at the top of the page to inform people that Wikipedia (which was not well known at the time) contained a substantial number of articles. But now that Wikipedia is a top-ten website, we're simply bragging that we have 6,907,522 articles and implying that we value quantity above quality (which obviously isn't considered in that figure). —David Levy 18:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving the link to the bottom is a reasonable option, though I think that centering (instead of bulleting) it would be preferable.

Emboldening the current link is another possibility to consider. —David Levy 00:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"British Isles"?

OK, show's over, folks. Take this to the relevant article or wikiproject talk page since it's no longer on the main page HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article claims that 'Volcanic ash from the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull (pictured) in Iceland causes the closure of airspace over the British Isles and Scandinavia.' Give the British jingoism a rest. It's 2010, not 1810. Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The term British Isles is perfectly valid when referring to the geographical entity --Daviessimo (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be "perfectly valid" geographically, but it's quite objectionable to many Irish people - like referring people from Scotland as English. Denisarona (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, it's the correct geographical term for the group of rocks north west of mainland Europe. Your objections are political rather than geographical, and if we were talking about the political entity, you would be quite correct. That said, given the area this is now affecting, I think "northern Europe" might be a more accurate description. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether it is the "correct geographical term" or not is itself contentious, per multiple discussions elsewhere. Best avoided where possible, in my opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Ghmyrtle. The suggestion from HJ Mitchell is perfect - use "Northern Europe". Denisarona (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the term 'British Isles' as any more biased than 'North America'. However, since airspace has been closed in Belgium and France which aren't covered by the current phrasing, 'Northern Europe' would be a good replacement for reasons of accuracy, rather than to please Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Modest Genius ^talk 17:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree on both points. We shouldn't be altering it out of political correctness (though we shouldn't keep it just to be stubborn) but events have overtaken this discussion since almost every airport in northern Europe is closed, closing or restricting flights. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering we have the article British Isles naming dispute I do believe these grievances cannot simply be brushed off. __meco (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is an article which has been tagged as OR and POV for getting on for a year. I won't dispute that some find the term offensive, but it's a tiny minority that we shouldn't pander to. Anyway, the blurb has been changed so the point is moot. Modest Genius ^talk 21:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is simple. Some Irish people may object but the correct term is the British Isles. One could point to the fact that an appreciable portion of the island of Ireland is British. Ireland, like it or not, is part of the geography known as the British Isles. Regarding substitution by the phrase "Northern Europe" this is not sufficiently definite. Please note the references to UK and Irish airspace. This therefore defines the objection to the phrase "British airspace" as a political and personal objection.

Agent0060 23:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

• They're called the British Isles whether you like it or not. Lets keep the political and personal viewpoint nonsense out of it, please. Parrot of Doom 22:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"...whether you like it or not..." and "Lets keep the political and personal viewpoint nonsense out of it..." Comments of this nature and tone are not helpful. --RA (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, neither is "Give the British jingoism a rest. It's 2010, not 1810."  f o x  08:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, you're absolutely correct. Those sort of comments are not helpful either. --RA (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

All of which just goes to show that the issue isn't dead, at all. __meco (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As it says "British Isles and Scandinavia" it uses two aggregate geographical terms. According to our emerging protocols that is fine. If it said "British Isles, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark then it would not as the others are national identities. Ideally we should get rid of all the emotive language please, including responses. --Snowded ^TALK 09:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the aggregate terms is contentious. The other is not. Scandinavia does not connote any superiority for any one nation. __meco (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither does British Isles if it is used in a geographical context, used in a political context it does and in that context its use should be deprecated. --Snowded ^TALK 10:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Terms carry with them connotations independent of the context they are used. __meco (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course they do, but it doesn't mean we abandon legitimate use. Taking that extreme a position simply ends up with conflict between ideological imposition and removal of the term, something that has plagued far too many pages. The Geography/Political divide is not only sensible its also supported by citations if you go through the myriads of disputed cases. --Snowded ^TALK 11:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'm just being cynical, having spent too much time here, but we see a thread like this roughly every week or so and lots of people spend lots of time debating it either in the wrong venue (here as opposed to, say, Talk:British Isles) or long after the point is moot. In this case, the blurb was altered for reasons of necessity no less than 17 hours ago and yet, we're still having this conversation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of us are working to try and create a set of principles to remove the constant conflict, so its not wasted time. the more examples we get and the more editors engage the more chance we have of removing long term and continuous conflict over the issue. --Snowded ^TALK 12:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but this is not a good place to discuss that. This talkpage is a venue for discussion directly related to the mainpage and, as the formulation of the item has been changed almost a day ago, this has nothing to do with the mainpage anymore. Just copy the useful part of the debate to the article talkpage and continue there ;-) --Tone 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There is a task force on this issue. --217.75.8.219 (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They're very helpful. The internationally-recognised name for these islands is the British Isles. That's all their is to it. If people don't like it, tough, this is the wrong arena in which to debate the matter. Parrot of Doom 09:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They are not. Neither is saying "tough".

The issues with the term are described in reliable sources and are a part of a dialectic (one that is described poorly in the article linked above). You hold one position in that dialectic. You see that there is no problem with the term. Others (not only, or even mainly, Irish, but Britons too and internationally) hold an opposing position: that the term is out-moded, unsuitable and that other terms today are more appropriate.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as are they, and your opinion is not at this time an invalid one. But it is just that: one opinion in a dialectic. While you are entitled to hold it, please do not, in this venue, describe others who hold an opposing position in that dialectic as talking "nonsense" or as being politically motivated (you may in the course of the dialectic do so elsewhere) - even if only because because they would likely say the same thing about you, as can be seen from the original poster in this tread.

(And yes, of course the word is listed in dictionaries, even the most obscure and out-dated of terms are still listed in dictionaries; never mind one, like this, that is still relatively common, particularly on Great Britain.) --RA (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't my opinion. If you don't like the name of these islands, then complain to your MP. Start a campaign. But don't come here with a POV and try an impose it on the rest of us, please. Parrot of Doom 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not expressed my POV. Nor do I intend to. This is not the venue. You've expressed yours adequately for us both :-)

With respect to my "MP" (TD in the Republic), the issue has been raised in the Oireachtas many times, the government have on several occasions expressed concerns over the term with their British counterparts, and TDs and MPs meet regularly at venues such as the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly (not the mention EU venues). Consequently the matter is well-understood and well-appreciated by the British government and British MPs. The acronym, IONA, for example, was proposed in 1980 by a Conservative MP and English MPs were quite forthright in their disapproval of the British-Irish Council being named the Council of the British Isles as proposed by the Ulster Unionist Party in 1998 on the basis that it would be offensive to their Irish counterparts. Irish embassies monitor use of the term.

(The above, by the way, is not my POV nor an argument for or against use of the term on Wikipedia but simply an explanation as to why your suggestion would be unnecessary.)

Adds: Opps! didn't see the archive sign. Right enough PfyT. Show's over. --RA (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They (ie Great Britain and Republic of Ireland as political states, and Channel Islands and Isle of Man as dependencies, and a few other 'fragments') are the British Isles 'unless there is a better and more generally accepted term.' If Windscale and various brandname products can be renamed, and various states, towns, and other places can change their names, why not the British Isles? (g) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Past Versions

How can I view previous versions of this page, or just the news section of it for the past week? I know about the history tab but for this page it only seems to change every month or so, not every day. 207.134.250.140 (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's one of our Frequently Asked Questions. The Main Page history only shows changes in how the Main Page includes several sections, not changes in the sections themselves. History for each section is stored separately. In The News history, for instance, is here. Art LaPella (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the link, Art! I promise I did look at the faq, but had no idea that template item explained my question. Maybe you could add your answer to the faq, that was perfectly clear. Thank you. 207.134.250.140 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I adapted it and added it, although my explanations usually don't survive on Wikipedia (see the "Encyclopedic" section at User:Art LaPella/Devil's Dictionary of Wikipedia Policy). Art LaPella (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

1890s University of Michigan Football Players

Isn't this the second straight day that a 1890s University of Michigan football player has been featured at the top of the daily list of new articles, complete with photo in football uniform?

One Main page lead feature on this theme is enough, two consecutive is too many, and we do not ever need to see a third. --NCDane (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's another FAQ. Art LaPella (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that while it may have been consecutive days, it wasn't consecutive updates first occurence & second occurence; there was 1, 2 3 updates difference Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that bad. Earlier this decade we had everyday DYK blurbs on Eurovision. –Howard the Duck 15:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Eruptions

Surely the eruptions (there have been at least two since this started) would be just as important as the disruption they have caused? Bold them? Simply south (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The only link that's bold on ITN is the one to the article that has been updated in accordance with ITN criteria, so it's not necessarily a matter of importance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The eruption itself isn't all that notable anyway - it's only because they've caused so much disruption to air travel that there's so much interest. Modest Genius ^talk 22:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Image protection

Recently it has become possible to protect against new uploads. Should we change the policy regarding image protections to just have move and upload set to sysop, and have page protection set to semi or all ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is related to the Main Page - all images there have to be full-protected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The primary reason why all images on the main page required full protection, was in order to prevent people uploading new images on top of the existing images. With upload protection, you have a method of targeting that specific behavior. Allowing the description page of the image to be edited, just as most other pages that are linked from the Main Page. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Images are currently cascade protected. If it's possible to change this so cascade protection only protects uploads then this proposal may be okay. If this proposal requires the removal of cascade protection, I doubt it will be acceptable since cascade protection is a good way to reduce admin screw ups and the benefit is minor (realisticly how often do you need to modify image descriptions? Even more so since a fair few main page images are temporary crops or temporary uploads from the commons and the like) Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OTD pic

Fernando Lugo

Aaaaaagggh! It's the return of the dreaded Lugo picture that was in ITN for two weeks a few years ago! Never thought I'd see it on the Main Page again after that ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see the old guy back in action! Modest Genius ^talk 01:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered why his picture was such an item on the main page... --Lucas Brown 04:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone knew this, but apparently, tomorrow is the two year anniversary of the day after Fernando Lugo won the Presidency of Paraguay. Just something to keep in mind for tomorrow's OTD. Always Lugo, Nufy8 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yey! The return of Lugo! He's my hero. Lugnuts (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I bow down to anyone who can stay on the Main Page as long as Lugo. howcheng {chat} 07:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it too. Can't we have another picture of him? 210.84.43.88 (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Huzzah! He's back! Lovelac7 11:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For a while, I thought I was hallucinating just because it's 4/20 today. :-) Anyway, welcome back, Lugo. Glad to see your pic on MainPage again. This has to be my most popular upload to the wiki ever. (Ok. I am hallucinating...) --PFHLai (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Biggest Wikipedia admin in-joke ever.. _ FatM1ke (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday was Bicycle Day, so some readers probably saw Lugo on the main page then too. —David Levy 16:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

HELP!

Somebody deleted a page I was in the middle of making, How do I get it back so I can continue working on it? Do I have to start from scratch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acsm (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Talk page. Rodhullandemu 19:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Euro/American-centric news

Why are most of the news articles in the news section on the front page very European/American centric? Rarely are other regions covered, save for major environmental disasters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.78.153.194 (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All items featured in the ITN section require a Wikipedia article to have been created and/or updated with information about the story. Unfortunately, due to systemic bias (mostly the locations where Wikipedia editors tend to come from), there's more likely to be such an article for events in Europe and North America. If you would like to see more stories pertaining to other regions, please help out by creating/updating the articles and suggesting them at WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current ITN is a bit heavy on items from Europe and the US, but that's where the news is at the moment, though we are also covering a storm in Bangladesh and an earthquake in China. We can't really control where newsworthy events happen, but we do work hard behind the scenes to try and get ITN and the MP as a whole as representative as we can! As Modest Genius suggests, you're welcome to help the effort at WP:ITN/C and assist in updating articles in other geographical areas that might otherwise be missed because it can be difficult for someone thousands of miles away to assess the significance of an event in a different hemisphere and country. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely. You've had the majority of a country's figureheads killed, a major disruption to airspace thanks to an Earthquake, one of the biggest journalism award ceremonies of the year... hard to squeeze it all in with China, Bangladesh and Chile too. Eventful month!  f o x  18:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

These things tend to come and go. ITN/C certainly tries to give a global outlook on news stories, but we are limited by the the stories which are actually "In the news" at any given time (as well as by the efforts of editors to update articles). There was a moment a few months ago, between Christmas and New Year, when every single story on ITN was from China! That's not any pro-Chinese bias at ITN, simply a reflection of the fact that China 'kept on working' while those bits of the world influenced by Christianity were having holidays: we had very few (if any) stories from China around Chinese New Year. The violent death-in-office of a head of state would have been on ITN regardless of the country that he or she represented (see WP:ITN/R for details): it is not "pro-European bias" that Lech Kaczynski happened to be head of state of a European country. Physchim62 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it right that Wikipedia promotes the Pulitzer Prize for American only journalsim as proper news? How much is the Washington Post and New York Times paying? They win every year so what's the point since nobody else can win and looks stupid beside the real disasters hitting Europe and Asia. Get rid of this and it will be less "European/American centric". Its not fair that bits of the world influenced by Christianity have to go on holiday for the bits not influenced by Christianity to have their news there. So the Christian bits are always there until nothing happens and then they realise the rest of the world exists for the first time and other stuff is happening? What a dumb idea. 01:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.40.103.21 (talk)

if u know of an award that is similar to pulitzer in any other country then please tell us. And it will be posted. Not having similar award in other countries does not mean we should leave it for US too. we try and make it as neutral as possible but systemic bias does exist and unfortunately it can not be avoided. -- Ashish-g55 13:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This sort of war between Europe and the U.S. news blurbs just leads to more news blurbs from both areas, with other areas suffering as a result. Sometimes a really crazy compromise for non-U.S./Europe blurb is used, such as the Japan Series being listed together with the World Series; when the blurb reaches the bottom it won't be bumped up anymore even though other blurbs may have been older than the Japan Series blurb. You won't see that in U.S./European events in areas such as (any code of) football and hurling, for example. –Howard the Duck 05:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me mention that even the section on broccoli mentions only the cultivars you would expect most Americans to be familiar with, but the more "exotic" ones dont even get a mention in that section. --Dara (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to put Chinese broccoli or Romanesco broccoli in the list because they both have "broccoli" in the name, so it wouldn't be surprising that they were related to Calabrese broccoli, and kohlrabi made the list too long (I dislike having the last line end with a single word). I suppose I could have replaced one of the others with kohlrabi, but I was only looking at line length and that was the last one in my list, so it got chopped. howcheng {chat} 08:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an English Language encyclopedia hosted in America- therefore, mostly Americans and Europeans contribute to it, therefore, mostly American and European Articles are high quality. --Rockstonetalk to me! 13:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well this issue of ITN being Western centric has raised time and again. Actually at ITN we follow the simple rule, somebody nominates a Item, and editors at ITN gives their input. This item may be any news from all over the world. Their is no specific quota for any particular region. Just post you news item there and editor will look at it and an admin will then post it. For General criteria see WP:ITN and for Recurring items WP:ITNR.--yousaf465 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets not forget that apparently, someone winning the Boston Marathon is news. Surely that's something that HAPPENS EVERY GODDAMN YEAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.147.123 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone winning? Yes. Someone setting a new course record? No. --72.197.202.36 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it's just that nobody died. Good news ain't news. ;)  f o x  14:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Listen complainers, this is the E-n-g-l-i-s-h ENGLISH language Wikipedia, and naturally news and featured articles are going to emphasize subjects of most interest to native English speakers. That means the The West gets top billing, with heaviest focus on the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

I would similarly expect the Chinese language Wiki to focus on China and Asia. --NCDane (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In the week 10-16 April, there were 281 mentions of countries or multinational organizations (mentions here meaning 1 mention of a country or a person, location, or organization primarily or solely associated with that country in one line of news), of which 153 were from either Europe, Canada, or the US. That's barely over 50% of the news, and this was before the Chinese earthquake, the days of the Polish air disaster, leading up into the British election, and at the beginning of the Icelandic volcano eruption. Compare this with the MSNBC sidebar on my computer: of 100 articles, only 26 did not mention the United States directly, never mind other European countries. I hardly think ITN is biased, especially when these factors and comparisons are taken into consideration, and especially considering this is, as NCDane said, an English language Wikipedia. 140.247.236.180 (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Michigan football spamming: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Some spammer is inflicting a new University of Michigan football related article on an almost daily basis.

Enough is enough.

Someone needs to tell this spammer to cease and desist. --NCDane (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by NCDane (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not spam. If you don't like it, go off and write articles on something that interests you and nominate them for DYK, but just because somebody is obviously putting a lot of effort into writing and expanding articles on a topic you don't like doesn't mean they're any less entitled to have their efforts showcased on DYK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A daily series of articles on the same trivial subject IS spam, and I hope the selection commitee starts doing a better job recognizing this late 19th centruy Michigan football spam for what it is. --NCDane (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So writing encyclopedic articles with a good amount of references, and improving the project is spam? Just because you don't like the subject matter does not make them trash; I would warn you that accusing a good faith editor writing quality content of spamming, essentially vandalism, could be considered a personal attack by some. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Not really: Spam (electronic) is "the abuse of electronic messaging systems ... to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately". 1) It's not abuse, as the articles are being selected through the current, consensus derived process. 2) It's not unsolicited. We actively solicit entries for DYK - in fact, the common response to "why can't you put <something else> in DYK" is "Pick a topic you like and start writing, and we'll feature those." 3) It's not bulk - the people putting together the entries try very hard not to feature two of the same sort of article in any one update. 4) It's not indiscriminate, either in content or in audience. The entries are reviewed for quality - something that you could help with if you wanted to, by the way - but the general intention is that *all* articles which meet the criteria and are nominated for DYK get featured. Also the DYK entries are only placed in the DYK section - "no one is forcing you to read it", as they say. -- The main issue you're running into is the time limitation on DYK entries. To be featured an article needs to have been created (or greatly expanded) in the past 5 days. What occasionally happens is we get a user/group of users who make a concerted effort to create articles on a general topic Wikipedia is deficient in (Michigan Football/Eurovision Songs/insect species/etc.) and creates a large number of such articles in a short time frame. We want to recognize their accomplishments, and don't want to punish them for not dribbling articles out over several months. This means that the dozen or so articles all need to be featured in DYK the same week, to meet the "within 5 days" guideline. If you want to change that, WT:DYK is the appropriate venue. -- 174.24.208.192 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Selection committee"? Woogee (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Srpskohrvatski

Somebody please change the front page listing all of the languages Wikipedia comes in. There is no such thing as a 'srpskohrvatski' language. Srpski and Hrvatski are two completely different languages, with different vocabularies and alphabets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.249.87 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find "srpskohrvatski" on my monitor. If you mean the bottom of the page, "Српски / Srpski" is on the 100,000 line and "Hrvatski" is on the 40,000 line. If you mean the list on the left edge, "Hrvatski" is sorted alphabetically with the H's, and "Српски / Srpski" is with the S's. Art LaPella (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP is not talking about the en.wikipedia main page but the www.wikipedia.org main page, where it does show "Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски" as a link to sh.wikipedia.org. MorganaFiolett (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And a little further research shows that sh.wikipedia.org is in the language variously known as Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, or Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS) and it appears to be correctly titled. MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the language is usually called Serbo-Croat in English. Whether you count it as 1 language or 2 is largely a matter of politics. Danish & Norwegian are pretty much mutually intelligible, but are conventionally counted as 2 languages since they belong to 2 countries. "Logically", now that Serbia & Croatia are 2 countries, their languages should count as separate. Peter jackson (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, problems occuring on www.wikipedia.org should be discussed at Meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template. There's nothing we can do about (well except post your message there) unless someone here happens to be a meta admin. Definitely there's no reason to discuss them in this extremely odd location which appears to be in the error section but isn't Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

On this day... Administrative Professionals' Day (2010)

The "on this day" section has "...Administrative Professionals' Day (2010); ...Tiradentes Day in Brazil". Surely if a public holiday in Brazil is listed followed by "in Brazil" then a public holiday in the USA should be followed by "In the United States of America" (or whichever name they prefer to call themselves by)?129.94.113.42 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you took two seconds to read the article, you'd realize it's an international event. Go troll elsewhere. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 04:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's at least try to assume good faith. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrative Professionals' Day is unclear about whether it is international or not. The article is US-centric throughout apart from a single "worldwide" at the end, and its discussion page seems equally confused about its status. Bazza (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What a weird response. I just now took several seconds to read the article and it starts with the line "Administrative Professionals Day is an unofficial secular holiday observed in the United States". Taking a few more seconds, i find that it's been worded like this for nearly a year. APL (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

According to many sources (like this and this), the day is actually only observed in United States. The organization itself however is international. So the IP's concern is very valid (not that i necessarily support) and dismissing without even trying to look and calling them a troll is rude at best. trolling goes both ways... -- Ashish-g55 18:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So it's international in the same way that the World Series is an international competition? --86.185.251.50 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate those sources are since AFAIK the day is somewhat observed in NZ (although I can't say how widely). E.g. [1] (the breakfast is on the 28th but if I understand this source correctly the 21st is the day that is nominally APD). However I have to agree it's clearly not observed in some/many? countries and apparently observed on different days in other countries. And perhaps most importantly our article seems to imply it is a US only thing, so it's rather bizzare to tell the OP he/she should have read the article. I can't help wondering whether DC should direct this message to him/herself. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Today is the most important holidaay in the portuguese modern history. I think the Carnation Revolution should be mentioned along with the ANZAC day

MfD

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection might be of interest to the folks here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• MfD is now an RfC and can be found at WT:TFA#RfC: Time to dispense with WP:NOPRO? for those who are interested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Main page gender bias

Please note discussion at VPP#Main page gender bias. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the links to the wikipedias that have more than 40,000 articles

The macedonian wikipedia has more than 40,000 articles, can you please add a link on the main page in the section of wikipedias with over 40,000 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivostefanov (talk • contribs) 21:53, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 22:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As noted in the template's documentation, "Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted."

Per Template talk:Wikipedialang#Macedonian Wikipedia, I've reverted the addition (and referred Allen3 to that discussion, of which he presumably was unaware). —David Levy 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day photo credits requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Picture of the day photo credits --MZMcBride (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the in the news section

It would look better to say in Bangkok Thailand, rather than in Bangkok and than latter in Thailand.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I disagree- I think it clarifies that there is ongoing disturbance in Thailand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree. Bangkok, Thailand is unnecessary if the location of Thailand is clear from the line and it is. And the part about "tension between anti- and pro-government protesters in Thailand." helps clarify that the problems exists outside of Bangkok. If we just said "A series of explosions in Bangkok, Thailand kills at least one person and injures 86 others during a peak in tension between anti- and pro-government protesters" it seems to imply the problem is restricted to Bangkok and IMHO isn't as well worded as the current anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is also a bit of a English variety-dependent style issue. Common practice in the US is to disambiguate by default, e.g. add the comma separated country unless it seems overly redundant. In Britain, the default is to omit disambiguation, unless there is a genuine concern for confusion. If you are from the US, you're more used to seeing the phrase "Bangkok, Thailand", so a naked "Bangkok" looks "off"; whereas someone from the UK, used to seeing just "Bangkok", might see "Bangkok, Thailand" and think the writer was patronizing them for not knowing where Bangkok was. -- 174.24.208.192 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the reason for the American practice (apart from their notorious ignorance, of course) is that they've named so many places there after places elsewhere in the world. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New Layout

When did this new layout occur and why? Simply south (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, what new layout? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is a reference to the unusually short TFA/ITN. In which case, it is just a coincidence that two days in a row has FAs w/no pics (and thus took up less space), forcing ITN to shorten as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am quite liking the fact that I can see most of the DYKs and OTDs now and that only the most recent (and hence relevant) ITNs are shown. Could we look at permanently shortening TFA blurbs? Quite often I don't have the enthusiasm to read them all anyway - Dumelow (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tallinn Bronze Soldier

The current text in "On this day" sounds as if Estonia was a "Soviet war memorial". I recommend rewording it: "Controversy surrounding the relocation of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, a Soviet Red Army World War II memorial in Tallinn, Estonia, erupted into mass protests and riots." 193.40.37.161 (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but moving to WP:ERRORS.  f o x  08:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That change has been made by Woody. Art LaPella (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Organ Failure

The waragi blurb in the "In the News" section uses the term "multiple organ failure" which links to an article that says the term "multiple organ failure" shouldn't be used anymore. This is such a silly and basic oversight that should have been screened. Can someone fix this? Some guy (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. —David Levy 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The blurb is still pathetic. How can anyone claim to have a source for "multiple organ dysfunction syndrome" and yet not for simple "methanol poisoning"! This has been brought up several times already, with no satisfactory response. Physchim62 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's not great. How about: "Eighty people have died from methanol poisoning over three weeks..." I'll cross-post to WP:ERRORS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We've been seeing a wider range of contaminants in illegaly distilled products of late so it's no longer viable to chalk up all the reported issues to methanol unless you've had a proper anslysis done.©Geni 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Today's Featured Picture

Maybe it's just me but I don't see a picture, only the blurb. I appologize if this is not the right place to report this, not overly proficient in Wikipedia 69.41.192.218 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just you. For your future knowledge, the correct place for reports such as this is WP:ERRORS.  f o x  13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK

moved to WP:ERRORS by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Errors section

Has a decision been taken to stop transcluding it to this page, or is it just an error itself? Peter jackson (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I just fixed it. An edit by 194.83.104.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed it amongst other things - Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Main Page Bias

I'm a little dismayed at the pro-Earth bias apparent on the Main Page today. Can we please feature some articles about extraterrestrial topics like astronomical phenomena, interstellar cultures, and Madonna? Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 12:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Happy Earth Day!

meh i'll accept a little pro-earth bias on earth day. we have extra-terrestrials on main page all the time -- Ashish-g55 13:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Even worse is the complete lack of independent third party coverage in reliable sources. A Google search brings up only Earth-based sources created by people with a clear conflict of interest. The fact that off-Earth sources devote only two words to their coverage of the topic clearly show that it is non-notable. I would nominate it for deletion but I already know that the discussion will be completely overtaken by a bunch of meat-puppets all !voting keep. ;) Zunaid 13:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew it. I just knew that the smart-alecks would be out on this one... I should have been faster to get in here! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I've argued about Wikipedia's terracentrism before. It always falls on deaf ears.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote to delete it. A. Vogon 21:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

[this is good] 137.22.11.102 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely somebody could drum up some sources written by Xenu. Woogee (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems somebody heard you. Fixman^{Praise me} 01:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Dang! If I'd caught it in time, I could have made some poor attempts at humor regarding anti-extraterrestrial pro-Terran propaganda in the form of arcade games. Oh, well. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 17:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Would iced asteroid suffice? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please add a link to the Hindi Wikipedia to the main page

Please add the Hindi Wikipedia to the list of "languages" at the left side of the main page. Hindi now has more than 54,000 articles, according to our List of Wikipedias. Greek, which appears in this list, has fewer than 51,000 articles. Surely if Greek, with just 12 million native speakers and fewer articles than Hindi, appears on the main list, so should Hindi, which with 250-450 million native speakers (according to our list of languages by number of native speakers) is the fourth most widely spoken language in the world. Marco polo (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The place for discussion of this is Template talk:Wikipedialang. The current consensus seems to be that the Hindi wikipedia contains too many short article to be included - Dumelow (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed this discussion, I agree with the consensus and withdraw my request. Marco polo (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture as the featured article

Moan, moan, moan. Wikipedia is dumbing down. The Simpsons is crap past season 8 anyway. Why is Wikipedia promoting Scientology? Why is Wikipedia promoting commercial interests? How much did Rupert Murdoch pay Jimmy Wales for this plug? Why aren't there more featured articles about black lesbian panda hunters? Etc. Bradley0110 (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the world?!

Why do practically all of the articles have to do with America!? If that makes sense.. Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

GAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! This complaint again? Read the archives. It's the natural outgrowth of the demographics of visitors here. The answer to the "problem" remains the same: WORK ON ARTICLES ON OTHER COUNTRIES! If the articles aren't here or aren't well done, they won't be on the front page. 199.90.28.195 (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have to be so rude?! Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The list of countries mentioned on the Main Page currently includes Greece, Sudan, Belgium, Panama, France, Austria, Ethiopia, Russia, the U.K., , Germany, Albania, Canada, the Netherlands, Vietnam, Switzerland, Egypt, China, Japan, and Columbia, "various European countries"... and, yes, the United States. To counter a joking "Earth-centric" comment I made last week, there's even an extraterrestrial entity mentioned. If the IP's post was unnecessarily rude, it may have been because the original question was based on a questionable perception of the facts. The IP's point is quite relevant: you are welcome to work on articles about under-represented nations, thereby allowing them to appear on the Main Page more often. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 15:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do practically all of the articles on French Wikipedia's Main Page have to do with the European Union (which is arguably a fairer comparison to the United States than just France)? Art LaPella (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, this type of question/complaint comes up regularly, which explains Mr. 199.90's violent response to it. Basically, most editors are from Europe and the United States, and write articles about those places (see wp:BIAS). To Mr. 199: it's coming from different people, so there's no need to be rude. I certainly don't examine the archives before I post on a talk page. I expect that if my concern has been addressed before, someone will politely point me to the archives. Buddy431 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How about adding something to Talk:Main Page/HelpBox notifying readers that bias is to be expected? 79.67.153.54 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There would be no point, since this is the English language Wikipedia, and any intelligent reader could be expected to work out for themselves that its content reflects the interests of its contributors. That said, there's nothing to prevent a reader coming here to find that there isn't an article on their favourite topic, becoming an editor, and creating one. I suspect that's how many established editors started. But we also have articles covering most of cosmic history, from Big Bang to Hubble telescope, and most of geography, from Arctic to Antarctic. Any omissions, you are welcome to rectify. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Could anyone write a program to look at (say) all my articles... look up the geotag or birthplace etc and give me a rating for geo-centricity? I think it might help people to "improve" wilipedia's aim of sharing information with everyone if they could see their rating. Just an idea. My talk page is welcome of anyone supports etc. Victuallers (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Workers Day

There is no history of the worker's day given anywhere on the main page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit.bastian (talk • contribs) 14:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the "On This Day," and you can click on the link for more info. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 14:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Another f...ing hurricane

Can you guys EVER put something else than hurricanes on the front page???--345Kai (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You want video games??? –Howard the Duck 06:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, be sure to check out yesterday's FA, or tomorrow's. Also, it appears that you have not read enough of them yet, as you don't know the difference between a tropical storm and a hurricane. Go curse at someone else. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To reduce the frequency of any topics re-appearing in the TFA slot, please work on the topic of your choice (for you, not hurricanes, obviously) and submit them to WP:FAC & WP:TFAR. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Barry

The leading sentence of today's featured should be edited. Currently, it says that the storm made landfall in June, but not of which year. This info is located one or two sentences further on, but this really should be fixed. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. For next time, please see #Main Page error reports above. You may get a quicker response there. --PFHLai (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mosley-Mayweather Fight headline

It's not the WBC title, it's the WBA wealterweight title. Rio de oro (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. For next time, please see #Main Page error reports above. You may get a quicker response there. --PFHLai (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Birds

Congrats to our avian friends! After YEARS of PotD dominance, birds are finally taking over the AotD as well! Mammalian dominance has finally come to an end. It's about time. Alphabet55 (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, I thought INSECTS had POTD dominance... have the birds eaten all of the insects? When will we be getting Alfred Hitchcock? We should be told! Physchim62 (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ten bucks says the next entry is a joke about systematic bird bias Antimatter--talk-- 02:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(you were close, though! :P) It's this damn animal bias! I demand we stop featuring anything at all on the main page to remove the bias. Oh wait, that would give us an empty space bias! Damn! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea... an annual empty space day where readers get a blank page and editors get a holiday... let them try to complain about that. They'll have to find the talk page first! :P --candle•wicke 02:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Which would be blank. Buggie111 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason why there are birds is because it is Bird Day (see the 1st section). Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 03:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Something green or dead would also have been appropriate for today. --candle•wicke 04:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get "Intentionally blank page" up to Featured Article status? -- 174.21.225.115 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There's eleven months until the next Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page. Go go go! Modest Genius ^talk 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, there's even a Special:BlankPage we could link to! Modest Genius ^talk 18:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If today is bird day, then when is cat day? The main page has a well-known anti-cat bias which needs to be remedied. Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "anti-cat bias"? Any feline worthy of the name recognizes a buffet when they see one. --Allen3 ^talk 09:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Quack quack –Howard the Duck 05:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

6 films, endless books, games and hype and still you cannot remember .. May the 4th be with you Victuallers (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides, what are birds? We just don't know. Monotonehell 13:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Have to say that was exactly the phrase that came into my mind today upon seeing the FA, haha. ~ mazca ^talk 15:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is going to the birds anyway. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments like that are bound to put the cat among the pigeons. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

FACT: The Internet is Made of Cats. But Wikipedia has so few of them on the main page, clearly there's something fishy going on here. Ceiling Cat (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Most expensive painting - not

Wikipedia isn't the yellow press, right? The linked article shows a list of inflation adjusted prices for paintings, and the said picture is not #1. --91.32.94.81 (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It clearly says that it's one of the most expensive paintings, not the most expensive and says nothing about it being #1. freshacconci talktalk 11:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not even in the top 5. Pretty weak for an ITN entry. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The painting is the most expensive painting, non-inflation adjusted, sold at auction. The top three most expensive paintings were private sales, and the other above it were a lower sale price at the time of the auction --Daviessimo (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, the blurb should say that. "One of the most" lacks precision. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Picasso paintings selling for hundreds of million of dollars is hardly an every day occurrence and that's why it got on ITN, though I don't understand why people seem to enjoy criticising ITN on here, but never actually participate in the discussions there. If it hadn't gone up, somebody would be criticising because ITN would have gone so long without an update. Also, if anybody wants to make a suggestion for improving the blurb, I'll be happy to adjust it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to expect every editor to follow every discussion at ITN/C. They post here when they see it on the main page... which, incidentally, is exactly what Talk:Main Page is for. The various sections have devolved into a bureaucratic mess spread out over countless other pages, but this is the page people are supposed to use to comment on the main page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

i agree that not everyone can follow everything, but you seem to be contradicting yourself by saying bureaucratic mess spread out over countless other pages. its only one page for ITN entries... ITN/C -- Ashish-g55 17:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And many more for its various archives, and the archives of this page (to which readers will be directed if they ask a question that has been answered before), and all the other similar pages for On This Day, Featured Article, Featured Picture, DYK, other languages, sister projects, metadata... ITN isn't the only thing on the main page that people comment about. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And if all those things were on one page, it would be beyond a mess and even more impossible to follow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Debatable, but that's not the point. All I'm saying is that it's not reasonable to expect a reader to be familiar with every bit of our self-imposed bureaucracy before they can voice a concern without being belittled.[2]. That's what talk pages are for, and any organizational niceties we might prefer ("this should be posted at WP:ERRORS, not here" is a common one) are secondary to that purpose.

The Picasso story went from being a suggestion to being on the main page in less than 2 1/2 hours, with the input of only two editors (and one comment from a third). I'm not saying it was a bad decision at all, but it shouldn't be surprising if it turns out a couple of people don't think the subject quite passes muster. Let's not pretend there was sweeping consensus for it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree - less BITE on this page would certainly be a good thing. That said, there is nothing wrong with informing someone of the "correct" place to post (for future reference), as long as it is done politely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as it's done for future reference and not at the expense of taking care of the problem at hand.

So, to the blurb itself (even though it's becoming old news at this point)... How about "Pablo Picasso's Nude, Green Leaves and Bust sells for US$106 million, becoming the most expensive painting ever sold at auction." I don't really know how best to insert "not adjusted for inflation" into that statement, but I think it's still an improvement over the weasel-wording of that "one of the most" phrase. Thoughts, anyone? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed, though it's less than ideal. I welcome any thoughts on how to work the inflation qualifier in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of a mouthful. We need a word that's the opposite of "real dollars". But I don't think "fake dollars" is it. :) Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's actually "nominal". Still don't see a great way of fitting it into the blurb, though. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid economics goes straight over my head but perhaps if you could come up with a crappy way of phrasing it, we could find an improvement between us? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent] Maybe "Pablo Picasso's Nude, Green Leaves and Bust sells for US$106 million, the highest price ever paid for a painting at auction." That would be true, because while the value of the dollars may change with inflation, the actual numeric price does not. That might not be any less confusing to the average reader, but I believe it's technically correct. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I love making a comment, disappearing for a while, and then finding a whole discussion has taken place and come to a resolution. I realize I added nothing substantive to the discussion but it's nice to see things work themselves out without me having to do anything taxing like forming a thought or opinion. freshacconci talktalk 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The featured picture

This was one of April Fool's planned 2010 pictures, see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Today's Featured Picture/Archive 2010#Proposed Images. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 02:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

True, and it didn't get picked, so it's finally getting its day on the Main Page (about a year late). howcheng {chat} 18:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What?

What is this on the main page now? A horse race and a non-title (!) boxing match? This is not the Sportspedia. Geschichte (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Snooker is on its way to bring some UK balance. Weeee. –Howard the Duck 14:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so Wikipedia should only feature news about wikis? --AdamSommerton (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of sports finish at this time of year. Come back in autumn, I'm sure nothing will be happening then.  f o x  21:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the World Series --72.197.202.36 (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And of course the "more international" All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship. –Howard the Duck 01:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As compared to golf and hockey in TIME (1931).

Very outdated though, "perhaps it began when two Irishmen fought with clubs for possession of a potato and their neighbors took sides"?! Sounds hilarious. --candle•wicke 02:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is autumn. And the Super 14 is ongoing, as is the NRL Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Plus the UAAP and NCAA in the Philippines basketball which has a truckload of more Wikipediaarticle views than hurling and rugby but won't get posted because it's an American sport, the competition is not the "highest" in that sport, and it is in the country most White guys don't know where to point at a map. –Howard the Duck 11:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To make things worse, 2009–10_Heineken_Cup (rugby), despite having significantly less views than Euroleague_2009–10 (basketball, see article views) will have an easier time of being added to ITN compared to the basketball league. –Howard the Duck 11:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Those stats are for a single month (Sep '09 for the first set and Mar '10 for the second set) and so may not be representative, e.g. one sport may have had a lot happening then (prompting lots of page views) and the other may be in a quieter time (prompting few of page views).

The population of the Philippines is around 92 million whereas that of Ireland is, from memory, around 6 million so that may be expected to have some impact on the number of page views.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In those 90 million probably around (and I am guestimating) 15% have internet access every day, and around 10% went to college, and maybe around a million studied in the 17 schools of those two leagues. Basketball games are held at most twice a week, dunno about hurling, but the people in Ireland have higher internet access and the audience is not restricted to one demographic. I chose those September since it is around that time those leagues reach their climax. –Howard the Duck 10:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Given a population of over 90 million then either 15% or 10% is still larger than the entire population of the island or Ireland.

As you say "maybe around a million studied in the 17 schools..." its is possible that you were trying to multiply the 15% and the 10%, that gives a figure of 1.38 million.

In any case 1 million people is a sixth of the population of Ireland. However to make a meaningful comparison you would need to compare the 1 million with the people closely associated with (members of perhaps) the hurling clubs in Ireland. I have no idea what that figure is but I guess it is a lot less than 1 million.

Interest in college level sport is not limited to those who went to college. Certainly my experience in the US is that people who have no association with a college are interested in college sport.

You say "I chose those September since it is around that time those leagues reach their climax". That might be a good measure for a news ticker but it is not for an encyclopædia. For an encyclopædia a better measure might be the averages hits for, say, the pages covering 1995 to 2005, as that takes away the bias towards the new.

In any case what I was pointing out was that the stats that you presented are open to multiple interpretations, not just the one that you took.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I've read, hurling is Ireland is by province. And people have been hurling since God knows when, so it can be said that the hurling audience is not just limited to people closely associated with hurling clubs.

As for college basketball in the Philippines, there might be more people in the arena than the pro league but TV ratings are lower than pro ball. I dunno if one million is a correct estimate -- the largest school has an annual enrollment of ~38,000, but around 7 have an average of ~10,000 while the rest are ~6,000. Mutiply those with around 60 years, not taking into account fluctuation of enrollment figures and population and those who actually care we'd get the right number. But the article views on the tournament articles for pro ball are lower since the audience is mostly for poorer people that don't have internet access. The audience demographics for sport and every level of sport is not always the same in every country. –Howard the Duck 11:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As for news tickers, that's sorta the criteria ITN uses, if there is enough interest in the story. If there's not that enough interest ITN most likely won't add it. –Howard the Duck 11:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(od)As I said, what I was pointing out was that the stats that you presented are open to multiple interpretations, not just the one that you took and that other factors need to be taken into account.

"so it can be said that the hurling audience is not just limited to people closely associated with hurling clubs" and it can also be said that the college basketball audience is not just limited to people who went to college. I was trying to make a meaningful comparison.

"I dunno if one million is a correct estimate" - well it is your estimate!

"The audience demographics for sport and every level of sport is not always the same in every country" - so a simple comparison of page views (which is what you did) is not very meaningful. You are making my point for me.

"As for news tickers, that's sorta the criteria ITN uses" - Uh, no. A news ticker will mention something as soon as it happens, even if there is no more information that 'It is reported that X just happened'. ITN needs a new or updated article about the subject, so something may not be posted there until days after the event happens.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• It all boils down to Wikipedia readers -- who reads the articles. If we can consider a sport played in a country of a few million people, then we should consider a sport played in a country of 92 million.
• News tickers won't mention anything unless there is an update. Same in Wikipedia, only that we won't wait for days after the update came. –Howard the Duck 03:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We consider and have articles on all sorts of sports. We don't base whether an item is featured solely on the basis of the number of people in the country where it takes place. If we did then the only sports featured would be from China or, if we limit it to countries where English is an official language, India.

No, news tickers and ITN are substantially different. A news ticker will mention something as soon as it has anything, even an unsubstantiated rumour that turns out to be false. Also a news ticker will mention it straight away. ITN needs a new or updated article with the edits supported by reliable sources and so something may not be posted there until days after the event happens.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Which brings me to my point: why is the hurling final which is probably a major news event in a country with a very small populatiom listed at WP:ITNR?

You are way too underestimating ITN. Updates can be added in minutes, such as in sporting events and election results. –Howard the Duck 13:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hurling is included because there is a consensus for that. If you disagree with that try and change the consensus.

However you are ignoring the point that if inclusion is based solely on population, as you seem to be advocating, then only sports from China, or India, will be included. Are you saying that is what you want?

I never said that ITN always takes days merely that that it may take days.

Also you have repeatedly ignored my main point that the stats that you presented are open to multiple interpretations, not just the one that you took and that other factors need to be taken into account.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I Cannot Believe...

I cannot believe that something so ridiculous, trivial, unnoteworthy, and Junior High School juvenile as "Boobquake" could be selected as a featured article in a serious encyclopedic internet site.

It is not possible to assume good faith by any party to something so obviously intellectually substandard.

The Wikipedia owner, CEO, board of directors, etc. need to get off their (excuuuuse me) fat asses, yes, fat asses, and take professional control of quality assurance for this critically important daily feature of the most critically important site in all of the Internet.

The owner, CEO, board of directors, etc. are being negligent, and they need to reverse professional course and rededicate themselves to making this site a continuously better place.

Instead they are allowing it to be continuously degraded by frivolous subjects authored by the perpetually adolescent such as this stupid "boobquake" article.

"Boobquake" might have a place on a soft porn site catering to the arrestedly developed, but it has no place at Wikipedia, which is supposed to cater to the intellectually earnest, I think. --NCDane (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We hope you felt better after writing this and could help wikipedia to be a better place. There is plenty of work to do around. See also WP:UNCENSORED Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone gets confused later, this was in response to Boobquake appearing in the DYK section, not "as a featured article". And please, don't feed the trolls. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a featured article... yet. April Fool's Day is only eleven months away... -- tariqabjotu 00:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, nothing like political and social commentary to get the blood flowing on a softcore porn site. Did you read the article, or just the title? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty good article, as well.  f o x  13:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call NCDane a troll. He/she regularly makes complaints about articles on the main page. I haven't see anything to suggest this is anything but genuine dislike of the articles or the intention anything but an attempt to somehow convince people to fix the problem he/she sees, no matter how misguided or pointless that may be. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been a Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells entry on the main page for a while. Jackiespeel (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, yes it has been translated into Persian! Physchim62 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow NCDane. Not much of one for actually for being a student of ALL of life's facets, are you? Just because something doesn't live up to your ivory-tower ideals of what "SHOULD" be included in Wikipedia? How intelligent or high-brow can you actually call yourself if you can't even comprehend that others may perceive this topic differently from your narrow tunnelvision on the matter?

I absolutely HATE it when people try wield their loyalty to a product (in this case Wikipedia) as a weapon and act as if "The owner, CEO, board of directors, etc," should drop everything in order to smite this "so obviously intellectually substandard," garbage.

If this site is making you so naseous, stop threatening that you are going to exercise your right as 'a consumer' of this site and just never come back.

Or grow up, develop at least some semblance of a sense of humor, and mellow thyself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.84.227 (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In the News article on Neanderthal and homo sapiens sapiens interbreeding

Is there a better link that can be used in this in the news story? It currently jumps the reader to a portion of the Neanderthal article that doesn't appear to mention the discovery in any kind of great detail. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, we would have used Neanderthal genome project but that's in no state to be on the MP- it's got a load of ugly tags at the top and the body is full of "clarification needed" tags, but if anybody wants to improve it (I would but my knowledge of genetics is 0) I'd be happy to put it up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh geez... that page is in pretty rough shape. Not sure I can fix it, but I'll give it a shot. If nothing else, I'll reduce the page for the purpose of giving the news item a better target for the short term... Hiberniantears (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. I've given Neanderthal genome project a little initial TLC by reorganizing it, and making a far more concise intro which includes references to the published results in this month's Science (journal) as well as the Max Planck PR. It still needs substantial expansion on the results, but I think this might be a good enough first step to change to the target in the news item. Thoughts? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! That's much better. There are still a lot of those "clarify" tags and it could use a bit of work, but I'd say it's postable so I'll do it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The NGP page was in such a bad shape because of edit-warring in the past, ironically due to a user who wanted interbreeding to be true at a time when evidence still pointed against it. --dab (𒁳) 19:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom election

Old discussion also ongoing at WP:ITNC#United Kingdom general election, 2010.

While I appreciate I may be a tad biased, is the whole "most important and on-the-rocks British general election in 30 years" thing not worth an "on this day.." piece? Ironholds (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ITN/C (there seems to be strong support there), although I'm sure that elections aren't really considered newsworthy until a result is declared; even more newsworty if there is a hung parliament? 79.67.153.54 (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... It's not a holiday and it's not an anniversary of an event. That's why it's not there. When the results are in, it'll appear on ITN. I hate to sound curt, but when you have more than 50,000 edits and two years under your belt, it's really annoying to get this kind of complaint. It's quite apparent, even from first glance, what some of the most basic criteria for OTD are. But, now you're telling me that after the hundreds, if not thousands, of times you've seen the Main Page, you still don't recognize this. Wow. -- tariqabjotu 10:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not curt, just rude. A search through any of those 50,000 edits and two years of contributions would find that I've never really contributed anything to the main page, other than the articles I spend my time writing. A simple explanation as given below by HJ Mitchell would have been sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Say what you want, but I have no qualms expressing annoyance or surprise that an apparently experienced editor doesn't know the purpose of OTD. The tone of my response met the tone of your inquiry just fine. -- tariqabjotu 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't qualify for OTD because it's not an anniversary or anything like that, but the results will be on ITN when they're known. I'm not a huge fan of that rule, but it was the same for the last US presidential election and every other election. It would be nice to be able to give more MP coverage to these kinds of events, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm also an experienced editor, and I have to agree with Ironholds. The 2008 US election was well covered, even going to the unprecidented step of having a double TFA. Not even mentioning the UK election will no doubt elicit false claims of American bias. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Because we had a featured article on John McCain, which had never appeared as TFA before. But there was concern that might look bad to only feature one of the candidates and Barack Obama, while having been TFA before, was also featured. So, we went with two. In this case, is Gordon Brown or David Cameron or Nick Clegg featured? No, no, and no. Do we have any article related to the election that's featured? Maybe, but we also have a 100th-anniversary article, which, if it is any consolation, is related to the UK. We cannot be compelled to slap something on the Main Page, when we have nothing that meets qualifications, just because it is one of the biggest news stories or because it's important in a particular person's country. Perhaps the current setup will elicit false claims of American bias, but as they are false we are perfectly right to ignore them. But what seems to be suggested is that we go out of our way to include something on one country's election, even though there is nothing that fits the criteria; now that's bias. -- tariqabjotu 11:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, maybe waiting for the results..?  f o x  10:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is worth pointing out that whilst a different system is used in the US, Election Day (US) is added to OTD every year between Nov 2-8 [3] [4] [5] , the period during which all elections must occur in the US. There is an article Election Day (United Kingdom), which could have been used to do the same in this case... --Daviessimo (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Election days in presidential democracies are sorta "fixed", in the U.S. case it's in November's second Tuesday of the leap year. In parliamentary democracies it is not so, but it is worth mentioning that the UK's election date this year was almost the same 5 years ago. –Howard the Duck 10:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really- by convention (one of the many, many unwritten rules that make up the "constitution"!), British elections are usually held on the first Thursday in May. The only thing unusual about it is that Brown decided to go right to the end of his 5-year term when his predecessors have generally held an election after 4 years. As I said above, it would be nice to give it more coverage on the Main Page, especially since a lot of people are going to want to read about it, but we don't have anything that meets the criteria for any of the sections. I believe it was suggested a while back the we put a "sticky link" at the bottom of ITN for major elections like we do for the Olympics... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(←)I don't get why we can't add "The United Kingdom holds a parliamentary election" to ITN now, and update it with the results after. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 14:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the blurb should be added now, but the link at the bottom is a good idea imo and I think we should do it for all major elections. I'm tempted to be bold and do it but I don't think WP:BOLD was intended for fully-protected pages! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind- I added it and then immediately reverted myself so I could provide an illustration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably would have been better putting it in another page. ;)  f o x  15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added it back per a comment on ITN/C. I'm open to suggestions on moving/rewording etc, but I think we should leave it up as an experiment- if it works well, we can use it in future, if it doesn't, we can scrap it or come up with something else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate how this conversation is split in two places, but this is a poor idea that should be wiped from any consideration in the future. This article will not be updated much until results pour in, and just as any other article, including any other country's election, needs to wait until an update, this one does too. The disregard for the section's guidelines is unbelievable. -- tariqabjotu 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

HJM, it's certainly not a constitutional convention to hold elections in May. It's just a tendency. Peter jackson (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it a tendency. This is the third in a row in May but there have only been four May elections in the last 11 (since the voting age was reduced to 18), see here.

My understanding is that general elections are not held during quite a few months of the year because of concerns about low turn out. Thus, essentially, excluding November to February (bad weather) and July to September (holidays).

Also there are mandatory local elections in May and so a general election is unlikely to be held close to, but not on, that date, because of concerns that the turn out at the second one will be reduced.

Currently it looks like being a hung Parliament and a new election relatively soon seems likely. If that is as a result of the government losing a confidence vote it could be at any time of the year.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think "British voters take part in a general election" should be in the news. Until the results are in, nothing interesting or notable has actually happened to report on. It struck me as really out of place when I saw the main page. The2crowrox (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Resolved

 – After 917 days of nail-biting, I briefly got the government I voted for. And then there was a Prime Minister again :-( This unhappy state-of-affairs has now been reported at ITN. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 07:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact Gordon Brown, has stood down, i think deserves a place in the news section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean, presumably, "the fact that he has announced his intention to stand down prior to the Labour Party conference in September"? I'm not convinced that's hugely Main Page worthy... maybe when he actually stands down... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That is fair enough, although it is a major development in the situation and so will deserve a mention at some point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandy (talk • contribs) comment added 19:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed at WP:ITN/C. Feel free to join in teh conversation there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom election

Old discussion also ongoing at WP:ITNC#United Kingdom general election, 2010.

While I appreciate I may be a tad biased, is the whole "most important and on-the-rocks British general election in 30 years" thing not worth an "on this day.." piece? Ironholds (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ITN/C (there seems to be strong support there), although I'm sure that elections aren't really considered newsworthy until a result is declared; even more newsworty if there is a hung parliament? 79.67.153.54 (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... It's not a holiday and it's not an anniversary of an event. That's why it's not there. When the results are in, it'll appear on ITN. I hate to sound curt, but when you have more than 50,000 edits and two years under your belt, it's really annoying to get this kind of complaint. It's quite apparent, even from first glance, what some of the most basic criteria for OTD are. But, now you're telling me that after the hundreds, if not thousands, of times you've seen the Main Page, you still don't recognize this. Wow. -- tariqabjotu 10:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not curt, just rude. A search through any of those 50,000 edits and two years of contributions would find that I've never really contributed anything to the main page, other than the articles I spend my time writing. A simple explanation as given below by HJ Mitchell would have been sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Say what you want, but I have no qualms expressing annoyance or surprise that an apparently experienced editor doesn't know the purpose of OTD. The tone of my response met the tone of your inquiry just fine. -- tariqabjotu 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't qualify for OTD because it's not an anniversary or anything like that, but the results will be on ITN when they're known. I'm not a huge fan of that rule, but it was the same for the last US presidential election and every other election. It would be nice to be able to give more MP coverage to these kinds of events, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm also an experienced editor, and I have to agree with Ironholds. The 2008 US election was well covered, even going to the unprecidented step of having a double TFA. Not even mentioning the UK election will no doubt elicit false claims of American bias. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Because we had a featured article on John McCain, which had never appeared as TFA before. But there was concern that might look bad to only feature one of the candidates and Barack Obama, while having been TFA before, was also featured. So, we went with two. In this case, is Gordon Brown or David Cameron or Nick Clegg featured? No, no, and no. Do we have any article related to the election that's featured? Maybe, but we also have a 100th-anniversary article, which, if it is any consolation, is related to the UK. We cannot be compelled to slap something on the Main Page, when we have nothing that meets qualifications, just because it is one of the biggest news stories or because it's important in a particular person's country. Perhaps the current setup will elicit false claims of American bias, but as they are false we are perfectly right to ignore them. But what seems to be suggested is that we go out of our way to include something on one country's election, even though there is nothing that fits the criteria; now that's bias. -- tariqabjotu 11:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, maybe waiting for the results..?  f o x  10:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is worth pointing out that whilst a different system is used in the US, Election Day (US) is added to OTD every year between Nov 2-8 [6] [7] [8] , the period during which all elections must occur in the US. There is an article Election Day (United Kingdom), which could have been used to do the same in this case... --Daviessimo (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Election days in presidential democracies are sorta "fixed", in the U.S. case it's in November's second Tuesday of the leap year. In parliamentary democracies it is not so, but it is worth mentioning that the UK's election date this year was almost the same 5 years ago. –Howard the Duck 10:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really- by convention (one of the many, many unwritten rules that make up the "constitution"!), British elections are usually held on the first Thursday in May. The only thing unusual about it is that Brown decided to go right to the end of his 5-year term when his predecessors have generally held an election after 4 years. As I said above, it would be nice to give it more coverage on the Main Page, especially since a lot of people are going to want to read about it, but we don't have anything that meets the criteria for any of the sections. I believe it was suggested a while back the we put a "sticky link" at the bottom of ITN for major elections like we do for the Olympics... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(←)I don't get why we can't add "The United Kingdom holds a parliamentary election" to ITN now, and update it with the results after. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 14:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the blurb should be added now, but the link at the bottom is a good idea imo and I think we should do it for all major elections. I'm tempted to be bold and do it but I don't think WP:BOLD was intended for fully-protected pages! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind- I added it and then immediately reverted myself so I could provide an illustration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably would have been better putting it in another page. ;)  f o x  15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added it back per a comment on ITN/C. I'm open to suggestions on moving/rewording etc, but I think we should leave it up as an experiment- if it works well, we can use it in future, if it doesn't, we can scrap it or come up with something else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate how this conversation is split in two places, but this is a poor idea that should be wiped from any consideration in the future. This article will not be updated much until results pour in, and just as any other article, including any other country's election, needs to wait until an update, this one does too. The disregard for the section's guidelines is unbelievable. -- tariqabjotu 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

HJM, it's certainly not a constitutional convention to hold elections in May. It's just a tendency. Peter jackson (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it a tendency. This is the third in a row in May but there have only been four May elections in the last 11 (since the voting age was reduced to 18), see here.

My understanding is that general elections are not held during quite a few months of the year because of concerns about low turn out. Thus, essentially, excluding November to February (bad weather) and July to September (holidays).

Also there are mandatory local elections in May and so a general election is unlikely to be held close to, but not on, that date, because of concerns that the turn out at the second one will be reduced.

Currently it looks like being a hung Parliament and a new election relatively soon seems likely. If that is as a result of the government losing a confidence vote it could be at any time of the year.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think "British voters take part in a general election" should be in the news. Until the results are in, nothing interesting or notable has actually happened to report on. It struck me as really out of place when I saw the main page. The2crowrox (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Resolved

 – After 917 days of nail-biting, I briefly got the government I voted for. And then there was a Prime Minister again :-( This unhappy state-of-affairs has now been reported at ITN. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 07:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact Gordon Brown, has stood down, i think deserves a place in the news section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean, presumably, "the fact that he has announced his intention to stand down prior to the Labour Party conference in September"? I'm not convinced that's hugely Main Page worthy... maybe when he actually stands down... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That is fair enough, although it is a major development in the situation and so will deserve a mention at some point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed at WP:ITN/C. Feel free to join in teh conversation there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)