Talk:Main Page/Archive 123

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

→

Archive 130

fundraising message

How have the fundraising ads been chosen? Where can I find discussions and more details about the 2008 fundraising program? Thank. 131.111.247.194 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See meta:Fundraising and the current fundraising landing pad. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't see any information about the 2008 fundraising. Only the past fundraisers... 131.111.247.194 (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Choice

I find it interesting yet appalling that the flag of Germany was selected as the feature article one day after Israel was selected on its independence day. --165.124.138.191 (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts as well.--Bedford 04:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Two days. --Howard the Duck 05:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See also: apophenia Raul654 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Germany and Israel have friendly relations as they are both committed to the ideals of democracy. -anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you instantly associate Germany with Nazism, I think the problem is at your end. J Milburn (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's what it is? lmao I spent quite a while trying to make sense of that comment without any success. 86.137.221.99 (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To be updated

Latin Wikipedia now has over 20,000 articles. Harris Morgan 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

I think there's a bot that takes care of that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't, we need an admin to do it. I would, but I do not want to edit the main page right now. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like its been done.-Wafulz (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

By CapitalR, if anyone cares. J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Blurb for Today's Article so Crap?

merh. 86.137.221.99 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

and yes yes i know, fix it myself, except that i cant edit this page 86.137.221.99 (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to edit today's featured article by clicking on a link to it. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

yes but that doesnt help me change the crap blurb on the main page. 86.137.221.99 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Post a draft at WP:ERRORS and get help from WP:ANI if needed. --74.13.124.4 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does. The blurb is nearly always taken from the article lead. Until and unless the article lead is 'improved' it's doubtful the main page blurb will be changed since as the comment on WP:ERRORS states, the main page always defers to articles and problems that occur in articles should be fixed first there before making a complaint Nil Einne (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I just doubt that either of you need to edit it. :P crassic!^[talk] 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

oh please, it reads like an advertisement for a film more than it does an encyclopedic article. "in cinemas next week: minnesota, the story of a town ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.221.99 (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you're complaining that it makes too strong an effort to grab the readers attention or what? In what way is it "crap"? It reads nothing like a cinema advert. Tourskin (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the awkward first sentence ("The history of Minnesota is the story of a U.S. state...") is the biggest problem. Is there a rule that says we must include the title of the article in the first sentence? It always looks silly in those "history of..." articles. Zagalejo^^^ 08:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like "The history of Minnesota began in...." or similar? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine, except it makes the assumption that our readers already know that Minnesota is a U.S. state. The problem is, it's hard to keep both "history of Minnesota" (the title of the article) and a description of what Minnesota is (a U.S. state) in the first sentence without it coming across as awkward. Without mentioning what Minnesota is in the opening sentence, it's slightly confusing, and would be akin to "The Third of May 1808 was completed..." Pretty much the least-horrible-sounding thing I can think of is "The history of Minnesota, a U.S. state..." Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As I remarked above, since the same issue occurs in the FA, it is best if this discussion is held there where it can be considered by the editors of the article who may be able to offer alternative suggestions or point out any problems with any suggestions, and where it is probably not going to be archived in 3 days, rather then here where it is of little interest to the majority of editors here, and doesn't really concern the main page directly anyway. If this is a wiki-wide problem concerning all 'history of...' articles, then somewhere like WP:VPM would probably be better Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This was really easy fix, people. "The [[History of Minnesota|history of the U.S. state of Minnesota]]..." howcheng {chat} 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is another reason why it's usually advisable to discuss/carry out changes in articles first. Now the improved version is on the main page, but not in the article Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Please bypass the redirect for worst films ever made in TFA. Thanks 117.193.34.227 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post this in Wikipedia: Errors above. Thanks. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 13:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Won't be fixed per WP:R2D. ffm 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Irena Sendler

Death announced. Please could we put her in the 'In the news' section? Yours hopefully, --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post this at Wikipedia:In The News/Candidates. Thanks. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. (No great hope of success, but just maybe...).--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Four white men and a bird...

...are featured on the Wikipedia Main Page. Sigh. Our systemic bias really shines through sometimes. Kaldari (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention it's all written in English. Our Anglo-centrism is pretty glaring.-Wafulz (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked there were English-speaking women as well. And how come we never have turtles? Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, one of the men is a bit on the grey side. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, the next featured pic on DYK is a black woman.--Bedford 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay for racial equality at DYK! =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh... so based on one afternoon's collection of pictures you're saying what? That the internet is biased against women of color and non-avian species of animals? I'm sure there are appropriate political message boards where you can listen to yourself vent. (Pardon me for the use of English, I don't mean to be biased against the Dutch/Cantonese/Pulaar/Hindi speaking communities.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.72.30.67 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait ... isn't bird an English slang term for woman? Does that help erase some of the male bias? --Spiff666 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are more ant species than humans, why isnt this reflected in news and DYK sections? This is an outrage. -Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ;) 68.101.123.219 (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Which spelling?

Should we use British or American for epicenter/epicentre?

Lunakeet 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with the form first used establishing the choice for the blurbs's stay on the Main Page. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for further information. --Jester 13:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Yes"? In any case, the article trumps, not the main page. ffm 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the 'Yes' thing was intended as humour, along the lines of "Are you male or female?" "Yes." Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there really any agreement on this? As far as I'm aware there isn't. If the article is a certain variety of English because that is the variety applicable to it then yes. But if the only reason an article is a certain variety of English is because of first contributors choice, as would be the case I presume in many (mainland) Chinese articles, then I don't see why the main page has to follow. Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Table alignment

Would it be possible to align the 'Did you know?' and the 'On this day' tables? -- Ishikawa Minoru (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's easily possible: the green and blue boxes are both separate table cells, with no easy means of alignment. I don't think this would be a good idea anyway. The idea of fitting everything snugly together is to eliminate whitespace (or in this case, bluespace). Featured Article blurbs tend to be longer than In the News, so Did You Know is made to be shorter than On This Day. Gracenotes^T § 02:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ice Hockey won - hey, here's Mr Middle Aged man"

I almost laughed seeing next to Sports news that guy, I was expecting an athlete. plus, shouldn't this page have an '+' sign for fast adding comments? --Leladax (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The "+" tab is now named "New section". Graham87 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Experimenting

I've been experimenting with a shadowing template I created and decided to test it in my Main Page sandbox. Please check it out and give me feedback. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. It doesn't work for Firefox. Darn I hate these differences. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 23:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It works fine in my Firefox, having said that I'm using Firefox 3b5. I took a look, its an interesting effect, might steal it for my userpage if you don't mind. Time to see if the masses like it now :). ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work for Firefox 2. So people won't like it. I'll try and fix it later some time and let you guys know. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What was supposed to happen anyway? I saw little gray boxes at the corners. FF 2.0 user. --Howard the Duck 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll screenshot it in a few minutes, thanks for the intel on my talk page btw Mistman123. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears my work PC is being as useful as ever, so I'm going to have to extend that "in a few minutes" to in a few hours :( ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a screenshot for those who have Firefox 2. I'll be trying to fix this later. Maybe after taxes. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well once they roll out FF3.0 there'll be no real need, FF like to make sure everyone is using the correct version. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a significant number of people who use the older versions- see the lower table here. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted your opinions on how it looked. I don't think it should be implemented anytime soon anyway. I'm thinking of adding some image buttons and test some other stuff to make it look nice, although I really like the current, simple, nice colored main page. I don't envy any other Wikipedia main pages in other languages. Simple is nice. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow... that's actually really nice. I don't think it's completely appropriate for the main page but it's an interesting bit of code, that you can actually get it to do that. Well done. I might nick it for my userpage too, when FF3.0 rolls out, and sod the people who deliberately click 'no' at the upgrade prompt. Just looking at the source... doesn't it add a hell of a lot of code to the page it's transcluded on though? Just for a few images/headers? Any way you could shrink that down a bit? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks great. I'd agree with this being on the Main Page once a stable version of Firefox 3 is released. The people using the older versions won't be hurt in any way, the only difference for them will be the little grey squares. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look correct in Konqueror 3.5.8 either -62.172.143.205 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuck... I don't think it looks too good from the screenshot. Makes everything look too deep and complicated. -Tarthen Blazerken (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it looks a bit Windows 95-ish, if you get me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well anyone interested in helping me fix it for other browsers, you can get/copy the code from {{User:Mistman123/Templates/Shadow}}. I don't have enough time to go through the code and test changes in all these different browsers, so any help is certainly welcome. When you get something working please let me know or post your code's link somewhere so I can check it out and possibly copy it back . ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Safari 3.1 doesn't display this alternate page at all nicely, inserting a small two-tone grey square on the bottom right of the box but no further. Bobo. 02:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The template's page has the Safari caveat too. You can help fix it though. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 03:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Firefox 3.0 doesn't run on Linux using wine, I would say ":("--Jahilia (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it shall once Firefox 3.0 will be released. Right now, it's not Firefox 3.0 it's Firefox 3 Beta 5. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In Netscape I find gray boxes at the corners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.148.109 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The boxes are shifted in Opera (9.27) down and to the right. Regardless, I took a look at FF3b5. While I do find it kind of distracting, if I had to have some form of it instituted, I'd go without the shadows on the images. The images are unbordered right now and should stay that way. Having borders/shadows is distracting.The freddinator (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

May i suggest a colour scheme change? the other language wikis look so much brighter, because the colours are more bold! I liked the example in Mistman123's sandbox, so here is my attempt: User:Kennedygr/sandbox - i like to brighter colours, (at least the left.) havent thought of the right side, and the images on the title bars help too? ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (secret)} 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I get the tiny boxes to the lower right.(firefox 1.5.1.12, Adblock+, flashblock, imagezoom, low memory requirements...) The Sreenshot looks very good. Perhaps you can find a site that it works at or poke around at browser watch. 71.193.2.115 (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys! I think I fixed it!! Please check it out and let me know if it works for all your browsers. If you like it we can put it on the Main Page! Regards. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 01:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me in FF2. Personally I reckon the shading is a little too heavy though. I mean sure it looks good now, but shadows can be the sort of look that gets old quickly. Incidentally, I did something sort of similar with round shadows with a header I made for the top of my talk page a while back (only round in Firefox I think). • Anakin ^(talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ick, it's ugly. Sorry. I don't think I could stand looking at that everytime I visited Wikipedia; doesn't really suit the Vista age. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WBOSITG...sorry. --^LaPianista! 00:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not bad. I suggest making the shadows a gradient fill rather than 3 superposed rectangles and making them a bit smaller, then you might be on to a winner Modest Genius ^talk 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it works on my version of firefox. (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.21.159 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good in Safari. Lunakeet 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I now added the "simple=true" parameter that only displays one shadow shade for my experiment on the Main Page sandbox. Visit the Shadowing Template for details on the template parameters. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 15:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I preferred the previous version tbh, looked more like an actual shadow and less like a box behind it. The corners really need to have diagonals or it just looks wrong. So you know what I mean:

currently

|______
  |____

my suggestion

|______
 `------

Modest Genius ^talk 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it! Looks great in Safari. Lunakeet 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unassessed?!?

I breifly switched templates for a while and realized that the main page is not fall under any category and is unnassessed. Should there be an official Main Page category that can be created so the main page is no longer unassessed? - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a Category:Main Page, but the Main Page itself doesn't seem to be in it; is there a reason for this? --Herald Alberich (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Main Page is a maintenance category, for users interested in finding pages related to the main page, not a category that would be of interest to readers. As for the main page being 'unnassessed', I assume you are talking about WikiProject templates. The main page isn't exactly an article in the same way others are, and it it isn't even really a portal. As such, I don't think it falls under WikiProjects. Plus, assessing it would be a waste of time- it changes so frequently, and there are already enough people keeping it up to a high standard without someone from a WikiProject dropping in occasionally. J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

then should there be a Wikiproject Main page? i don't know, but it really bugs me when it says "Wikipedia, the FREE ENCYLOPedia and then right below it. An unnassessed. Maybe the creation of a new category just for the main page? - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A WikiProject for just the main page is really not necessary. First, the structure of the main page itself rarely changes. And each of the five rotating sections, Today's featured article, In The News, Did you know, On this day, and Picture of the day already have maintenance and discussion pages that act as de facto WikiProjects anyway. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well firstly this would not be an issue for most people since they don't log in so it would not show any assessemet. Secondly, I'm not sure what your using to show an assessement but I would suggest it's flawed if it shows a assessement for the main page. I'm using the version on Special:Preferences gadgets, user interface gadgets and it does not show an assessment for the main page. I would suggest you ask for whatever tool you are using to be fixed so it likewise does not show an assessement for the main page Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You know since the Main Page is in article space, what would happen if something notable called "Main Page" turned up sometime in the future? A band, a book, or if Jimmy has a daughter called Main who becomes famous? I mean we can't have disambiguating links right at the top of the Main Page can we? indopug (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons people support moving the main page to portal or Wikipedia space. However, we already have this issue- for technical reasons, # must redirect to the main page, not our article on the subject here. J Milburn (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A while ago people had a discussion (I think it was before we were in the 1xx archives) about whether to move the Main Page, along with the header. Since consensus can change, if people want to, we can revive that discussion. ffm 00:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Prior discussion ffm 15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Surtsey

This article was deemed FA in 2005, but it still hasn't appeared on the main page. I think it should be featured soon. ~Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post any TFA related querys at the correct place, namely here.

Also, you could try suggesting it for June 5th or November 14th to give it a better shot. Random89 03:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Elderly Instruments

So, how much does it cost to get a business infomercial listed as Featured Article? -- Ralphbk (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the first time in the Wikipedia history that the Featured Article is a commercial add. Shame. Pedron (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas, this is not even close to the first time that a Feature Ad has run here. The FAC process makes it very, very easy to stonewall a truly worthy article because no one can possibly cover every single iota of content ever associated with a broad topic, but hawkers find it very simple to cover every scrap of "literature" about a commercial product. It's only after some egregious example like this that people start going into the FACs again and asking the hard questions about the ad candidates again, and it only lasts a little while. 70.15.114.2 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutly amazed that this advertisment is allowed on the main page. people should do all they can to register their displeasure at what is without doubt one of the most corrupt pieces of sleeze in the history of Wikipedia history..... sad people. 84.69.114.24 (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an advertisement, and it wasn't paid for. It went through the regular FA discussion, which you were welcome to participate in. Furthermore, if you believe the current blurb isn't neutral, you are welcome to improve the article lead, which will lead to the updating of the Main Page blurb.
If anyone finds it interesting, similar concerns were raised when Baby Gender Mentor was featured. You can see the talk page as well as the Main Page archives for the criticism it received. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The most controversial article I can remember was a sword manufacturer. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Ernest Emerson who is a knife, not sword maker. We've received complaints before for nearly every single thing with a vague commercial tint, ranging from Maraba Coffee, a fairtrade coffee producer, which as someone pointed out at the time, is probably run by people who mostly don't even know wikipedia exist and rarely use the internet; to most pop culture related FA (Pokaemon, Final Fantasy etc) Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an advert and will most likely increase trade at the expense of other instrument shops. Stutley (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not an advert. Advertisements are paid for, this wasn't. It's on the Main Page because the article meets the featured article criteria, as decided by the FAC discussion, in which you could have participated. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm amused by the fact that every time this happens someone pipes up that it's the first time that it has happened. APL (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also amused by that fact. I can't wait for the comments when/if PlayStation 3 gets on the main page. Nor can I wait for the tsunamis of vandalism it would attract if it was unprotected for long. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I like how most people who complain have at least one spelling error in their tirades. I guess it's a lapse caused by all the raging indignation they're feeling. 76.236.235.84 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

PlayStation 3 definitely meets our Featured Article's criteria, but some editors have raised valid concerns on this one, see Talk:Elderly Instruments#POV. Cenarium (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We have received similar complaints (about an article not being FA material) with many other TF articles. I'm sure we'll continue to receive similar complaints with other articles, including PS3 if it's ever on the main page. I'm not saying that these complaints are without merit, but I do note it's very rare that a FAR after an article is on the main page succeeds suggesting whatever issues are present are not so endemic that they are unresovable through an FAR. I note also that this article has been selected as the 21st May TFA since 14th May and FA since 21st March, giving ample time for any issues to be resolved before it reached the main page Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

These are different problems, what is to be featured on the Main Page (TFA), and our FA standards. The recurring complaints with this kind of TFAs pertains to our TFA process, which may need to be renewed. Some editors (even editors involved in FA processes) have emitted doubts on the FA status of this particular FA, the concerns are still debated on the talk page. I'm confident that the article will hold. Cenarium (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to the FA status. While these are seperate issues, the high profile of TF articles means we tend to receive the most complaints about the quality of FAs that are TFA. However from my experience, most TFAs survive a FAR suggesting that whatever the problems are, they are fixable, and would have been fixable before the article reaches the main page (which is significant given the perennial complaints about Raul and the TFA selection process) although I agree, it doesn't actually matter much, every FA should be up to FA standard, TFA or not. For example of what I'm referring to, the Emerson article was even put through a deletion debate for notability reasons and there were a lot of people who claimed it had insufficient references from non-specialised sources. I believe there were similar complaints about the Rerating of Oblivion. I'm sure there are a lot more TFAs that people have claimed don't meet the FA criteria,, I'm just too tired to remember. It wouldn't surprise me if this happens for the PS3 article as well. My point is, just because in the opinion of one editor it meets the FA criteria doesn't mean it will in the opinion of another editor. The only way an article can be a FA is if at least a few editors felt it meet the FA criteria and there weren't any people who raised whatever concerns may exist at the time of promotion. More mainstream FAs like PS3 which receive a lot of attention are perhaps less likely to have systematic problems then more 'obscure' articles but again, there is no guarantee everyone is going to agree and there is always going to be a chance there will be some discussion about the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's why I think that the community should choose TF articles, via consensus, it will be an occasion to improve the article prior to the appearance on the Main Page (the supporters will make their best to diminish the arguments of the opposers, this is classic in AFD debates). And, after all, TF articles represent all the community. For the featured status, I also think that this FAC was a little short. Maybe the conditions for a FAR should be relaxed (we must wait several months between a FAC and a FAR, or two FARs), but we apparently lack of reviewers, so there's a problem. Cenarium (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Being from Lansing, Michigan, I was really surprised to see Elderly on the front page. I've been there a few times, and it's definitely a cool store, but I'm not sure if it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Lovelac7 20:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Our notability policy says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. If you look at the reference section of the Elderly Instruments article, you'll see that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

First time I've seen such a negative reaction to a featured article on the WP:OTRS system. When did the notability requirements fall so much? -- Jeandré, 2008-05-22t11:57z

Why is there so much death in the world?

Why does ITN have to be filled with death and dying? Why is the world like this? 70.16.29.26 (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ITN should've covered Jenna Bush's wedding to counter the death and suffering of mankind's follies. 119.95.17.214 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

By showing more suffering? Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why show more suffereing?--198.45.18.48 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That was sarcasm 198... ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a different blurb at WP:ITN/C. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the unfortunate circumstances, not getting ITN updated so often may be a good sign for everyone. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want a true answer, please ask this to God. Do not ask such to Wikipedia. 219.95.206.245 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3

Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3

How about Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3 (pictured)? Would the announcement of the discovery of the youngest known supernova remnant in the Milky Way be ITN material? (already at ITN/C) This involves no deaths on Earth. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some aliens died... --Howard the Duck 08:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gawwwwd, they ripped off Firefox! 172.192.240.59 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this got to do with wikipedia?. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find the former was there before the latter. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it started out about ITN as you can see, but this little tangent in the conversation has nothing to do with Wiki, and more importantly, has nothing what-so-ever to do with the main page. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

maybe you should update tne news column more frequently```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.135.218.188 (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's news columns are not on MainPage, but at Portal:Current events. They are updated quite frequently. Not every article listed on Portal:Current events is well updated. Only news items with relevant and well updated articles get to be showcased at the In the news section on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In the news

Currently, in the "in the news" section there are seven topics. In comparison, in the German version there are only three, but additional three long term topics. This leads to both a long-term and a short-term view at topics currently in the news. In the English version even important topics like Cyclone Nargis will disappear when sidelined by other news. No distinction is possible between long-term topics (i.e. environment, Olympic Games) and short-term topics (i.e. death of a person, new president). What do you think about the 3+3 idea? 85.177.82.86 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like it and would support the small design change to it, but how will it affect our overall layout? Dreamafter (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Maybe you should bring it up on the ITN 2.0 page, where there is an ongoing discussion about revamping ITN, or ITN talk page. Random89 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ITN 2.0 page is trying to get rid of long term topics. "Stale news items like this do not show off the best that Wikipedia has to offer," -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if proposed it might be a worthwhile idea. Dreamafter (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Past practice has been that significant updates merit 'resetting' an ITN item to the top of the template. For example, changing the item "An earthquake measuring 7.9 Mw strikes Sichuan, China, with more than 34,000 people confirmed dead" to "China begins three days of official mourning for the earthquake in Sichuan, China, which has killed more than 34,000 people" would merit moving the item to the top, as if it was a new item, as long as the article has a decent amount of info on the declaration of official mourning. Updating to "An earthquake measuring 7.9 Mw strikes Sichuan, China, with more than 34,500 people confirmed dead" is not significant in the context of the template and would not reset the item. However, the template gets updated so infrequently that I think many users have forgotten that this is an option. - BanyanTree 06:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider keeping the TFA paragraph short and sweet. On days when TFA is long, the right side of MainPage has to be long as well just to keep the two sides of MainPage even. Sometimes, old news items have to be restored for balance. If TFA is short, ITN can be short as well, hopefully allowing stale news items to leave MainPage and not over-stay. --PFHLai (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. But the TFA blurb is taken from the article. So we'd have to change the lead section standards for FAs. I think it might sometimes be hard to adequetly summarise the article in the lead section, if the lead section will be made really short. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

TFA paragraphs don't have to be very long like this one on May 25, 2008, nor should they be really short. Today's and tomorrow's TFA seem to be at a good lenght. --PFHLai (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the article at the top of Wikinews is about a bomb explosion in Exeter, United Kingdom that may be related to Islamic extremism. See here. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Pls post your suggestions at WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Main Page & Wikinews

Why is Wikinews not the source of news for Wikipedia's Main page? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news source. News is Wikinews' territory. Personally, I think it unfortunate that Wikipedia is the only branch of Wikimedia that has truly taken off. My suggestion for the main page, therefore, is that it provide a section in which top stories or stories of general popular interest be listed. When one of the stories is clicked, it opens Wikinews and provides the story. This would be a start to a movement for people to use all of Wikimedia's projects. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so why are we filling it up with all sorts of things? Tomorrow, someone will be putting books and magazines on Wikipedia, Wikisource's territory.

Agomulka (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not just accept any old news- the news stories are written into encyclopedic articles on their parent topics. Even with one-off events (the football/soccer final) the article is on the final itself, not on Manchester United winning it, which a news story would be. By comparison, Wikipedia will not cover some of the things that Wikinews does, anywhere, and rightfully so. As for a link- Wikinews is a sister project, not another element of the same project, and I feel it should not be given any more prominence than our other sister projects. J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the "In the News" section on Wikipedia's main page is intended to showcase Wikipedia articles that have been updated due to recent developments. It is not intended to be a news feature. (It's the encyclopedia articles that are featured, not the news itself.) No news is put into "In the News" without a corresponding article being updated because of it. (See WP:ITNMP for details.) Renaming "In the News" to something else to alleviate confusion is a perennial proposal, but nothing has ever come of it. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is not part of Wikipedia, but an independent project of the Wikimedia Foundation. They use the same software, though. There are some overlap, but they are run by different volunteers. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is GFDL licensed, while Wikinews is some other not-so-free licence (can't remember which). Putting not-so-freely licensed stuff on a page to which the fait use rationale does not apply would be a violation of copyright law - although the main reasons have been stated above...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic, so it is still 'free' by Wikipedia standards. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the suggestion. The very first time I clicked on an ITN, I was thinking, "Where is the news?" Remember Wikipedia's purpose. This encyclopedia is meant to give people knowledge, not to showcase itself. Showcased articles go in TFA, not ITN. Besides, (I know this sounds really stupid) the only Wikipedia parody I know of, Uncyclopedia, uses its ITN as a "news" source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W1k13rh3nry (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer to original question : Because there is no news feed on the main page. Just a confusingly named section that highlights articles about topics involved in recent current events. 24.2.176.64 (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow... this might be the clearest explanation I've seen (granted, I haven't read that many). Maybe the issue shouldn't be the content or the frequency of updates; maybe the issue should be what it's called. My vote would be for something like "Selected current event articles"... although it doesn't really have a ring to it. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about reforming "In The News". If you're interested, please see the debate at WT:ITN2. Lovelac7 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Ill be sure to go and join the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.243.82 (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FA May 27

just noting that the juxtaposition of two Vietnam War-era FA's on consecutive days might be a bit disconcerting to some... and might be something better avoided in the future... ( related subject matter as FA on consecutive or nearly consecutive days, that is). 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The F-4 Phantom II is not only used in Vietnam and not only during the Vietnam War era. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotect articles which are linked from the main page

I call for a semiprotection for articles linked from the main page because of the high degree of vandalism they obtain in result that again consumes much valuable time to fight manually. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection for why we don't do this. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki image content filter?

Is there any simple way to use some kind of content filter (like seen on google images) so that i dont see pornographic content when looking up certain topics on Wikipedia that may be a little sexual but only looked up to learn not view porn... ((ex. images of full frontal nudity or close up of genitals (btw, where is the explicit porn content warning?)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.116.220 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and this isn't the proper forum. ffm 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The warning can be viewed by clicking 'disclaimers' at the bottom of the page, (and I believe that is more than is required by US law, not that I'm a lawyer, or American) but I personally think nudity should be expected in an encyclopedia anyway. This issue has been discussed many times, and, as Firefoxman says, the village pump would be the best place for this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only way is to turn off images in your browser (there is a setting for this), when you know you are going to an article that may have sexual images. This would make the page load faster too.--Pharos (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This also has nothing to do with the Main Page. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(Which was what ffm meant I presume, if you didn't know already) Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There was also some technical solution devised for the Mohammed images, that I think involved adding a line in your monobook.css file to not show images on that page. Unfortunately that assumes you know which articles have bad images on them beforehand. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The technical solution Confusing Manifestation mentions is here, if anyone is interested. - BanyanTree 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

News lack updating... Again

In the past few days, I've observed that the news are (again) lacking updates, because (again) the picture wasn't changed, the news stayed stuck In the same lines, and Sichuan doesn't disappear. I think that we should really start making a new news section criteria. The need for a change In the In The News section policy is not something we could need In two moths, but it'S something that we need now, and I'm not kidding. Or otherwise, we could just remove the section, because after all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. For the purpose of reading the news, we should reccomend visiting Wikinews. How about a banner with the Wikinews link and logo and a short description of Wikinews? Or At least giving some ideas? I don't really think it'S absolutely neccesary to have a news section In an encyclopedia, because Encarta and Brittanica have never had news sections, and they are (supposedly) prestigious encyclopedias. Hope we can reach a sort of agreement. --J.C. (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are complaining about. The picture represents an event that happened less than forty-eight hours ago and is very much still a developing story. How is that not good enough? There have been a series of significant events over the past week and so this week, of all weeks, has seen an especially high number of ITN updates with the most up-to-date, accurate information. This doesn't seem like the week to suggest that ITN isn't covering what's in the news because, this week, what's in the news is in sync with what's encyclopedic, and so ITN is spot-on. -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind ITN not updating. But I agree that it shouldn't be on the Main Page. I think it doesn't do the best job it could with showcasing Wikipedia's best content. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does did you know?, but both offer articles that the readers may find very interesting. ITN is updating at a fairly good pace at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but in the pasty forty-eight hours a lot of things have happened. In the past week, the news were updating at a rate of 1 picture (and story) per day. Now that we have the same line for forty-eight hours, I've started to think it really is in need of help. Maybe you should take the information from the newspapers, because (unless you live in Antarctica) news headlines are updated every day, not in two days. What I think is that it needs to be (fully) updated every day, changing everything. At least say "earthquake in Sichuan causes more deaths. Reports indicate X people have died as a consequence of the earthquake" At least change a few words (and the picture, fundamentally), but do not become lazy in the editing of a very actual section like the In The News section.--J.C. (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Update daily? No, we should update as things happen, as we do. As you have already pointed out, we are not a newspaper, and fewer stories warrant inclusion in Wikipedia than in a newspaper; only stories with a lasting significance will be included here, and so only stories with a lasting significance should be included on ITN. If so much has happened, then it should have been discussed on WP:ITN/C, and ITN should be updated appropriately. It's quite simple- if you want more to appear, suggest more. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to stick to what you said, but, doesn't lasting significance mean it has to be old? I supposed it did...--J.C. (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No? Alarming as you may find it, things of lasting significance do still happen. Why would things of 'lasting significance' have to be old? J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. He didn't mean like... "the beatles were the last band of significance", rather that lasting significance can only be judged in hindsight, not, rather, as it happens. What you think may be extraordinarily significant may be completely overlooked in history - you are not psychic. You misused the term - significance by itself would be okay, but I guess you have to sound smart! 82.112.138.172 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the unfortunate circumstances, not getting ITN updated so often may be a good sign for everyone. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:In the news 2.0, where a proposal for a major structural change to ITN has gained some traction. However, more input is required. BanyanTree 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no way of predicting lasting significance. If it's old, we know it has proven to be of lasting significance. With recent events, we can only guess. These guesses, if made correctly, can be accurate. But sometimes they're totally off and nobody will remember the event in a few years. With older things, we know, with recent ones, we can only guess. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, how about we switch ITN for DYK or OTD? Most user's screens are not that huge, meaning they have to scroll down to see the DYK and OTD. I think that DYK is interesting to more readers because it's updated more frequently. Since it's interesting to more readers, I think it should be at a more prevalent place. And the perfect place for that is right next to the FA, instead of ITN. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is time to remove the news(and picture)about earthquake from the main page. It has remained the same for the last 5 days with the same picture and the same text. The only thing being updated is the death count. When I log on to wikipedia I want to see news that actually happend today, not a week ago. There is far more important news to be updated! Chris18240 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said the topic is beginning to loss interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platypus929 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want up to date news, check out a news site like wikinews, not wikipedia, which is not a news site Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So why have ITN at all? --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To highlight things that the readers may be interested in, the same as the rest of the main page. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if ITN is fulfilling that purpose. How many readers are interested in something that happened over a week ago? And if they are, they'll read it once, but it remains there for quite some time afterwards. No other Main Page section is updated as slowly as ITN. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You forget that not everyone looks at the main page daily. I was going to show you some data, but I can't find the page view counter- grok.se or something? It's bookmarked on my other laptop... J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

stats.grok.se. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thankyou. Now, let us take the Russian elections, which were on from 13:53, 8 May 2008 to 01:13, 14 May 2008. I chose this article as there was a substantial article there before the event, meaning we have something to compare it to. If you look at the stats you will see that it was viewed the most times on the third day, which pretty clearly shows that the 'change news daily' argument doesn't really hold much water in terms of what people are reading. Although after that the views did begin to drop, (probably because it no longer had pride of place on the ITN section rather than because people didn't care any more) the days in which it was on the main page show a LOT more views than on other days. Even on the last day, when it was only there for an hour, it saw a whopping 3.7k views, compared to the average since (around 2k). Compare this to a DYK- the last batch was up for over seven hours (I'll also take this opportunity to say how much good work BorgQueen does with DYK, but that's by-the-by) but the top article saw practically no views, (at the time of posting, seven today, which includes the time it was on the main page) even though it was accompanied by a picture. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's give the BorgQueen a medal for her hard work at DYK. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK is viewed so little because it's in a much less prominent place. Most people must scroll down to view it. That's why I suggested (not sure if here or in a different thread) for ITN and DYK to be switched. DYK would get a more prominent place, because it's likely to interest more people (thanks to it being updated more often). The only reason why the ITN articles are more visited now is because they're higher on the page. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Deliberate un-indent) Yes, but the fact that ITN is still viewed shows that there is no need to start updating it a ridiculous amount, that was my point. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's calling for a "ridiculous amount". We'd just like items not to hang around for two weeks. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The one-week trial for the new ITN candidates' structure will be coming to an end soon. I have started a section to gather opinion from editors who have been interacting with or observing the new system as to if the trial should be extended or ended as originally scheduled here. Thank you, BanyanTree 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Evacuation

At a quick glance, it appears the people in Sichuan are being evacuated on a futuristic craft with retrorockets. Jw6aa (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the appropriate FAQ. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You've gotta admit that's pretty funny though. I laughed out loud and I've seen these complaints a few dozen times before. Random89 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

permanent link for the lulz. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, nope, here it is: [1] Modest Genius ^talk 22:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I never actually saw it on the front page, as I don't frequent it that often. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

I tried to look for an article about main pages, but it keeps redirecting me here. If there is a one, where is it? 88.114.27.91 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Homepage.--Pharos (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Sometimes I feel myself so little and stupid... 88.114.27.91 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Honest mistake to make, and a subject of repeated debate. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 10:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And just wait until someone writes [[Main Page (book)]].... ffm 12:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I might write that book - about this bloody debate over whether it should be in article space. Just for the irony. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd buy it :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 11:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been plotting this on my user page for months - one of my minor aims in life is to form a band / write a novel / create a major website or a magazine called Main Page, forcing Wikipedia to have to disambiguate its front page. Muahahaha!!!!!111 Neıl 龱 11:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you point me to the relevant archives where this discussion has happened? indopug (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are relivant discussions on Archives 87, 89 and 90. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 22:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A true-to-blood vandal proposal.

Considering "vandals" are currently mentioned on the front page, it would be moste fitting and just to vandalize wikipedia's frontpage! That would be a more lively and realistic venue of rememberance, compared to the current dry, ivory tower museum-ish presentation. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually "Historians agree that the Vandals were no more destructive than other invaders of ancient times" (admitedly unsourced), from vandals Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they were merely given the bad name by the Roman Catholic Church after people started forgetting about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.176.151 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming SignPost (Dispatch) article

Can anyone here add some data on History and stats for the mainpage, see Wikipedia talk:FCDW/June 9, 2008#History; review of the article prior to publication would also help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to Wikinews

In the In the News section on the Main Page, how about having links to more information after the headline.

How many times have I read a one sentence headline and then tried to find more info and failed?

All it needs is More information after the end of each headline, and when you click on the link it takes you to the Wikinews story.

Yes, I know there's all kinds of ways to find out more info if you want to, but how much easier would it be to have an easy link to Wikinews?

Let's do it!

Nettyboo (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can already click the bolded link and be taken to the Wikipedia article that has been updated. If people wanted to go to Wikinews, they would, but they have come to Wikipedia. In any case, why should we push Wikinews on our main page more than our other sister projects? J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't know if you want to know about that news until you see it on the Main Page. All the updated article does is mention what the headline just told you anyway. It wouldn't be pushing Wikinews, it would just be giving people the option of getting more info. Nettyboo (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is not part of Wikipedia, but a completely independent project that uses the same software. If you want news, go there. (There is a link at the bottom of ITN.) If you want encyclopedic articles, stay in Wikipedia. The articles are different. There may be links in the articles connecting the two. --74.14.19.211 (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not. Jimbo Wales said Wikia is completly different and it is. However, WikiNews, is a Wikimedia project, so it is related. StewieGriffin! • Talk 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But we arn't one big project, we just happen to have the same org. run it. We already have a wikinews link at the bottom of the column, and in the respective articles. ffm 16:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>

Wikipedia is the 800lb gorilla of all the projects. Yes, the person raising this has suggested links to Wikinews, but why not take advantage of the power Wikipedia has to promote other projects? A link to a Wikinews article where one exists would be great. You could go further and have "Quote of the day" from Wikiquote. The projects need to work together and be less self-centered. --Brian McNeil /^talk 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please make such suggestions on WP:ITN2. ffm 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe if you check there you'll find I already have. --Brian McNeil /^talk 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then this conversation is moot. ffm 00:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Why not take advantage of the power Wikipedia has to promote other projects?" Wrong question. The correct question is "Why?" not "Why not?"

An 800lb gorilla can exercise its power in all sorts of ways. If you want it to exercise its power in a particular way, then you have to give reasons that single out that way and not the 1,000,000 other ways.

Otherwise Wikipedia's front page will consist of "We are Wikipedia. Today's article is Einstein." and then there will be 500 pages of other websites that "we ought to promote, because what harm does it do us?" --81.155.42.17 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How many people really know about Wikinews? 76.71.6.119 (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the implication that the reason more Wikipedia readers don't read Wikinews is because we're too stupid to find it. (there are already at least two links.) Perhaps we only have time to read one and we find encyclopedias more interesting.--APL (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The disadvantage of a "more" link to Wikinews is that newbies might be confused. They wouldnt know that they have left Wikipedia. Then theyd'd be confused why they can't find the encylopedic article they were looking for (they'd search Wikinews instead of Wikipedia).
But what we could do is include a link "Read more news at Wikinews" in one of the lower corners of ITN. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Ooops, didn't notice that there already is such a link. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. If someone clicks 'read more' when they're on Wikipedia, they want an encyclopedia article, not get transported to some vaguely related site that they may not 'get'. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on that. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're not giving enough credit to the reader. 76.68.75.206 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As Someone who is primarily a reader I would like the Mainpage To remain free of both advertising and links whose purpose is primarily to promote other projects.
Give the reader a little credit. As it stands, it takes only a moment to locate Wikinews. If readers are not looking at the sister projects perhaps it is because they simply don't want to. Don't beat us over the head with links that try to trick us into generating traffic for some other project. Thank you. --APL (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Cuba

Cuba is now offering free sex reassignment surgery.[2][3] Someone should add this to the "In the news" section of the Main page for Wikipedia.--71.118.38.128 (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Post it at WP:ITN/C, if no one comments in a couple of hours, look for an admin and tell him/her to add it pronto. --Howard the Duck 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's been updated, which is a shame. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper place for these news items is Portal: Current events. Don't go to WP:ITN/C till you have a well updated article in Wikipedia. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

His name is Prince

And it's his birthday (Proof). His 50th one, I might add. Thus, he should have an appearance on the On This Day section.--Montaced (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, births and deaths can only be used on centennials, etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me....

Does anyone else happen to think that the recent deaths section is, well, not very tasteful.While sure, it is a public manner, death that is, especially that which occurs to someone with celebrity status, do you think it should be something that we display so abruptly, especially on the front page? I feel that other things could be used to fill this space. Perhaps there should be a discussion held, and see what other Wikipedians have to say. -Cam^T|C 03:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry to be blunt and patronising, but Wikipedia contains content that you may find distasteful. I personally don't think it's distasteful anyway- I mean, you'd certainly get obituaries in newspapers- we have a list of rather than obituaries as firstly, we're not a newspaper, and secondly, we cover a lot more people than your average newspaper would. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

i think milburn is right. obviously, we have to face what is supposedly distasteful, that's the whole point of getting news, it's not selective news, anyway.Arundhati Arjun (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

UTC vs. change for local time??

Would it be theoretically possible for the main page to skip forward a day or backward a day based on time zone? I live several hours off of UTC and am constantly getting the date wrong because the date changes after 6:00pm. I really think it would clear a few things up. Googolme* 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd trust the clock on my computer than the one on a community website. That is not a function of Wikipedia. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are kidding, no? Wikipedia is much better than the clocks on my computers which are always losing or gaining time in the same way as any cheap clock. Almost everyone does not live on UTC time but making these mental adjustments is very much a part of living in the 21st century internet world. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If it was possible, it would be very awkward and create a lot of work for admins. It would also make discussing the main page (and any other page affected) practically impossible. Sorry, I don't think it's going to happen. J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it would make a lot of work. We have tomorrow's, and yesterday's, main pages set up already, don't we? I thought we also had handy little pages that modelled them. It would surely not be that hard to set it up so that logged in users who had specified a different time zone saw the appropriate main page? I concede that this could lead to confusion when discussing it here, but given this would only apply to those who had taken the time and effort to specify a different time zone for their user, it shouldn't be that big a deal. You could even have an opt-out and informative message when people alter their time zone. Or we could just have "THE DATE WHERE YOU ARE IS ... " in big letters at the top of the screen... 79.74.56.70 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How about, next to the date on the main page, we add "[[UTC]]"? That way, there will be no confusion about whether the date on the main page is 'right'. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, despite all of these "end of the world" predictions, I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, for a logged in user at least. Simply use javascript such that whenever the Main Page is visited, load yesterday's, today's, or tomorrow's main page instead, depending on the UTC time + an offset. The talk links would lead to the page to discuss tomorrow's, yesterday's or today's, depending on which is applicable. Of course, ITN would need to be dealt with somehow, but still, I don't see any major problems. Prodego ^talk 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then you write it. ffm 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually Googolme should write it, Googolme wants it. But the question wasn't will some one make it, it is can't this be done. I personally have no trouble with UTC, I have a javascript UTC clock that I use to let me know down to the second times. Prodego ^talk 03:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the lower right corner of OTD. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama

Hillary has already conceded (see hers and Obama's websites), so shouldn't the news be updated? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Update the article (if not done already) then post at WP:ITN/C or WP:ERRORS above. ffm 02:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened to NPOV?

What is this kind of thing doing on the Main Page?

The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.

I thought Wikipedia holds a neutral point of view. This is very disappointing. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm failing to see how it violates WP:NPOV... Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're complaint is. ¢rassic! (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I thinks its about Creationism vs. Evolution -- Coasttocoast (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The featured article is called Formation and evolution of the Solar System, and taking a look at its talk page, it seems that nobody has brought that up before. You would probably want to discuss it there. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he's taking the piss. Lighten up :) Naerii - Talk 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not apply to things that are true vs. things that are not true. 81.155.42.17 (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

HOW DOES THAT RELATE???!!! IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION!!! THAT IS WHY THEY CALL IT THE BIG BANG THEORY!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Googolme (talk • contribs) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific theory would enhance your knowledge, I see. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that Conservapedia has probably already quoted the main page as an example of why Wikipedia is run by the evil ultra-liberal gay cabal. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 12:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do they run old news? Imagine Reason (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

They say "teach the controversy" but the only controversy is between the institution of science, which has proven its arguments beyond a reasonable doubt, and those who are vandalizing knowledge with their disregard for the scientific process or empirical evidence. MessedRocker (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the main page lead is changed to read:

The formation and evolution of the Solar System is a theory which claims that the solar system began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.

I think this would be more neutral. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't actually make sense. "The formation and evolution of the solar system is a theory"? There might be theories about the formation of the solar system, but the fact that it did form (or was formed) is, I think, a fairly well-established and uncontested fact. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not as much as you might think. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ack. The sentence still doesn't make sense. "The formation of the solar system is a theory that the solar system was formed" is, at best, truistic, at worst, meaningless. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't apply here, it would apply if the line read The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud, but really didn't affect anything or other such point of view issues. If the article is properly referenced, and doesn't change the facts that are in those references, this is a non-issue. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, though, the steady state theory pretty much went the way of the flat earth when we discovered cosmic background radiation. Imagine Reason (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it was respected by the scientific community in living memory, and, as far as 'scientific explanations' go, it's probably the second. By comparison, creationism has never been respected by the scientific community, and is not really based on science at all. J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The complaint/joke revolves around the idea that some people would contest what is said in the article, and so stating those things as fact is non-neutral. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I know :). It took all my will power not to make a god reference instead of the "not changing much" thing. Last thing I need is creationalists after me. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hoorah for atheism. =D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Even better, a lot of these intelligent design/creationism types would claim that their 'scientific' views have nothing to do with their faith... J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly... I think it should be left as it is. Seriously, it's only there for a day. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's not a biblical day. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this could be solved by adding the word "estimated". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That implies more uncertainty than is the case. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am no creationist by any means. But numbers such as the estimated age of the universe and stuff like that are subject to change based on the latest observations. My first thought on reading a bold statement like "the universe is such-and-such age", is "how do they know that?" The answer is that they don't "know" that. It's an estimate based on the the most recent observations. To boldly state it as fact is skirting POV on its face, never mind the creationist nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we know that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus a few hundred million years. It was in the news recently, if I'm not mistaken. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't know any such thing. The number is the latest estimate based on available evidence. The creationists "know" for sure, and they're wrong. And when scientists claim they "know" such a nebulous figure, they're wrong too. Religionists "know" for sure. All scientists can do is report the latest findings. That's why science trumps religionism. But as soon as they claim they "know", they are setting themselves up to be proven wrong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the more applicable policy/guideline here is Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought that even if one person doesn't believe it Wikipedia should not take the opposite point of view. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Undue_weight. ffm 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs and Diligent Terrier. The stars and planets we can observe cannot put their existence into question: they are fact. The explanations of how they came about can only be considered as theories. The word "theory" should be used in this case. Hypocampelephantocamelos 15:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypocampelephantocamelos (talk • contribs)

Bearing in mind that creationism is not even a theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is moot, it is no longer on the main page. ffm 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

TFA without date of birth or death

There seems to be a policy, or just a habit, of excluding the birth and death years of people when they are featured on the front page. I can't understand why this is done. The years appear in the article itself right after the person's name, and they have obvious relevance to understanding the context of the biography, just as it is relevant to describe someone's educational background. Whenever I read a biographical TFA, I find myself trying to figure out what period this person lived in, from various "hints" in the TFA blurb.

Example: Today's article is about Harold Innis and says he was a Canadian economic historian. Hmm, I think, that means he must have lived late enough to have had a sizable amount of economic history of Canada to work on. On the other hand, there's a black and white photo, so he can't have lived too recently... Wouldn't it be better if I didn't need to guess? --Zvika (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the purpose of TFA is to garner enough interest for you to click the link to the whole article and read more about it. That may not be the reason DOB/DOD is in there, but that's my impression :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. If that were the case, why not leave out other crucial bits of information? The TFA text is just a summary of the LEAD, and I claim that the DOB/DOD is an important part of the LEAD. --Zvika (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they're conserving the number of characters for other info. Having DOB+DOD can pretty much lengthen the blurb. The tense (is/was) is good enough to establish whether the person is living or dead. I think that'll be enough. --Howard the Duck 14:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Todays FA (Émile Lemoine) is actually a good example of why this would be useful, since the blurb gives essentially NO clues as to the time period. The presence of a black & white photo gives some indication, but a very imprecise one. How about a compromise in which the years of birth and death are given, but not the precise dates? 'Émile Lemoine (1840-1912)' doesn't take up much space but gets the information across. Modest Genius ^talk 03:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In today's FA, for example, one could prune off some of the blurb to make room for the dates of birth and death, so that the blurb wouldn't be lengthened. Consider the following: "He was educated at a variety of institutions, including the Prytanée National Militaire and, most notably, the École Polytechnique." Is the "most notably" really necessary? Take it out and there's the room for the dates of birth and death. I think "most notably" adds very little to the blurb while the dates add a significant amount. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy on this somewhere? I had a quick look, but couldn't find any guidelines for the TFA blurb. It might be worth trying to get this adopted. Modest Genius ^talk 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Featured Article Director (Raul654) has never formally written guidelines for TFA blurbs. But then again he is the only one who primarily writes them. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Today's FA (George I) is another good example. It begins with the sentence: "George I was King of Great Britain and Ireland, from 1 August 1714 until his death." This sentence sounds weird: why are they telling us the date of his ascension to the throne, but not even the year of the end of his reign? The reason becomes clear if you click through: The date of death has already been written, together with the date of birth, in parentheses, right after the name. But this has been removed in the transition to the TFA blurb, making the sentence awkward. --Zvika (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that there is considerable variance in the lengths of the TFA blurbs, so it's not like there's "no room" for the years of birth/death, as Howard says. For instance, this week we've had blurbs ranging from 168 words to 241 words, a difference of over 40%. --Zvika (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tenses?

On the main page is written in the news section loads of stuff in the present tense. Although this is what has already happened, otherwise it wouldn't be news! Why can't Wikipedia put stuff into the correct tense in the news section? Or am I missing something important that is a reason for the present tense. Cribrad (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Given this is a news section, most of the stuff should be information from things currently happening. You know, the kind you would see on the...erm....well....news. -Cam^T|C 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realise that. Although I can't help noticing that some of these things, although happened recently, actually occured in the past from when the news written. Such as this from the news today: 'A suicide car bomb explodes outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least five.' I would have thought in this case it should be displayed as : 'A suicide car bomb exploded outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, which killed at least five.' Cribrad (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

These short news vignettes are written in a form of headlinese (probably because it sounds "newsy") - if you pay attention to most newspaper headlines, you'll note that they will use present tense when describing events in the recent past. Apparently, though, there isn't an official style guide for "In the news". I suggest you bring up the issue at Template talk:In the news. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Style - BanyanTree 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note however the 'killing' may be ongoing. It's easily possible there are victims in hospital in critical condition who may die after the headline was written. These deaths will generally be attributed to the bomb. While it is not inaccurate to say that the bomb killed at least 5 people if it has killed that many so far, since this is a recent even there's also nothing with saying 'killing at least 5' since the event is recent, and the death toll may change Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You can use that tense for events that are explicitly in the past anyway. "In World War II, Nazi Germany organized the Holocaust, killing millions of Jews and other minority groups." Sounds fine to me at least; I've never heard that such uses were wrong. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's a rule in grammar that no two clauses in a sentence(with atleast one finite verb) can have the same form of tense."In World War II, Nazi Germany organized the Holocaust, killing millions of Jews and other minority groups." - it's not possible to say- ""In World War II, Nazi Germany organized the Holocaust, killed millions of Jews and other minority groups." using '-ing' form nullifies the verb, and hence the present continuous tense is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arundhati Arjun (talk • contribs) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)