Talk:Main Page/Archive 127

Archive 120

←

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Featured Sounds

The Featured Sound project is beginning to take off, and I think it's time to discuss an occasional appearance of sounds on the main page. I have talked with User:Howcheng off-wiki, and he agreed that integrating sounds into Picture of the Day (renaming it to "Media of the Day" in the process) - presuming there's consensus - would be fine.

This rename to "Media of the Day" would also make the occasional videos somewhat more appropriately titled.

There are several good reasons for this proposal: There is an awful lot of good, public domain music, speeches, and similar sound files out there, and sound is one of the things Wikipedia can do that traditional, print encyclopedias cannot. Also, sound can be very important for understanding: hearing samples of Beethoven's music will always be more informative than simply reading an article about his music, and hearing an identified recording of bird song helps people identify the birds around them.

As well, including them on the mainpage has benefits unique to itself: Many articles that, as a basic requirement for understanding, need sounds do not yet have any. (For instance, Music of India talks at length about the various styles of Indian music, many of which have their own sub-articles, but none have any samples of the styles discussed). By making it clear we think sounds are important, we encourage Wikipedians with talent for an instrument or for voice to record public-domain works for Wikipedia, thus improving our coverage.

Likewise, the exposure would make it far easier to get more high-quality material - going to a university symphony, for instance, with the promise of wide exposure on the main page of one of the top-rated websites for any of the recordings we feature would be a strong encouragement for them to assist us. With just a few university symponies, a few amateur opera companies, or any groups in that line providing us with free-licenced recordings, we could easily become the best online resource for free music.

As well, the exposure would increase traffic to the featured sound project, thus increasing the number of featured sounds that are available for the main page, hastening the time when Featured Sounds can stand on its own.

Thank you,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• This sounds excellent. I think integrating featured sounds with pictures for 'today's featured media' (or perhaps today's featured medium'?) is a fantastic idea that is long overdue. Will consensus here be enough, or is the main discussion going elsewhere? J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The only drawback I see is that WP:MOTD is already taken (grr). howcheng {chat} 18:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

En has already had a video on the main page has it not? I can't see sounds being a problem.Geni 18:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. To answer Geni, video is classified differently here v. Commons. They don't consider video eligible for featured pictures and don't have any featured sound program. So sometimes video runs on this site under the featured picture category. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just hijack WP:MOTD, this is a more worthy target. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with WP:TFM (Today's featured media)? Teemu08 (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some possible problems: Media is too ambiguous. If I loosely define the word, it would swallow up all featured content except (possibly) topics. The queue for POTD is just over 200. Also, it adds mystery buttons to the main page. The main page redesign survey disagrees with the inclusion of today's featured sound.

I think the way to go about this is to get a featured content process started on Commons feeding into Media of the Day. MER-C 09:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the main page redesign survey's existence, you don't hear me crying... There is not (yet) any need to disagree with a 'today's featured sound'- all that is to happen is to have a featured sound instead of a featured picture once in a while, which makes a lot of sense as videos have been featured there for a while, and sounds are more like videos than pictures. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds is on en-wiki, there is nothing comparable on Commons as of yet, except the completely dead Media of the Day project (it's on a one-year endless loop, and has been since shortly after its creation, near as I can tell). Commons would quite rightfully object to having the output of an en-wiki project on their front page.

It took months of work to build up Featured sounds here. I for one object to being told the reward for hard work on en-wiki is to be told to go away and do the work somewhere else instead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And are you seriously telling me that a survey with 8 responses, without a single one of the people at featured sound even being notified that a discussion of putting featured sounds on the mainpage was ongoing, should be considered to settle the issue for all time, in perpetuity? Noone involved with Featured sounds was there to present any of the arguments in its favour. I'll go further: most of the comments show extreme ignorance of what is available in sounds. Thiirdly, if yopu're going to claim, based on a single comment, that featured soounds should be on commons, then I claim the single comment asking for them to be mixed in with featured pictures. Well, anyway, I've said my piece. Up tto others to decide on it now =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the survey participations seem to be concerned we don't have enough sounds, at least those who have bothered to explain why they opposed. From what I can tell, no one is disputing we don't have enough featured sounds at the current time, nor is anyone suggesting we make a today's featured sound at the current time. What people are suggesting here is that sounds be added to TFP perhaps with a rename. So the survey frankly speaking is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(OP) Sounds good. If video has successfully been incorporated into TFP in the past, then I'd support including sounds. Rename it TFM or MOTD or whatever. (motto-oftheday is daft, and deserves to be hijacked or hidden-away like the insane squirrel that it is)

As for the survey, the entire thing is basically irrelevant. Even the 60+ redesign-draft submitters hadn't bothered to participate. The whole redesign is a fiasco (as prophesied earlier). And yes, it was the randomized standalone featured-sounds-box, as found at Portal:Featured content/current, that the survey was legitimately objecting to adding to the Main page (because there are only 18 entries to randomize between). -- Quiddity 00:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Pedant alert Featured media does not mean one day you have a picture and another day you have a sound. Sound, video, images, text and what-have-you are the media. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

30-Rock

I'm curious as to why so many references to the series 30 Rock keep popping up on the main page of the Wikipedia? the infamous rmx (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK is a selection of recently created new articles and greatly expanded former stub articles on Wikipedia. People have been working hard on this topic (30 Rock) these days, so you see their work on DYK more often these days. See WP:DYK for more info. You can submit your new pages for consideration, too. This way, articles about any topic of your choice gets on MainPage more often. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Churchill

Did we really mean "after promising to vote first for, then against, the Clerical Tithes Bill", or do we mean "after first promising to vote for, then promising to vote against, the Clerical Tithes Bill"? They do mean two different things. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure they do? What's the difference? The first one is a little odd ("to vote first for" is an unusual phrase) but I'm fairly sure they mean the same thing. In any case, for grammatical fixes like this, WP:ERRORS is your best bet. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't mean the same thing – in the first case above, Churchill would be making a single promise to flip-flop later, while in the second case he would be making two promises in succession that contradicted one another. I'll bet that the second meaning is what's meant here.— Gavia immer (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Raising this at WP:ERRORS would be your best bet. J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Slovak wiki

Slovak wiki reached 100,000 articles. Please edit the template on Main Page. --Wwooter (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reported this to Template talk:Wikipedialang, thanks for report Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Instant Replay in Major League Baseball

I have a suggestion for the home page: The fact that Major League Baseball will be adding Instant Replay tomorow (for home run calls only). Its the first time they've ever done it in the sports over 100 years of existance, so I think its pretty significant.TomCat4680 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pls see the box at the top of this page that says "... This is not a place to ask general questions or submit content. ..." Follow the links there to get what you want. --74.13.127.48 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, if you're speaking about the "In the News" section, you can go to WP:ITN/C. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

don bradman

nice touch having Don Bradman as the featured article on the 100th anniversary of his birth! cheers 116.240.254.95 (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

see, it's not just thrown together. well, not all of it. 86.44.27.219 (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame the blurb doesn't mention his birth date, just the year. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bad the article had the wrong title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.192.244 (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What, "Donald Bradman"? --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bush Cricket

This link goes to an article on the outdoors, is that right? I had presumed 'bush cricket' was similar to 'bush league' in the USA, referring to minor league baseball, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.58.1 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You can ask about this at Talk:Donald Bradman. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

e/c Bush cricket redirects to Tettigoniidae. And looking at the Bush disambiguation page doesn't have anything, and apparently the term isn't used much on Wikipedia.Spencer^T♦C 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an Aussie and it's not cricket jargon, but I had no problems comprehending it as being cricket played in the Australian Outback. Is it really impenetrable? --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

With split time in US and UK, I didn't really know what it was. I had feeling, though. Spencer^T♦C 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages links

Not sure if this was already noted somewhere, but it seems to me that the ja and zh links in "Wikipedia languages" on the main page are not rendering (like they were previously), but rather displaying as [[ja:|日本語]] and [[zh:|中文]] respectively. AUG (Talk) 15:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's {{lang|ja|日本語}} and {{lang|zh|中文}} that are on Template:Wikipedialang. Removing Template:Lang may help. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's caused by a recent edit in Template:Lang. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it's fixed now. AUG (Talk) 23:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin's picture

Aren't there any free pictures of Palin that are more professional? God knows I don't believe politicians should be revered, but it seems odd to accompany what may be the most significant moment of her career with a picture of her in a tracksuit.

I thought all US politicians at some point got a picture taken by a government photographer of them in a suit in front of the US seal or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.106.239 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's for the federal governments. The public domain rule doesn't apply for state or local politicians. Spencer^T♦C 13:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you prefer File:Palinphotocropped.jpg, pls say so at WP:ITN/C. --74.13.125.182 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, she calls herself a typical hockey mom from Alaska, so the tracksuit suits her. :) --74.14.20.209 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize we like head-on photos, but the one used in her infobox - Image:Palin1.JPG would be a better image, imo. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It was what was originally used but was changed for the reason you outlined [1] Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Pic/Pick

Hey All,

I don't know if this has been discussed before (probably has), but I think any TFA should have a picture included. Seriously, the page looks awful when the TFA blurb has no pic. It breaks up the symmetry on the page (ITN, OTD, and DYK all have pics) and just looks off because most days there is a picture. Justice America/(5:15) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Any image appearing on Main Page must be free-to-use, apparently, so TFA has to be imageless if there isn't a free image available. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, but why pick an article without a pic? Justice America/(5:15) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think all FA's deserve to be showcased on the Main Page. Obviously, an editor's put enough work into it that it shouldn't be stopped by lack of free image. Spencer^T♦C 19:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Free images are not evenly distributed so doing this would reduce the variety in Main Page featured articles, which I think is probably a worthy goal. --Cherry blossom tree 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Enlighten me though, what's the difference between having a non-free image on a regular article and having one on the front page? Why? --Kaizer13 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The fair use cases for images in articles tend to be stronger (but in many cases still pretty poor). Due to the way the main page is presented comeing up with a solid fair use case would be difficult in the vast majority of cases.Geni 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The claims that main page images must be 'free' are completely false. Jimbo once implied that he felt this way in a single edit. That is not sufficient grounds for policy (see WP:AAJ). However, the fair use approval page de-listed the main page during a rephrasing about a year back, and all efforts to reinsert it have been overwhelmed by the copyright brigade. Read into that what you will. For the record, I completely agree with using fair use images on the main page. Modest Genius ^talk 23:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

According to current policy, all main page images must be free. However we got there, it's current policy and there has never been consensus to change with valid arguments on both sides. The idea that this is simply AAJ is ludicrious. Jimbo has tried to make a number of policies which have failed, clearly people are capable of thinking for themselves and the reason why we are here now is because after this independent thought, people agree with him. No wonder this argument gets no where when those opposing current policy show such disrespect for other editors (by calling them names and claiming they can't think for themselves or don't have valid reasons for wanting fair use images to be excluded from the main page). While I'm not claiming the so called 'copyright brigade' is perfect, by and far, those who do the most name calling and refuse to accept the other parties have valid arguments appears to be those supporting fair use images on the main page Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW the term is "non-free", not "fair use"; whatever may or may not be permissible as fair use under US copyright law is immaterial; the non-free content policy is line with the Foundation's goals. howcheng {chat} 05:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is the opposite of a euphemism (does a word for such things exist?) Modest Genius ^talk 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Found it myself, the term is dysphemism Modest Genius ^talk 15:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Those of us who support fair use on the Main Page, such as myself, don't appreciate being generalized any more than you do. If you have a problem with what Modest Genius said, then fine, but it is no more okay for you to belittle eveyone that opposes you than it is for him to do so. Dragons flight (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> I didn't intend to belittle anyone. It's just that it was quicker to type 'copyright brigade' than 'a number of users who favour a particularly restrictive copyright policy, including opposition to fair use of copyrighted images'. As for the AAJ, I suggest you read Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_criteria_exemptions. Modest Genius ^talk 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

ITN

¡Lugo!

Shouldn't ITN have been updated by now. Even the most fanatic Biden supporters might be bored by the same picture, day after day. ;D --Hapsala (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To suggest a new picture for ITN, please go to WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bad Obama didn't choose Fernando Lugo to be his veep. We haven't seem enough of him lately. :) Lovelac7 02:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I CAN HAZ TEH NEUZ STORIES?

Clearly there has never been a better time to put MAOR KATZ on the main page. ITN could use some cat related news. Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, stopgap image of Medvedev is up now. If someone wants to crop a map or something, feel free.-Wafulz (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Katz in china have started sprouting wings. Clearly this event is worth an entry in ITN. Otherwise, it's yet more evidence of Wikipedia's blatant anti-kat bias. Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To suggest a new item for ITN, please go to WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See Winged cat. Anyway, ITN stories need links to the specific event, and that event in China clearly isn't notable enough. --haha169 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize that in the U.S., McCain picking his VP choice is a big deal, but I think the only way this could be seen as important enough to be on the main page is if some mention is made of her (Palin) being only the second woman VP nom after Geraldine Ferraro. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. is a huge country with international influence. Many internet and Wikipedia users are American. VP nominations are some of the biggest single pieces of news durring an election cycle. As the US is going through a major election cycle, I'd say VP nominations are considered news even on an international site like Wikipedia. Sure, it would be interesting if it mentioned that she was only the second after Ferraro, but the story doesn't need to have that to be considered newsworthy. In my opinion, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.82.144 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To discuss what news items to include on ITN, pls go to WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To repeat yourself in a condescending way, please go to Talk:Main Page, err, oh wait, nevermind, you already found it. --208.82.225.232 (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Condescending"? How? I was just trying to direct traffic here. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Icon

Do you think we could add this code to the main page? I found it on a user page, and thought it look really cool!

<span style="position: absolute; top: -50px; left: -172px; z-index: -1">[[Image:Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar.gif|180px]]</span>

It makes:

TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 00:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that'd be useful on the main page. ffm 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a horrible idea. Colinstu (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not really a good idea. Decorating userpages is fine, but I don't think it's appropriate for the main page. J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The main page is not a user. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Red links

I swear I saw this page this morning and their were no red links. Something wierd has happened, because someone has changed the links to the wierd symbols which would appear on the URL, but not on the titles. Someone please fix these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you be a little more specific? J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rather easy to change the place a wikilink points to. As with all vandalism you should report it to the article talk page or simple revert it yourself. Try Wikipedia:Help desk if you have further general questions about how wikipedia works. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of delightful links. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New Look

I think wikipedia's main page deserves a new look now. Some other color scheme and such.. -59.95.107.51 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Teemu08 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -59.95.109.148 (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing w/o source

• "the latter announces it will become part of Russia."--Birmaley (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he is talking about the last headline in "In the news", where it says, "Russia officially recognizes the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; the latter announces it will become part of Russia." However, he is incorrect on one of two counts. Firstly, headlines on In the news don't need citations in the actual section. However, the related articles do, as can be evidenced by the article South Ossetia where it's announcement of it becoming a part of Russia is sourced. Deamon138 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Emmy Noether

Wasn't "Leo Ornstein" the FA just a couple days ago? Typical Wiki propaganda... Truth-teller3 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pff, yeah right, propaganda of the maths-and-music league. More relevantly, could the image of Emmy Noether be included on the main page? 217.162.207.254 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! and you might as well remove this now, since "Truth-teller3"'s only other contribution is indicative of his intentions here. 217.162.207.254 (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At least it gives me a section in which to say that i think the tfa blurb today is a particularly excellent distillation of the article. Despite its distressing lack of cats. 86.44.24.250 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. Ceiling Cat (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag it with {{Cats needed}}, pls. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was sorely disappointed that that template didn't actually request adding pictures of cats. Modest Genius ^talk 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, have a nice day! and before you complain, the template was unused in articles. ffm 00:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop default local language selection at www.wikipedia.org

97,5% of the times i type wikipedia in the url field to search wikipedia, I intend to go to the English version because it is the most complete version.

But recently Norwegian has been the default selection next to the search field and most of the time the search doesn't produce anything. That is because I typed in the search term in English, beliving I was on the "normal" wikipedia, and because the Norwegian wikipedia is very small since there are only about 4,5 million norwegians in the world, while there are billions of english speaking people.

Is the default language selection thing some sort of policy to increase writing of non-english content? If so I think it is policy with too much negative externalities in the form of inconveniencing the users of wikipedia who intend to use the english version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMambo (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not much we can do about that, I'm afraid. You should ask a developer somewhere on Meta, the site where they co-ordinate these websites. I couldn't tell you for the life of me how to go about that, though. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It moves you towards the Norwegian version because it assumes from your IP address that you are a Norwegian speaker. This is partially for the convenience of the user and partially, as you say, to increase traffic to the smaller Wikipedias. I've gotten into the habit of typing en.wikipedia.org anyway, but if you want to have this changed, you'll have to go elsewhere- I'm honestly not sure who maintains that page. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia.org page is maintained over at meta-wiki, here. I assume they sort all those shenanigans out. – Toon^(talk) 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this discussion is out of place but since there appears to have been some accidental misinformation I think clarification is required. According to the discussion from the page you linked to, it's just following your browser's language preference. So I doubt they will change it. If it had been IP based then they might have changed their minds since it's a bit of a unreliable way of working out who speaks what. But www.wikipedia.org is the universal wikipedia website, not the English one and if you specify you prefer Norwegian in your browser, then it's logicial websites should direct you to their Norwegian version. If you don't want to go to Norwegian websites, either change your browser preference, or type in the website you actually want to visit (i.e. if you want to visit the English wikipedia go to en.wikipedia.org not www.wikipedia.org). The only thing which may change is there may be an option to allow you to specify the default language for www.wikipedia.org. But this would require a cookie. Nil Einne (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading recently that an IP-based judge of language was being implemented- is that not operational? J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You could just type (or bookmark) en.wikipedia.org instead Modest Genius ^talk 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the troublemaker who added the automatic language selection. :^) It works by determining your browser's language, not by analyzing your IP address. Depending on the browser you use, it's either the language your browser uses throughout its interface, or the top choice in your language preferences. I heard some mentions of an IP-based selection feature, but as far as I know, no technical work has been done towards it yet.

Wikipedia's multilingual portal is intended to avoid preferring one language over another, and the search box was the most prominent example of English being preferred. There's no ulterior motive: I just figured that users of, for example, the Bokmål version of Firefox would be more likely to search the Bokmål Wikipedia. I was hoping to get some opinions on whether the language selection feature is useful, so any additional feedback is welcome.

By the way, another option is to type in en:Page title. The search box handles language prefixes perfectly.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image uploading

Is the image(svg) uploading of wikipedia fine at the moment? or it's the problem of my own computer. I found wiki cannot display svg file! -Ngckmax (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This question is not related to the Main Page. Pls ask this question at WP:VP/T. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

main page prob at midnight?

I am loading the DYK set. The length of this set is judged by looking at it with this page. On my system the column widths are wrong and there fore I cannot judge length.

Please advise as tomorrows page could look really odd.Victuallers (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is specifically in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 6. I don't know exactly what's wrong though.-Wafulz (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's fixed now. Thanks for bringing it up.-Wafulz (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 main page redesign

Discussion is still ongoing in the proposed redesign of the main page. A brief survey was conducted to get a sense of community opinion, and most designs have been modified to reflect the bulk of community desires. The number of proposed designs has also been reduced, and each design is now accompanied with a screen shot. Please help establish consensus, and move this proposal to the next stage of voting. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

German Wikipedia 800.000th article

Hi everyone! How about congratulating the German Wikipedia (the second biggest after the English!) for its 800.000th article? It is a tradition in the German WP to congratulate other Wikipedias for this kind of event. What do you think? Bye! -- 91.7.120.9 (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:POST generally notes article milestones for other wikis (under "news and notes"). --Hut 8.5 09:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we generally keep mainpage notices to news concerning the English Wikipedia. 800,000 isn't even a particularly round number... When it hits a million, maybe. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Images don't load

No images on Wikipedia pages will load. It's not a problem at my end -- images on other web pages load fine. What's up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.123.125 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the same problem; I think the Wikimedia server's down for a bit...perhaps it's just routine maintenance, but you know...Wikipedia's not the only online source of information. We'll just have to go back and do our own research for papers for the next few seconds/minutes/hours/days/weeks/years/decades/centuries/millenia :) -- CB (ö) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the servers often have issues with images. It's sometimes a problem with thumbnailing. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium

I think Citzendium, 'the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base', your sister concern, should be mentioned at the top. You should also mention that it is the forum where experts post —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.141.85 (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium is not affiliated in any way with Wikipedia. It is similar in that it is based on Wiki software (as are many websites), it's an encyclopaedia and it was founded by one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. Also please do not remove the automatic signature from after your posts - sign them yourself. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Citzendium can call themselves what they like and claim what they like- we have plenty of experts here, and we're generally more respected by the press. We're nothing to do with them, we simply inspired their project (as we did Veropedia, a target much more worthy of praise, and Conservapedia, one much less worthy of praise) and I do not support advertising them on our main page, as I can't say I support advertising anything on Wikipedia... J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Burn the Traitors! Or is that too strong? Witch trials perhaps? Oh also, the original posters proposal is probably based on the beleif that Citizendum is a sister project like WikiVersity or Wikimedia Commons. However as it is not, it would be spam. Gavin Scott (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is User:59.92.141.85 a sock of User:Larry Sanger? Deamon138 (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation and a quote from [2]:

Second, a lot of Web 2.0 advocates, whose online temples are websites like Wikipedia and YouTube, are philosophically opposed to our [Citizendium's] basic policies. They tend to be radical egalitarians and closet anarchists.

...Actually, I'm just someone who doesn't like being insulted. Since that page was prominently linked on the CZ home page, I must assume that CZ's "basic policies" include attacking Wikipedians. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A 'closet anarchist'? "I want to fight the power, but I don't want to reveal it in case society hates me for it." J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not Larry Sanger. I see that on Wikipedia, the skeptics control some of the pages and so I thought people should visit Citizendium for the expert views. I did not know it wasn't affiliated with Wikipedia. I'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.155.22 (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't offend anyone. :) Two points I'd like to make, though: First, thanks to WP's insistence on reliable sources for info, the main advantage held by "experts" is that they can find those sources more quickly than most of us. Second, as J Milburn points out above, lots of experts edit here, too. We just don't give them the last word, since experts are as susceptible to bias as anyone else. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ever tried getting copies of articles in Science without membership of an academic library? Furthermore, much as I support the wikipedia concept, claiming that experts merely find sources faster is rubbish. Modest Genius ^talk 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, that's not what I (as 168.9.120.8) said. "Merely find sources faster" is considerably different from "the main advantage held"... there are other considerable advantages held by experts, but being able to locate (perhaps by simply reaching for the nearest bookshelf), access (by having pre-existing membership in academic libraries, among other resources), and filter (by knowing where to look for very specific details) sources faster than the layman is, I think, the main advantage held by experts who edit WP. That's why we at WP are so fortunate to have among our editors so many experts in such a diverse array of subjects. I *could* take any highly technical topic on the encyclopedia and find enough sources to write a good article about it, but since that would likely take months or years of dedicated effort, I leave such things to those who can accomplish it in mere days or even hours -- the experts. 66.82.9.77 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> I obviously misread you then. Personally, I think a better and more complete understanding of the background area is a larger advantage, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. None of this is related to the main page anyway ;) Modest Genius ^talk 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Hanna

Shouldn't it Hurricane Hannah instead of Tropical Storm Hanna? If not, why then is the article titled Hurrican Hanna upon clicking it?

Upon further review, it appears that it is currently a Tropical Storm. In that case, would it be more appropriate to say that the deaths were caused by this Tropical Storm, or to still use Hurricane Hannah because that was what actually attributed to the rest of the blurb. 71.237.177.34 (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was at hurricane strength when it hit land. Cyclones are downgraded/upgraded all the time. –Howard the Duck 06:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones usually retain the name they had at maximum intensity. In this case, Hanna was a hurricane for a while, so references continue calling it "Hurricane Hanna" or "former Hurricane Hanna" or something similar. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its about time this was replaced with the more current and newsworthy Hurricane Ike, Hanna has been and gone! -Debnigo (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its good to have Hanna and Ike on the front page, but Hanna is known as HURRICANE Hanna, even though it was a tropical storm for most of its life. Once a hurricane, always a hurricane. `24.222.149.228 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory number of articles

The Main Page currently gives two different numbers for how many articles are on Wikipedia. Atop the page I see we've switched to using {{Actual number of articles}}. In {{Wikipedialang}}, which is transcluded at the bottom of the Main Page, we continue to use {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}. I don't particularly care which we go with, but it's definitely silly to have both with no explanation of the different systems. --JayHenry (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The smaller number doesn't count the main page and disambiguation pages. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. --JayHenry (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; I've updated {{Wikipedialang}} to use {{Actual number of articles}}. It would be really good if we could get similar statistics for Wikipedias in other languages, but what we have now is good enough. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why have we suddenly dropped 140,000 articles??? The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the reason above, although I myself don't think this is a good idea. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? I'm just curious, I'm not opposed to changing it back if that's what others want. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. There's no point pretending that we have more articles than we do, though perhaps a clarification could be added that the number of pages =/= the number of articles. Not sure how to word it though. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the Main Page (which generates a bunch of silliness), disambiguation pages are actual content. Their purpose is to point to other articles, true, but they still require more editing and updating than redirects, which are not counted. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are closer to index/contents pages than articles, and the index/contents pages (in portal, Wikipedia and special space) are not counted. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But lists, many of which are equally index/contents pages, are counted; there is a pretty smooth continuum among content pages from lists of links to full-fledged featured articles. For instance, Ford (surname) vs. Ford (disambiguation). Christopher Parham (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright well, I just spotted a technical problem that prompted me to revert the change. {{disambig}} is used outside the article space sometimes [3], which is going to make the article count inaccurate because these pages are also subtracted. Perhaps we could create Category:All disambiguation pages to articles to get around this problem. Does anyone know of any other disambiguation templates that are used outside the article space? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the fact that many of our acual articles are of poor quality. And yet, here we are, bragging about them at the top of the main page.

Can't we just drop the article count from there already? Haven't we reached the point at which we can begin valuing quality over quantity? —David Levy 23:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame the counter for crappy articles. –Howard the Duck 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't. I blame us for celebrating them. —David Levy 06:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, FAs, GAs, and all the other FCs are still counted, so by having an article count means we're also celebrating other articles w/c are good. Plus there are probably lots more articles that aren't crappy, they're not just listed at the "hall of fame" either because no one reads them or no one bothers to nominate them since they'll be stripped off their dignity at WP:FAC. –Howard the Duck 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that all articles other than those designated "featured" or "good" are of poor quality. But many are, and proudly boasting that our encyclopedia contains 6,908,151 articles implies that we don't care.

Displaying the article count at the top of the main page made sense when Wikipedia was relatively small and we needed to stress the fact that the encyclopedia was growing. But at this point, it merely sends the message that we value quantity above all else (including quality). —David Levy 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about that, since a lot of articles are like the 2006 FIFA World Cup or Gossip Girl (TV series) articles: informative, can be understood rather easily, yet it is not an FA or a GA. And there are tons more articles which are like these. The only really bad articles are the stubs and articles which should really be deleted if not for inclusionists.

A test is to do a random article check. In the five random articles (Mowich River, Pelican Park, Petr Procházka, Sophie B. Hawkins, A483 road), none of them are that bad. Petr Procházka is the only article that is unreferenced, although Sophie B. Hawkins is grossly underreferenced for its length; although probably most of the article can be relied upon. Then again, it's random and anyone can come up with 5 very bad random articles. –Howard the Duck 07:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From time to time, I'll load five or ten random articles. Sometimes, most look decent. Other times, most look poor or stubby. Typically, the result is somewhere in-between.

What's certain is that we have nowhere near 6,908,151 articles worth touting. And yet, that's how many we tout. —David Levy 07:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If we have a "fair articles" page I'm betting it'll reach 700k or more as long as there lots of people that'll rate. Also, some WikiProjects are so great their articles look good even if they're not rated, and many articles in a series (think of 2008 NFL season, 2007 NFL season, etc.) are fair enough, especially for the most recent seasons. Really crappy articles either get deleted or is very hard to get into (unless you're into the subject matter, or use random article function). –Howard the Duck 07:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, we're proudly boasting that these articles exist. —David Levy 07:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The "fair articles" aren't that bad. I'm OK including them in the count. I'm betting most articles on Wikipedia are like that, unlike articles such as this, now that's bad. And they're either deleted, redirected/merged or improved upon. But again, we're also boasting the other rated articles. They're a part of that count too. –Howard the Duck 07:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles.

Yes, we have many articles that are fair (or better), but we also have many that are poor or stubby. And even if most of our articles were good (which they aren't), I still would oppose the article count's continued inclusion at the top of the main page (because it serves no purpose other than to brag that we have lots of articles, thereby conveying that we value quantity above all else). —David Levy 07:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen worse articles than Oblation Run. At least the first sentence says what it is about, albeit without sources. There are articles which don't have stub template if stubs, nor categories (like that one) and impossible to understand since the English is so poor. The h2 headings are h1 and half of the text is in bold + caps. The other half tends to be promoting itself but for some odd reason these articles get knocked back if I place a speedy, prod or even AFD tag on them. OFten when the topic is notable but content is as terrible as I've said, removing the rubbish is futile because it just starts a ongoing revert war with you and an anon. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair articles... you mean something like this? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Every aggregate count has bad apples. For example the census still counts people who have no use in society (at the risk of being crucified I won't name examples of people as such) but they're still included. Same thing here.

If we'd even consider of removing that line, we should think a new tagline since there should be 3 lines there to go along with the three lines at the right. –Howard the Duck 12:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Prior to implementation, the current main page design lacked the article count at the top (which is why it's included in the Wikipedia languages section). In my opinion, it looked better that way. (Keep in mind that the "Welcome to Wikipedia," text substantially is larger than the rest.) —David Levy 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an important metric of immense interest to the outside world. Only committed Wikipedia editors who spend hours on the internal processes of this project are going to reach the sort of conclusions that we're reaching about "bragging", or "celebrating", etc. (As an aside, it seems to me that Wikipedians have an irrational aversion to stubs, presumably because many Wikipedians have never used real encyclopedias and real reference works, which are often bursting at the bindings with what we consider unworthy stubs.) It's an important metric, presented factually. Now, bragging has occurred around milestones such as the 1 millionth article, and so maybe go after those special banners. But the mere presence of the number is perfectly acceptable. Of course we should keep it. --JayHenry (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I grew up with the World Book Encyclopedia and lacked regular Internet access until my last year of high school. Of course, we should value quality over quantity, and there are decent stubs. But many (especially those that are unreferenced) are practically worthless in their current states (despite serving as seeds for future growth, which I don't mean to dismiss). And many longer articles are similarly shabby.

2. No one is suggesting that the article count be eliminated. Since 2006, it's appeared on our main page in two locations. Its presence in the Wikipedia languages section is contextually relevant (because that's where Wikipedias are listed by size). What purpose—other than to brag about the sheer number of articles—does its presence at the top serve? —David Levy 18:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Stubs are a side issue which we don't need to get into here. I was merely commenting on a general trend in Wikipedia where editors think, for some reason, that stubs are intrinsically bad. I'm glad that you don't think that, David. As for purpose of the count, I believe it is an important metric of immense interest to the outside world, presented neutrally, without any reason to interpret its location as evidence of bragging. --JayHenry (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on the "bragging" issue.

Do you agree that many of our articles are of poor quality? If so, what is the true significance of the "6,908,151 articles" claim? In the Wikipedia languages section, it serves to compare the English Wikipedia's size to those of other Wikipedias (all of which contain articles of varying quality). But in the header box, its contextual purpose (even if bragging isn't a factor) must be to stress our encyclopedia's value. In my opinion, this implies that we care more about quantity than we do about quality (because the figure is presented without drawing any qualitative distinction).

Having said that, I believe that it is possible to present the figure at the top of the page in a context that lacks this connotation. For example, what if we were to change...

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 6,908,151 articles in English

to something like...

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free English-language encyclopedia with 6,908,151 articles that anyone can improve.

—David Levy 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone can edit" is a current slogan, so I'm not sure if this is a place to talk about changing it. ffm 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia's official slogan is "the free encyclopedia" (which appears on every page). The text "that anyone can edit" is traditionally appended on Main Page, but I don't see how it would be inappropriate to discuss modifying said text at Talk:Main Page.

2. The above is merely an example. —David Levy 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Was that doubles?

"In the news" says Serena Williams (pictured) and Roger Federer win the 2008 U.S. Open. Were they playing doubles? Or were there two opens, and each won one? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This has already been fixed. To report future errors on the main page, please go to WP:ERRORS as explained near the top of this page. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DE > 800,000

On the main page, let's congratulate the German Wikipedia for surpassing the 800,000 article mark.--Ratzer (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pls see #German Wikipedia 800.000th article above. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Underground Bunker

Just wondering, how come there's nothing about the test going on tomorrow. It's taking place 300 ft undedrground near the French-Swiss border. The test is to try and recreate a Big Bang, but on a much smaller scale, to try and convert massive amounts of energy. It will, apparently, destroy our dependancy on Fossil Fuels, or it could create a black hole. Nuthin about in the Newspapers today, but was sumthin' yesterday. Seems pretty big enough to deserve a page 1 story...

mÆniac ^Ask! 20:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:ITN/c for news suggestions. Random89 20:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll make a good story tomorrow, if there's still a main page to add it on. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaaa? They aren't recreating the big bang, they're trying to simulate conditions immediately after the big bang. And it doesn't have anything to do with producing a new energy source as far as I know. 198.189.249.71 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of misinformation/varying opinions around. I keep reading completely contrary information about it. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cern Big Bang Experiment

Agreed seems like a pretty noteworthy event. I don't think the big tests are going on til after Winter time so at least we have a few months left. Here is a link [4]--UhOhFeeling (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a DYK: ...that the world didn't end when CERN switched on? lol 79.79.85.150 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I just added one to Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know Modest Genius ^talk 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

United 93 as the Main Article?

If this isn't exploiting 9/11 I don't know what is. What a shame. Melia Nymph (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC) If this isn't exploiting 9/11 I don't know what is. What a shame. Melia Nymph (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Exploiting 9/11 would be setting up shop near ground zero today and selling 9/11 t-shirts, 9/11 buttons, and 9/11 noisemakers for personal profit. Featuring a well written, well sourced, comprehensive article related to one of the most significant events in modern history with the intent of propagating knowledge is educational, informational, and enlightening, but it is not exploitation. Nufy8 (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget gaudy silver medallions with "plundered" silver from the WTC vaults.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If posting the same thing twice isn't exploiting Wikipedia's servers, I don't know what is. What a waste. Waltham, The Duke of 04:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If me posting for the sake of the fact that I can isn't exploiting my ability as a user on the English-language wikipedia, then I don't know what is. What a shame. Gabr-el 07:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel so abused and exploited by the time I took to read this thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What a shame. Waltham, The Duke of 13:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Two items of media under TFP

Why is there both a picture AND a sound today? Surely that's against the guidelines? Modest Genius ^talk 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Links to previous related discussion (mostly about videos) Art LaPella (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note sounds are neither explicitly allowed nor forbidden at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Art LaPella (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my point - sounds are fine. The problem was having TWO items of media Modest Genius ^talk 02:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Two items of media on the same subject are also neither explicitly allowed nor forbidden at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Art LaPella (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing two before, so to shrug off the original point like that is a bit out of order. How was the combination picked? Is there a review process to decide if and when there can be two? Many (outside the USA) know why these two have been picked for today, and may even forgive this POV bias towards this particular subject, but it would be nice to know the process used to pick the two. Bazza (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find that decision easily, although I would have placed an objection to such an intentional decision at the bottom of Talk:Main Page, not among the errors. Art LaPella (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, moved. I still don't see what's so special about today that we should make a sudden break with precedent and include two items of media. I'm fairly sure the guidelines don't mention this eventuality simply because no-one thought it would ever happen. Modest Genius ^talk 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unusual, but hasn't this been done before? I'm sure I've seen picture and audio on the main page before. In addition, it's not uncommon for people that work on articles or submit pictures to request they be used on specific days because of some special significance (like Halo: Combat Evolved being the FA on the day when Halo 3 was released). Anakinjmt (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why there's a problem with it. So long as they meet other guidelines, timeliness can only improve WP. Lympathy ^Talk 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) User:Durova asked me on my talk page as a special request and I complied, with the help of User:Shoemaker's Holiday. Couldn't fit it in the regular POTD template, so it's only for the Main Page. It's not the first time we've had two items (example), although it is the first time we've had a picture and a sound, and it's the first time we've had different captions for the two items. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not doubt the procedure by which today's main page was shaped, but I do agree with those who find three (3) featured items on the same day overkill. I mean, how many of them are there? I'd prefer to see something left for next year. (Don't forget that we've probably created some expectations today; imagine not having anything to show on 11 September 2009. Anticlimactic.) Waltham, The Duke of 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt we have a few more items either already featured or capable of achieving featured status so IMHO not having enough items for next year isn't the issue. But do we really want to have 3 featured items on this one topic every year? I would hope not and would say that's the bigger issue. I don't doubt that this is one of the most significant single events of recent items (although definitely not the only one) but whether that's a good enough reason I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

International Date Line the International Date Line is the imaginary line that sperates the Eastern hemispheaer and the western hemisphere of the earth. This imaginary line makes the each side of the earth's time and date different. It's because of the Earth's rotation that makes the dates different. When China is day, in United States it must be night. This is what the International Date Line does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.107.237 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will find this very useful.

Ok, maybe not. Waltham, The Duke of 04:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

On this day (September 11)

So.......... I guess nothing of note happened on September 11, 2001 since it's not mentioned in the "On this day" section, right? --12.43.115.201 (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's covered by Featured Article and Featured Media in place, that's why it isn't at "On this day". (And in a few hours, Did You Know?) - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Preset options says 'Also, to maintain some variety of topics on the Main Page as a whole, an event should be hidden if it also is the featured article or the featured picture for that particular day.' Algebraist 12:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think there's a case for an exception here. The main article is about one of the events, not the attacks as a whole. Some readers may well arrive looking specifically for 9/11 in 'On this day...', and be puzzled by the omission. Mcewan (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Going out on a limb here, but what about placing a banner at the top of the MP that mentions the event? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Way too much overkill for an encyclopedia. I think a FA is enough. Lympathy ^Talk 14:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't have banners for the anniversaries of far more important events, so why this? Algebraist 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity here, what would you consider "far more important events"? You make it sound like 9/11 was a simple attack. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Algebraist was alluding to but 9/11 is fairly insignificant in world history but tragic to those close to it. So please keep it in perspective. Lympathy ^Talk 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't alluding to anything specific, just to the fact that a lot of the things that have happened in human history are more important than this one. Algebraist 15:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, such as? Can you name an event? It truly sounds like you're saying 9/11 is just another Oklahoma City bombing, when it was something more than that, at the very least due to how it led us to the War on Terror, the overthrowing of the Taliban, and the damage done to a terrorist group, and it could be argued it led indirectly to the war in Iraq, the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein, and the change of government in Iraq from a dictatorship to a (mostly) democratic government. I'm not saying it's the biggest event ever, but Algebraist seems to be implying that 9/11 isn't a major world event, which I think it is, just as much as Nero burning down Rome. I don't know if he's American or not, but if he is not, can I just ask that you please try to be a bit more respectful in regards to events like this? Ultimately, its importance is an opinion to a degree, but not something that should be marginalized in the way that you're implying (or at least how I'm inferring it). Anakinjmt (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reasonable inference. Nobody is saying that the September attacks were not a major world event - any line of argument along those lines would be clearly ridiculous. The amount of attention being paid to this (non-milestone) anniversary on the main page is maybe a little unusual, but that's just the way the main page works, with stories selected more or less arbitrarily. It's certainly a precedent for the featured article to pertain to a particular anniversary or event corresponding to the day of its exposure on the main page, although I can't remember if the same applies to the featured picture. Either way, I don't think anyone is complaining about the level of coverage being devoted to September 11th today on-Wiki - but anymore would perhaps be slightly morbid and excessive. That is just my input as an disinterested observer. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know if anyone is denying that September 11th was a major world event. What Algebraist is saying that it's clearly not the most important world event of all time at least for a lot of people. In terms of all time events, there are far more significant events in the eyes of many people, e.g. the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and other events in WW2. The birth of Jesus Christ and the Islamic prophet Muhammad are likely to be seen as more important to many, regardless of what the person actually thinks of these people. (And for Jesus, his death and for Muhammad the time it's claimed he had his first revealation). Even in terms of recent events, there are many that people will find more significant, e.g. the collapse of communism, the 2004 Asian Tsunami, probably even the start of the Iraq war (and many people will dispute it's a direct result of September 11th). Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm not saying there aren't other major world events. It was just his wording that got to me. If he had said "other major events" there wouldn't be an issue, but he said "far more important", like 9/11 was some minor thing. I just kept getting the idea that he was thinking that the U.S. blows 9/11 way out of proportion, like it was really some trivial thing. That's all that bothered me. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Half the page is sufficient coverage. We don't need more. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just the FA. Also the FP and a rare featured sound. And, at the moment, the lead item DYK. APL (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Points taken. I still think the omission from OTD may appear odd to some, but not a big deal. Mcewan (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think pretty much the entire world knows about 9/11. I don't think it's needed, especially with all the 9/11-related things already on the Main Page. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bomb blasts in New Delhi

There is an ongoing series of bomb blasts in New Delhi. So far at least 5 blasts have been reported and 12 people killed. --122.162.60.204 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest new items at WP:ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C 15:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

September 11

The featured article (with photograph) going to be United Airlines Flight 93 [5] and the featured photograph is going to be Image:WTC-Fireman requests 10 more colleages.jpg [6]]. Don't you think this is too much emphasis being placed on the (admittedly tragic) event? Wikipedia is supposed to maintain balance; there's an awful lot going on out there that isn't 9-11 related. Having both these on the front page isn't going to help charges of US-centrism that are often levelled at Wikipedia. And yes, I know it was a massive event with world-wide repercussions, but I just think having both the featured slots on this one event is too much. 81.156.124.178 (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's one way to look at it: both the article and the image are so high-quality that they've achieved featured status, and if they're going to be recognized on the main page (as featured articles and featured images should be), what more appropriate time than on September 11th? This is a lot of emphasis on one event, but the repercussions and implications of that event were global in scope. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not save one of them for next year? --76.64.76.141 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point, but 168...'s is better. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is better at all. Why not save one for next year? There's no rush. This is the seventh anniversary - think what massive coverage there's going to be on the tenth: will all the photos and articles on the page on that day be related to 9-11?. And it kind of ironic having the brush-off to the German Wikipedia above because 800,000 articles isn't a particularly special figure, yet every year 9-11 is featured prominently, and this year, the seventh anniversary, is not a special one as anniversary-keeping goes. As Wikipedia has the systemic bias built in of having a majority of American editors, who have American interests and worldviews, I don't think this is ever going to change. But I think it is not right to have such overwhelming emphasis on this one event. 81.157.194.19 (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To say that 9/11 is an American event is like saying the 2008 Olympics is a Chinese event. –Howard the Duck 11:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to be commemorating the 2008 olympics on the main page in 7 years time? Thought not. Modest Genius ^talk 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone manages the same with the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings we may well do much the same on march 11th.Geni 12:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the 7th anniversary is relatively unimportant, and that the 10th anniversary is likely to be huge. On the other hand, how long is the usual waiting period for featured articles and images to appear on the Main Page? Do they usually have to wait a year or more after achieving featured status before appearing? If the answer is no, then why single out a certain topic just because it tends to get a lot of annual coverage? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet it's not in On This Day...bizarre. 199.89.180.65 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Preset options states "to maintain some variety of topics on the Main Page as a whole, an event should be hidden if it also is the featured article or the featured picture for that particular day". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I like how a massacre by Muslims was replaced with one by Mormons --NE2 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The time period is highly variable. Some articles wait only a few weeks, some a few years. There's definitely nothing unusual about the TFA being related to an event that happened on that day, nor was it extremely accelerated time for it to get on the main page. However there is something unusual about having the TFA + 2 TFPs concerning the same event on the same day Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I too think that there is a little overemphasis on the terrorist attacks, as they does not represent a world view of 11th September - considering billions of people on the Earth with thousands of years of human history. Yes, have a prominent article or image, but there's no need to have a 'WTC Special' of Wikipedia for today! MathiasFox (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

File:110908WP.png

Main Page on 11 Sep 08.

i for one think wikipedia puts too much attention on US articles/news but its September 11 and you know what, it wouldnt really hurt to remember what happened by featuring the articles related. Its not like the article doesnt deserve to be featured by wiki standards. so i agree with 168... there is no better time. 99.237.118.115 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much attention? How often do U.S. news articles appear in "In the News"? I can think of only four in the last six months or so: McCain winning Republican nom, Obama winning Democratic nom, Palin being selected as McCain's running mate, and Gustav making contact with New Orleans almost exactly 3 years after Katrina. That's rare to get that many in this time span. Most of the time, U.S. news doesn't get featured. As for U.S. articles getting featured A: Does it matter if they're FA's? B: We have a pretty good mix of "U.S." and "non-U.S." articles featured and C: If you feel like a "non-U.S. article" (which btw what would constitute a "U.S." article and a "non-U.S." article?) should be featured, then pick an article and get it up to FA status. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two US news items in ITN right now. Algebraist 12:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really count the U.S. Open bit though, because that's just a global sporting event that just happens to be taking place in the U.S. I get the U.S. Open is only held in the U.S., but there are players from all over the world that come, and it's a prestigious thing to win on the planet. It's like when Atlanta held the Olympics in '96: in the U.S., but global prestige from winning there. And I didn't see the federal takeover bit, so that's 5. Still rare to have that happen. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So due to recent events, this is an unusual amount? Let's bookmark this talk.Lympathy ^Talk 15:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The odds of seeing one U.S. news item on the Main Page, at least as often as I check (which is about once every other day) is rare, so yes, I'd say this is an unusual amount. If you want to bookmark this talk (whatever that means), go ahead. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there were 3. the hurricane article very recently got changed from pointing out the fact that its coming towards US to deaths in haiti. then right before there were 2 of obama's VP and mccains VP. then phelps article. there were more that i cant remember. but this is all within the last month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.15.17 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like Wikipedia's Front Page hasn't been event specific before. Never in the history of Wikipedia. Never. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not aware of anything like this before... We definitely have had TFAs and TFPs on days related to them before. We've also done some silly stuff on April fools but with a variety of articles intended to be humourous rather then articles specific to April Fools day. But I'm not aware of us previously having a TFA & 2 TFPs about one event on the same day (albeit an anniversary). This doesn't mean it's wrong, it is however the first time we've done it AFAIK Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Now we have half the page just on 9/11... ;) - Mailer Diablo 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So, one particular day 7 years ago featured the largest terrorist attack on (correct me if I'm wrong) English-speaking soil in history, dealt a massive blow to the economy of one of the most powerful nations on Earth (which, thanks to the global economy, had a ripple effect all around the planet), provided incentive for two wars, and had far-reaching political consequences within the United States and the United Nations... and when the seventh anniversary of that day is prominently featured on the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, this causes outrage among readers just because the original event didn't happen in their country? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with where it occurred. Do we really want one event dominating the page, as it does right now - featured article, picture of the day and lead DYK with photo. Lots of article exposure and three photos out of a possible five. There is supposed to be balance on Wikipedia; there is none right now on the front page. I don't think I've ever seen it so skewed. I think the decisions of whoever put these up is distinctly lacking. 86.133.215.165 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst they may be related, they are not the same articles and each has proved it's merit on Wikipedia through different channels. I think they are timely and diverse enough to be inclusive in a holistic respect to an event without domineering the main page. Lympathy ^Talk 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

86's opinion is one that I understand; my previous post was in response to phrases like "U.S.-centrism" and "systemic bias" in favor of "American interests" (the last phrase, ignoring the presence of quite a few other American nations on two continents, is deliciously ironic). It *might* be a little over-emphasized today, although as a U.S. citizen I certainly feel that the event's importance is being marginalized by some editors here. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a conversation that pops up frequently and I understand it. In this instance the event is substantial enough to warrant several inclusions so long as they focus on something different. I am non-American and very loosely associated with the event so as to speak impartially. PS. I too am wary of US-dominance on such things. Lympathy ^Talk 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) TFA and TFP are scheduled independently of one another. TFP is selected a week or so in advance, sometimes earlier, and the pictures are taken roughly in the order they were promoted. This one happened to be scheduled almost one month in advance because I happened to have a 9/11 photo, which by the way is the very first 9/11-related TFP to appear on 9/11: 2007 was a spacecraft, 2006 was Salzburg, 2005 was a praying mantis, and 2004 was a Gothic church. Earlier this year, we had another 9/11 photo which appeared far from the anniversary, because when that photo came up in the rotation, it was nowhere near 9/11. There is no site-wide conspiracy to make today's Main Page 9/11-centric; it just happened that way. howcheng {chat} 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But should it? Surely there should have been checks made to make sure this kind of bias didn't occur on the main page? And if there aren't any such checks, why aren't there checks? Surely the people putting up the photos, the people putting up the featured articles and the people putting up the DYKs all have a responsibility to check on what the content, or proposed content, of the main page is going to be, to ensure that exactly this kind of bias doesn't occur? It just isn't good enough to shrug and say 'it just happened that way'. Don't get me wrong, I have no beef with this topic in particular: it's the fact that one topic has been given overwhelming and disproportionate emphasis.81.157.194.138 (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias? It's one day where TFA and TFP are similar, it could be argued that this should be done every day? I digress, clearly this is not a bias but a coincidence. Lympathy ^Talk 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You confuse cause and effect: the cause may be coincidence; the effect is bias. 86.134.25.139 (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias infers that the main page is not impartial, when I would say it is completely impartial. In your instant I believe it is perceived bias when in reality it isn't. Lympathy ^Talk 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How can the main page be impartial when over 50% of the area on the page that is given over to articles covers just one topic? That shows complete lack of impartiality in the choice of what goes on the page. The fact that 9-11 gets the featured article, the picture of the day, a featured sound/media slot and a DYK clearly shows bias. Not perceived, but actual bias. How can it be anything but bias when the page is so weighted to this one topic? 81.157.195.33 (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The topic was the start of a war that affected England, the US, anyone flying in and out of the US, and several Middle Eastern countries and their inhabitants. I think it should get some recognition. And changing articles/pictures so they don't match is bias. If the articles/pictures happen to mathc, then that means they both are good quality.

24.21.123.235 (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Responding to an earlier comment by 81: Bias is, by definition, a cause... but none exists here. The cause here, however, is that we had a number of articles which earned places on the Main Page, and there was exactly one day on which these articles would be topical. The effect, however, is that you and a few other viewers got yourselves all twisted up about the evil Americans taking over Wikipedia. Now, as the day of our conquest was 4 days ago, can we let it rest? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Train crash in LA

Heard about this on CNN, despite all the coverage about Hurricane Ike. 4 confirmed deaths in Hurricane vs. 20 confirmed deaths in train crash. Oh wait - I forgot about all the financial losses from Hurricanes. MONEY MONEY MONEY PRECIOUS GREEN PAPER (orgasm) (dies). Anyway, does this merit a mention in the news section? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. The best place to suggest this though should be Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Simply south (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If this happened outside the U.S. this'll be posted in a jiffy. 119.95.21.132 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already on there. Look closer. - Mark 02:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if this really happened outside the U.S. and beyond the coverage of CNN, this'll take many, many jiffys to get an article created, de-stubbed and expanded, and then take eons to be posted, if posted at all. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we're always biased against everything except what's on the main page and we're biased toward what is. If there's no coverage of the train crash and there is of the hurricane, it can't be because the hurricane has been active for several days and the train crash was only a few hours ago, no, we must be biased toward the financial implications of the hurricane, because that affects Wikipedia somehow, perhaps the amount of donations we get is inversely proportional to the damage caused by disasters on the main page. Or perhaps Wikipedia is just a front for NOAA to push their pro-hurricane POV. Mr.Z-man 06:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did this show up on my list of contributions? Has anybody else had anomalous entries from your IP address? Nobody else has been in my house, so how does somebody do this? This happened to me a few weeks ago, and somebody from my IP address edited the Norm Macdonald article. Why would somebody "hijack" (I don't know if that's what they did) my computer just to make lame edits? Sheesh. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Complain to Comcast. Maybe you're sharing the IP with other Comcast customers.

Or maybe a neighbor of yours is enjoying wireless internet for free. --70.50.202.150 (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly your ISP shares IP addresses amongst multiple customers. This is one of the reasons why it's a good idea to create an account if you intend to edit wikipedia more than a couple of times. Modest Genius ^talk 05:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Genius. I always wanted to say that without being sarcastic:) 24.3.14.157 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)