Talk:Main Page/Archive 134

Archive 130

←

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

→

Archive 140

March 15th Events

Of all the important events to occur on March15th, why is the assasination of Julius Caesar not listed? It seems rather odd that one of the few pivotal points that decided the fate of Western civilization isn't even mentioned in the "On this day..." section. Geosultan4 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, this has an interesting answer. The admin who tends selected anniversaries hid it, noting "Date is Roman Calandar". Roman calendar#Converting pre-Julian dates asserts, "For example, it is well known that Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March in 44 BC, and this is usually converted to 15 March 44 BC. While he was indeed assassinated on the 15th day of the Roman month Martius, the equivalent date on the modern Julian calendar is probably 14 March 44 BC." Getting some sort of consensus on how to characterize this at assasination of Julius Caesar, with references, should probably take place before asking SA to choose between the probable actual date of the 14th or the modern assumption of the 15th. - BanyanTree 02:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, can we have Ides of March at the top of OTD instead? --74.14.16.147 (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that have the same issue that Roman calendar#Converting pre-Julian dates says? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, 'coz ides is always the 15th. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, its the 15th on the Roman Calendar, not the Gregorian Calendar which the section revolves around. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as the calendar has months, there is an ides every month (though no one cares about the other months), whatever calendar it is. Let's let people click and read why the assassination, etc. are not listed. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hadwiger conjecture

... that the Hadwiger conjecture (diagram pictured) implies that the surface of any three-dimensional convex body can be illuminated by only eight light sources, but the best proven bound is that 16 lights are sufficient?

... Huh? Now maybe I fail at english and/or maths, but does this make sense in some manner? I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but this seems to not work. WookMuff (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this meant for WP:ERRORS? Too late now. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks perfectly fine to me, such that I can't see what you're objecting to. Can you explain what the problem is? Algebraist 12:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pls note that this item has already left the Main Page and gone to the DYK archive. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a perfectly understandable sentence. It means a certain type of surface can probably always be completely illuminated by 8 light sources, but that the lowest number that anyone has managed to find a mathematical proof for is 16 light sources. Modest Genius ^talk 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that confusion might follow from the lack of parallelism; the sentence seems to suggest that the latter clause is part of the conjecture (it is, instead, a standalone comparative observation), a deficiency that the insertion of "that" before "but the..." would have remedied. Joe 17:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A closer read suggests two other problems, one syntactic ("bound" is better followed by a quantity than by a phrase or clause) and one substantive ("sufficient" isn't quite the right word, conveying in one construction an understanding opposite that that is intended), that impair meaning and inhibit comprehension. But that's really much more than one should spend on an item that is no longer live. Joe 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The news box

There's something a little off with the In the news section; the text isn't going around the picture like it should.Simple_butpowerful 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be alright now. I had copied some markup from where the image was suggested that I shouldn't have. - BanyanTree 08:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In the future please report problems with the main page at WP:ERRORS (the top section of this page). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And I thought it was just my computer... :) --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Beginner

i'm a beginner here..can someboady help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthuriztas (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please ask your questions at Wikipedia:Help desk. howcheng {chat} 06:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do how you find go to Hindu Language using your wiki sites?

Name is my Guage Huadin. Need to enter wiki section Hindu. Weather isnt cant be not accessed wiki using America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.73.225 (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

http://hi.wikipedia.org/. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

hello

can you tell me how to use wikipedia onlne dictornairy if you can tell me e-mail me at (e-mail removed) thank you because i do not now how to use the dictornairy.thank you vary much................. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.99.96 (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Wiktionary --DFS454 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar in the First Line.

"Chelsea Football Club are a professional English football club" is completely WRONG.

Chelsea Football Club are a professional English football club = it is a singular club.

Should be: "Chelsea Football Club is a professional English football club..."

207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, read the article itself...I'm correct. Would somebody please fix this GLARING mistake? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. "Chelsea Football Club are" is correct in British English. As it is a British organization, the article takes British English as a rule. Note that prior to going on the Main Page, the article had "are" as well, but it was changed, most probably by an American unaware that it was valid grammar. No bets on how soon it will take a Brit, infuriated at American presumption, to change it back.

Also, ALL-CAPS has never made any statement more credible. - BanyanTree 06:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least somebody didn't type 'football(soccer)', so we must be grateful for small mercies :-)

BTW, I'm a Brit and the verb really should be 'is', despite the big-time BS you might read elsewhere on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell the Chelsea Football Club then? [1] "Chelsea Football Club are delighted to confirm..." Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Doing so would be futile because it would merely result in the blank and uncomprehending gaze of the grammatically challenged ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to stem from a misreading of the grammar rules. The collective noun takes 'is' when it is discussed as a single entity: Chelsea Football Club is an English football club... However, it takes 'are' when the members of the collective noun are acting as one body: Chelsea Football Club are delighted to confirm... For the record, I'm British, using British English. Modest Genius ^talk 16:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What you say does not concur with the formal grammar lessons I received at an English grammar school. This is what I was told: as far as number is concerned, there is singular and there is plural. Singular nouns, such as 'club' and 'government' must elicit a singular verb. The explanation that I was given regarding the use of, eg, 'are' with 'club', 'government', etc was that some people are confused as to what is actually singular or plural; that is, because a club is made up of more than one person, it is regarded by many as a plural noun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were taught that as correct British English, then you were taught wrongly. The situation is as our article (citing the Cambridge Guide to English Usage) states. Algebraist

The Cambridge Guide to English Usage didn't exist when I took grammar lessons LOL. And I wasn't taught wrongly. What I was taught makes perfect sense because it doesn't result in the use of plural verbs with singular nouns. The fact is that the use of plural verbs with collective nouns is a colloquialism that is commonplace within the sporting fraternity in the UK. Common usage does not necessarily validate what would otherwise be considered as a grammatical error. In other strata of UK society this usage is much, much less prevalent, so you will see 'the government is..', 'the BBC is not responsible...', etc, etc. An explanation that is closest to a validation of collective noun + plural verb is that when members of a unit are acting as individuals then it is permissible to use a plural verb, eg 'the class are doing their homework'. (I actually disagree with this because a different and more thoughtful form of subject would remove disagreement between noun and verb, eg 'the class students are doing their homework'.) However, 'Chelsea Football Club are pleased...' does not conform to that attempt at a validation because here we see the members acting as a single unit. So whichever way you look at it 'Chelsea Football Club are pleased...' is incorrect. Maybe we need the equivalent of the Académie française :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 March 2009 [2]

I guess I didn't realize that the home page of wikipedia was supposed to be written in The Queen's English. I thought the goal was to make it more accessible, not less so. Sorry. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really helpful - BanyanTree 05:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles about British entities use British English. Articles about American entities use American English. It doesn't make Wikipedia less accessible-I'm sure the vast majority of people can comprehend a different grammatical standard. It sounds awkward to me as well, but my Murphy grammar textbook agrees. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue discussed by members of the Football WikiProject. Longstanding consensus is that this is acceptable, if not universal usage in British English. For the grammarians among us, pedantically careful usage is to refer to the club as singular and the team as plural, but it is not incorrect for both to be used as plural. It's just a quirk of a quirky language, in usage by quirky people like me. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have raised some important points, the first being that it has been an issue within, significantly, the football fraternity. Indeed, the use of singular nouns with plural verbs is almost totally confined to language relating to sporting issues in the UK. Elsewhere, as I have said earlier, it is much less prevalent. For this reason, once again I would suggest that this usage should be regarded as a colloquialism - something that is perfectly acceptable amongst those who agree to its usage. Compare this issue with the colloquial 'double-negative' such as 'I haven't got no/I don't have no...'. Once again, this is perfectly ok amongst those who commonly use such expressions. However, to extend this form of acceptability to the point of being regarded as good grammar is going too far, in my humble opinion. The bedrock of good grammar must be logic: can it ever be regarded as logical to use plural verbs with singular nouns? The answer must be a resounding 'no'. Maybe we need another class of nouns - the 'singural' - a noun that may be regarded as either singular or plural. Don't forget where you heard this first :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 March 2009 [3]

This is not the place to air your thoughts on correct English grammar. If you can find any reliable authorities that agree with you, post them to Talk:American and British English differences. Algebraist 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet another typically churlish response that is commonplace here. In case you didn't understand what was said, the issue is really about whether colloquial language should be used in articles in an encyclopaedia. That is an issue that can be discussed here because it follows on from the original comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 March 2009 [4]

That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the language in question is colloquial. It is not colloquial, as explained in our article, citing a reliable authority. If you disagree with this, find a reliable authority to back you up. Personal opinion on grammar is not appropriate on Wikipedia, and even less appropriate on Talk:Main Page. Algebraist 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not colloquial - the usage is common in all sorts of British RS, including ones with rigorous style guides, that abhor casual (non encyclopedic) colloquialisms. --Dweller (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

All you who want it changed should read WP:ENGVAR:

• "The English Wikipedia has no preference for any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another."
• "Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. "
• "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation."
• "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic."

End of discussion, I hope. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

wow

i was just thinking today: this encyclopedia is so huge and the articles are written so well and they are done by regular people who get not credit and no payment. The fact that so many people can work together to create such a great website amazes me.

Keep up the great work guys! 75.107.254.30 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to join us.  :) -download | sign! 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you know?

I have to say that DYK makes me laugh sometimes: " ... that the three drunken Wierix brothers of Antwerp influenced Ethiopian iconography?" I love it. Keep it up. 141.157.116.116 (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch out on April Fool's Day for some real laughs... ;) --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 13:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

chess

1e4 and 1d4 is confusing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see a better way to say it without notation.  GARDEN  09:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we put 1.e4 (pictured)? Would that help? 79.71.69.220 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't we assume that anyone who's read that far into the summary and actually cares about the topic will check the article to find out what it means? Algebraist 13:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably. We could always link 1.e4 to algebraic chess notation too. 98.234.137.254 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea.  Done. howcheng {chat} 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, my idea got used! Somewhat of a moot point now, but still cool :D 198.189.249.13 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because it was a great idea! Keep them coming!121.55.196.124 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Urgent!

Fedex plane crashed in Tokyo Airport and another just moments before in Montana, 17 dead so far! ResMar 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C is thataway. Make sure there's a decent article to link to first. Algebraist 23:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see one, yet. ResMar 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then this can't go in ITN. Algebraist 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. Thanks for the tip-off. ;) --candle•wicke 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Montana: 2009 Montana Pilatus PC-12 crash. --candle•wicke 01:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice job! ResMar 23:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ceres

On the featured article "Ceres" link goes to disamb page not to the Ceres (Roman Mythology) page which is where the link goes in the article itself. Admin fix it please as main page is of course protected. Carlwev (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Tone 10:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

(Ireland wins), not Ireland win —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.11.113 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We just went through this. "Ireland win" is correct in this case. See Talk:Main Page/Archive 133#Grammar in the First Line. howcheng {chat} 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats to Ireland, btw, for having the only non-fatal ITN blurb at the moment. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

we won —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.127.131 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 168.9.120.8, for making me laugh out loud. Having a stressful day here IRL and that cheered me up. --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny part is that IP's in texas. 76.111.93.119 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See Irish American. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#April_1st_guidelines_for_2009

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive 45#April_1st_guidelines_for_2009. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

America?

There's more than one America! 67.160.183.192 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Which section of the main page are you referring to here?  GARDEN  20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hazarding a guess I'd say ITN... yes, for the first time this month, "America" has two ITNs at once... although the thought of two Americas does make me feel a bit queasy... --candle•wicke 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Try not to eat lunch before looking at an atlas. APL (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably this, from DYK:

... that the future of American newspapers is in doubt: as of 2005, an estimated 70 percent of older Americans read a newspaper daily, while fewer than 20 percent of younger Americans did? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that makes a bit more sense. --candle•wicke 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've disambiguated it to the following:

... that the future of newspapers in the United States is in doubt: as of 2005, an estimated 70 percent of older Americans read a newspaper daily, while fewer than 20 percent of younger Americans did?  GARDEN  22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be in the news column on the Main Page eh?

[5] 142.35.236.67 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe indeed. Feel free to nominate the updated article on WP:ITN/C. --Tone 16:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I did, but I'm not sure if I put in in the right place.142.35.236.67 (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks +++ for your heading "On this day"

It learns us a lot ans unfortunately we don't get the same on WP:fr...Too much work , maybe... Truly yours Arapaima (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, you're welcome, I guess.  GARDEN  20:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume he is referring to the fact that here on EN.wikipedia, there is always 5-6 new events listed per day on OTD, unlike the version on FR.wikpedia where there is only one new event per day (if you are lucky). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what he did Arapaima (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're really happy with SA/OTD, please give Zzyzx11 the SA/OTD manager a barnstar! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Barnstar" ? Rather a "castle star", if I could bestow it on ( & knew what it is...). What makes me so admiring of his (their?) work , and of its persistence : I lately tried for some days ( 22,23,24,25, 26 of Marsh) to write in "Le Bistro du Port" ( "The Port Pub", = our "Village Pump" section dedicated to sea affairs) a rubric which I called "Ephemerides at sea (and on the shores)", but was soon put off, for 2 reasons . First : it takes such a long time each day to gather ( and check) the items. Secondly : it doesn't please everybody to be served with news about the first satelite of Saturne being discovered in 1655, or James I being crowned king of 3 realms and the Jacobean era beginning in 1603 , or Ist battle of Gaza in 1915, or IOO 000 people being forcibly removed from the Baltic shores (Priboi Operation in 1949) , since "it's cumbersome and has nothing to do with sea...". So typically french a reaction ...But as goes our saying : "when you are sitting at a table, better not to spit in the soup-tureen" .... So again thanks a lot, and please go on Arapaima (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope this site can provided more to help the learners to study language

I hope this site can provided more to help the learners to study language . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.137.163.107 (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean? Is this a separate topic? --candle•wicke 11:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it is a separate topic, so I am putting in a new section header. Not sure if this topic belongs to this talkpage, though. --74.13.131.158 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to study English as a second language, the Simple English Wikipedia (simple.wikipedia.org) is a better website to use than the main English Wikipedia, at least when you are starting. -- 76.204.102.79 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Manitoba is Western Canada, not southern

Comments moved to errors, above. Random89 21:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Boat Race

Is this main page news worthy? Also why does the current events page say it is Monday the 29th? Jeff24 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How odd. I was intending to suggest that for a recurring item on ITN and then it actually happens... --candle•wicke 15:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Early AFD? Well done! --candle•wicke 15:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OTD: Selena

Not a problem, just a curiosity. The 14th anniversary of Selena's death doesn't seem to be a significant anniversary; I was wondering why it appears in OTD. I don't really have a problem with it... I just thought it was odd. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably there for variety's sake. WP has loads of pop culture stuffs. --76.64.77.116 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I didn't mean that the anniversary of Selena's death is insignificant; I meant that the 14th anniversary specifically isn't really a special anniversary. I had thought that OTD events were supposed to be a little more... landmarkish. (In 2015, for example, we'll feature the 20th anniversary of Selena's death, and that will be a significant anniversary.) 168.9.120.8 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How is that more significant? If anything, it's less significant, since fewer people will care --NE2 19:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, I thought the rule was deaths/births are only noted on centennials. What's the deal here? howcheng {chat} 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So did I... I guess it doesn't matter much now as there are literally hours left of today...  GARDEN  19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the amount of significance or importance is not the only factor in determining what is posted each day. We also have to consider whether the chosen bolded article is a relatively complete and well-formatted article (i.e. not a stub and does not contain cleanup problems like {{POV}} and {{unreferenced}} tags; whether there is a mixed variety of topics; and whether there is a mix of events spanning the centuries. As the cards played out, it just so happened that the Selena article got to be the one of the events posted, especially when it is a current Wikipedia featured article.

Lastly, the rule about "deaths only noted on centennials" is sort of relaxed when dealing with events like assassinations, executions, natural disasters, civil accidents, or some sort genocide/extinction/mass murder. Otherwise, for example, an article about a notable actress murdered by followers of a cult leader, or an article about three notable musicians dying in a fatal plane crash, might never get on there. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April 1

I would like to invite users to help with ITN design for tomorrow. Most material is gathered already, what needs to be done are some fixes of the articles and modifications of wordings so that we get the effect we want. Appreciated. Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/In The News. --Tone 14:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The rough design is here. Due to go live in a few hours. --candle•wicke 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April fools modification

{{editprotected}} In order for the Main Page to transition automatically on April 1st, I propose that the following change be made:

{{#ifeq:{{CURRENTDAY}}|1|{{Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page}}|(regular contents of the main page)}}

The cascading protection will prevent vandalism. Just say if it won't work. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the components are already set to change automatically. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's one day a year, we'll cope. Plus what Julian says.  GARDEN  19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant stuff guys! :D Spacehusky (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please add a link directly going to the discussion of 'in the news'.

People deserve to know how this is done more easily. --AaThinker (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's links to all of the sections above... §hep^Talk 23:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April fools day

This day may be April 1 but this is a serious home page and the main page shroud retain its professionalism.--134.225.179.44 (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

While I would've originally agreed with you, everything's pretty accurate, just with slang and humour thrown in. Don't worry, only 23:57 left. –  LATICS  talk  00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The slang is incredibly misleading and highly off putting also the Henry Allingham calimis not sourced adequately.--134.225.179.44 (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to be misleading, and somewhat entertaining. As for Henry Allingham, check this. –  LATICS  talk  00:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Main page format

Moved from Village pump (policy) talk.

What the hell is up with this new "trick question" format on the main page articles? It's not cute. It's not funny. Save the jokes for a Wikicomedy (copyright pending) page. This is supposed to be a forum for serious learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.199.121 (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify. To what on the "main page" are you referring? SMP0328. (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume it is april tomfoolery, which will disappear very soon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What is this doing here? This page is for discussing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Talk:Main Page is for discussing Main Page. Algebraist 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

True. But User talk:214.13.199.121 is probably the place for your question. Easy mistake to make. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Poisson D'Avril

Nice job on the April Fools' Day frontpage, guys. :-) --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Splendid stuff!

Wonderful stuff. Today being my birthday (seriously) I logged into Wikipedia to see what gems would be created, and I must say you've done a grand job! So much so that I look forward to resuming my Wikipedia career. Same time next year! :-) User:Rusty2005

Just plain inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.59 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do lighten up :) User:Rusty2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.252.144 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant. Well done and thanks for taking the mickey. The world is often such a grim place that a little levity, at least once a year is delightful! Gillyweed (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

News Section

Public hanging in Ireland? Turkish Missiles launched at oil giant? Showers of diamonds? Could someone please check the news headlines... They seem suspiciously like an April Fool's day prank.

Thanks Falconus^{p t c} 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:BorgQueen has been having some April Fools day fun with the wording on the WP:ITN template.. Matty (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, this was all planned. Well, hell. Still well done :P, and none of it is false.. Matty (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it is funny now... It didn't occur to me that it was intentional on the part of Wiki; I was thinking some random person managed to change it. I agree the first one needed to be changed, but now it's good. --Falconus^{p t c} 01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April fools

Im loving! Well done to wiki for the great idea! Happy New Assyrian Year too!!!Gabr-el 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff

Awesome work on the main page. Congrats. One of the best I've ever seen, especially the "joined together to become very serious" and "Turkish missiles" parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.93.203 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is so much more funny than last year.  Marlith (Talk)  02:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

bad

the main page is not funny this is horrible wikipedia should mot stoop this low!!!24.109.219.135 (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a link that might help you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.93.203 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I get a 404 when trying to find that page on wikipedia. GLaDOS (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK

... that Sandomierz Voivodeship (1939), a proposed administrative unit of the Second Polish Republic, was projected to be 24.5 km² and to incorporate 20 or 21 powiats?

— And all along I thought it was 22. Sca (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Meant for WP:ERRORS? --74.13.126.63 (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is; he's saying that the hook taught him something. That's the wonderful fun of DYK. 79.71.44.8 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no — I was saying that no one in the English-speaking world would have any idea how many powiats the Sandomierz Voivodeship (proposed 70 years ago) would have had, and very few would have any idea what a powiat is or even a voivodeship. A few history buffs might have heard of Sandomierz.

Sca (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Or Sandomierzians themselves perhaps? --candle•wicke 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Today's entry on Henryk Rzewuski is, to my mind, in a similar class. None of Rzewuski's works is available in English on Amazon, and I suspect he is virtually unknown among English speakers. It seems to me that DYK entries ought to start off with some person, place or topic of which English speakers will have some idea, however vague, and add some truly surprising or interesting fact about that person, place or topic. Otherwise, the "Did you know" question seems silly.

I don't know if Polish Wikipedia has a DYK feature, but if it does, it wouldn't make sense to ask "Did you know" questions there in relation to something in the English-speaking world that Poles will have no knowledge or inkling of.

Of course, that's not to say that Rzewuski doesn't merit a thorough treatment in an eponymous article on English Wiki, if he is indeed a writer of repute in Poland.

Sca (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Learning things you don't know about is what encyclopedias are for. If you're looking for light entertainment, I suggest a change of venue. Zocky | picture popups 01:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the whole point of the DYK section is to tell people interesting things that they probably don't know but are covered in a recent article in an attempt to attract them to read the article. There's clearly no point just featuring stuff people already widely know. Now you may argue that the hook wasn't very interesting but that's a quite different argument from the one that started this. Also by the nature of DYK, most things covered would be fairly obscure as these are the most likely to lack any article or to be stubs and therefore have a chance of being DYK. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If DYK is to be a random compendium of intellectual trivia, it shouldn't be called "Did You Know?" The did-you-know question presupposes and implies some basis for further inquiry. In the case of the first example cited above, asking the general English reader if he or she knows how many "powiats" the proposed Sandomierz "Voivodeship" would have had (had it been created 70 years ago) strikes me as absurd.

Of course encyclopedias are about expanding knowledge, but I don't think informing the reader that the Sandomierz Voivodeship would have had 20 or 21 powiats constitutes a contribution to the pool of knowledge, since the topic is from the English-speaker's point of view so obscure as to be meaningless. (I suspect it's largely meaningless from the Polish point of view as well, but at least Poles will know what a powiat is.)

I would much rather hear from our Polish friends about what was in Copernicus's library or how many horses Casimir the Great kept in his stables. In other words, give me something I can understand and on some level relate to.

I will now return to my light reading. Current selection: The Discoverers, by Daniel Boorstin.

Sca (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that hook appeals to me either, but I am sure there are plenty of English speakers who are either Polish or have an interest in Polish history, Polish geography or whatever. As I see it, did you know is not there to provide a fact, it is there to interest you, leading you to the article. For instance (perfectly timed for me...) the top hook is currently "that the hallucinogenic mushroom Psilocybe naematoliformis (pictured) was first discovered in a tropical rain forest in the Uxpanapa Region of Veracruz, in southeastern Mexico?" Very, very few people are going to know anything about that mushroom specifically. More have heard of Psilocybe. More may be interested in hallucinogenic mushrooms, or just mushrooms/fungi in general- any of these people may be drawn to the article, whether or not they had ever heard of the mushroom. I certainly would be, had I not already read it. DYK is not meant as a list of freestanding facts, but as a list of interesting tidbits that make you want to know more. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. I don't think DYK is a list of facts, not at all. Indeed it's meant to interest the reader in some topic. My point was, the topic should not be so obscure as to be virtually meaningless. In your example, everyone knows what a mushroom is.

I wasn't taking an anti-Polish stance. Polish history and other aspects of the Polish nation and culture can be fascinating — but contributors should find truly interesting and comprehensible topics to write about. I perhaps gave the wrong impression when I cited only a couple of famous Poles as appropriate examples. I'm ready to be interested and intrigued by any topic, so long as it means something to me (or to a significant proprotion of readers).

As an aside: Many of the more technical scientific entries go right past me, a beknighted liberal arts major, but I imagine there are plenty of readers who find them interesting.

Sca (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's a day early?

"Did you know . . . that the cap of the thimble fungus, Verpa conica (pictured), resembles a thimble?" Genius! --AdamSommerton (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of funny fungus around. I've just written coprophilous fungi ("dung-loving" fungi) and we actually have a featured picture of a member of the Phallus genus... We really are fun-guys over at WP:FUNGI... J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See, is it just me who doesn't see a thimble, but something else... ;)  GARDEN  20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, you wanna take a look at some of our examples of Phallus... A featured picture, and a not so featured picture... J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This should have been kept on DYK for today. Sigh. Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish Guy Hanged?

You might want to reword the passage on the Taoiseach in "In the News". The way it is phrased right now implies that the man himself was hanged, not the portraits.  Marlith (Talk)  00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that's the point. --Bencherlite^Talk 00:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's horribly horribly unfunny. Please can it be taken out? The others are funny, but that one needs re-evaluating urgently. qp10qp (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything that deals with a living person should be done extremely sensitively. It's been wording really badly, and I agree it needs fixing asap. Majorly talk 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly. This is just inappropriate no matter what day of the year it is and people are already thinking it is serious. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"unexpected public hanging of Ireland's Taoiseach." Yeah. Vile. Reword. Please. 201.124.80.93 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to be reworded. Just becasue it is April 1st does not mean that WP:BLP goes out the window. Having fun at another persons expense is just not on. Tiptoety ^talk 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked for now. Feel free to come up with something better. PeterSymonds :  Chat  01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but your wording stank - so I went back to it being about the fact that the portraits are nude. DS (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware. ;) However, it needed to be changed. PeterSymonds :  Chat  01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hilarious, because it's true. Re-read the sentence; the "pictured" part doesn't refer to the image on the right— it refers to the fact that what was hanged was the pictured person. It's an intentionally dangling modifier. That's the entire joke. It's not BLP, because it's clearly not libel nor even remotely intended to be libelous, moreover, it's true. April 1 is supposed to be our official day to boost PR by making fun of ourselves. It's our self-roast: everyone's seen our vandalism, and everyone assumes it's vandalism— but it's shockingly true in this case. We do it with style.

I have to admit, for once I was invigorated with the idea that the community truly had achieved a milestone advancement in progressive thinking by agreeing to create something so genius and put aside the incessant 100% seriousness for just 0.2% (1/365th) of the year. The other 99.726% of the time we're serious, but for that 0.2%—that one day—I thought we had finally been able to truly appreciate the humanity, work, and extraordinary talent that goes into making the encyclopedia—all at once. It was an entire mainpage of stuff that looks like vandalism but is not only factually true but well-crafted to look false? Genius. It outclasses Google's april fools jokes, in my opinion.

That said, words cannot describe how much my enthusiasm for the project subsequently dropped when I saw what just happened directly above this reply. We can't even spend 0.2% of our existence making fun of ourselves? It actually depressed me. That's saying a lot, too; for, through the drama, nonsense, and occasional pain in the ass, it's extraordinarily rare for me to be anything but enthusiastic with love for this project. I can easily say that this was the first time I felt that warm feeling yanked away while on Wikipedia. In the real world, I've found that business, person, and country alike are doomed to failure when they take themselves too seriously. I just... n/m.

--slakr^\ talk / 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From the list of wikipedia policies: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes." I'd assume that "other purposes" includes giving yourself and your buddies a chuckle. By filling the main page with jokes, especially ones in poor taste, we stray from our goal of making a high-quality encyclopedia. People come to wikipedia for information not for laughs. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your policy and raise you meta:The Wikipedia Community, WP:COMMUNITY, Category:Wikipedia humor, and naturally WP:IAR. 99.726% of the time it's for the world. 99.726% of the time it's for our readers. 99.726% it's for the future and things we can't even imagine it being for. 0.2% it's for fun. Isn't that worth an WP:IAR? Isn't that worth a day? Will it prevent burnout? I'm not sure, but I do know that if our Gentle Readers and Gentle Community expects me to deal with the mean, uncivil, war-like, unfunny, completely-serious people, all the while reading death threats, legal threats, suicide notes, and people being hurtful, mean, pathological douchebags to each other on a daily basis— then on top of that be completely serious, myself, 100% of the time, then so help me I will leave the project. Demanding the impossible of the humans that edit the encyclopedia is, simply put, wrong.

Then again, maybe if we were all forced, maybe once a year, to remember that we're all humans with a sense of humor, maybe we wouldn't be making such a demand in the first place. We'd know better. Without seriousness, we forget what's truly funny; without laughter, we forget what's truly serious.

--slakr^\ talk / 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Makeemlighter. While I feel there is some wiggle room for jokes, the front page should not be altered in this manner. What do you think we are? Google? We don't just go changing the front page around for silly holidays. If you want to play a joke, change your signature around or alter your own user page in some way- Or just flag yourself as a bot. GLaDOS (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

someone asked at least for some discussion on the AFD fornt page.But it was discussed for days if not weeks prior. There was even a link to the discussion on this Main Page discussion page! IMHO, the Irish politico story was funnier earlier in the day; but otherwise a great job, all! Can't wait for next year! 121.55.196.124 (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very unhappy with the misleading wording as it is at the moment: "Brian Cowen is seen publicly naked in Dublin". As a bare fact, that's simply not true, and surely violates the spirit of WP:BLP? almost-instinct 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know what the date is. As a joke its pretty lame, and in any case its after noon almost-instinct 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on UTC (British winter time) and it was therefore 15 minutes before noon when you posted that comment. It is now after noon, but since the prank has already been pulled, it stays up till midnight when tomorrow's normal Main Page will automatically roll around. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Taoiseach seen naked publicly? and then it happens it was about some paintings (sigh!)...did this change from wikipedia to wikitabloid-beta overnight by chance? If the April's Fool thing is on, then you should consider that there is a huge non-native English speaker looking in here who doesnt necessarily knows about that. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

About the Front Page on the 1st of April

Who took the decision to put jokes and jokingly false information on the Front Page of Wikipaedia on the 1st of April? Why was this decision taken? Would anyone please point me towards an official policy page that states that this should be done or at least that it is allowed? IF there is no such policy than I BELIEVE that this at least should be discussed, if not mediated somehow. I understand that most people who write in the English Wikipaedia are from places where people celebrate Apil Fool's Day. HOWEVER, isn't this a systematic bias of the Wikipedia communitiy? As far as I know Wikipedia is an Encycloapedia that aims at providing accurate information at all times and across all cultures. Why exactly is Wikipaedia supposed to CELEBRATE any cultural event, as opposed to just MENTION it? Isn't this violating WP:NOT#JOURNALISM? I hope that this won't be taken as an attack on anyone, it's certainly not meant to be one. But isn't Wikipedia meant NOT to be a parody on any day of the year? Why should there be a day when the Front Page of Wikipedia becomes Uncyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of spoiling an amusing joke - every single thing on the main page is 100% true. Raul654 (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, April Fool's Day front page pranks have been a tradition for a number of years, and a good one at that. This front page is not even as radical as some have been in years past. I respect our strive for accuracy and reliability as any other, but our community's sense of humor is also a hallmark of the Wikipedian experience. If you lack any funny bone in your body, then I'm afraid you'll just have to tolerate this for one day out of 366. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Classic - and yes April Fool's Day front pages are becoming a tradition here. Well done - I hope others will remember that humour is a part of our encyclopedia too!--VS ^talk 01:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not about anyone's sense of humour. As far as I know Wikipedia is written in an academic manner. I've never read anything about an exception to that rule of style. I'm merely asking on the basis of which policy the Front Page of Wikipedia is presenting unreliable information (not necessarily false) the 1st of April without even a disclaimer. I am asking whether is is violating the spirit of Wikipedia's policies or not. And I'm asking whether this has been discussed as a matter of policy or it has just been accepted as such by most people due to the fact that most writers of the English Wikipedia live in a culture where the people celebrate April Fool's Day (and therefore, this might be a systematic bias that needs correcting). If there is an answer to these questions, wonderful. If there is no answer to these questions I believe that these questions should at least be discussed, because Wikipedia has very real real-life consequences everywhere where there are people that know English, not only in the Western World. I hope somebody hears me: HAS this been discussed as a matter of policy? Is there a policy that allows this? Please point me to something, or at least provide me some answers to the reasons behind his. I assume that people will have the good will of pointing me to even a resemblance of discussion about policy about this. And as a matter of fact, I do have a sense of humour, I just come from a culture where April Fool's Day is not celebrated. Please stop the AD PERSONAM and answer me on policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that none of the information on the front page is false. It is unusual, or phrased in a deliberately misleading fashion... but it's all true. DS (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Now can please anyone point me to a page that states that this is POLICY or where at least this has been discussed as a matter of policy? By the way has it been discussed or it' just accepted as default? Because if it was accepted by anyone without discussion it MAY be a systematic bias due to the fact that most people who write on the English wikipedia come from a culture where April Fool's Day is celebrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you new to Wikipedia? Because the April Fool's Day tradition is nothing to be surprised about if you have been here for some time. I don't know whether it has been discussed formally as a matter of policy, but I'm sure that, since this tradition had survived-- thrived-- for six or seven plus years, being planned months in advance, and being approved by those Wikipedians in the upper eschelon who set up the heavily-guarded, most visible main page, this tradition is not viewed as an egregious violation of our policies. And if you worry that it will mislead people, you should understand that, as soon as curious visitors click on the links, they will realize that they have been fooled. There is simply not enough material to mislead visitors for any more than twenty seconds. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. When I saw "Turkish missiles" and "oil" my first impulse was to phone my brother who is stationed with the Turkish Army on the border with Irak. My first thought was "Oh, no, it's war!" It's hard to think rationally when the misleading wording arise emotions such as fear. And I think that the son or wife od the Irish prime minister might have gone through something even worse when she saw "hanged" there, even if she is from the Western Culture. Anyway, thanks for the information. I live now in an European country and I will get used to it. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well thank you for your understanding. Thankfully the Irish prime minister headline has been changed so it's not as potentially shocking. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I presume. — Dan | talk 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw another two cents in, the april fools day main page smacks of a lack of professionalism, and a licence to put every cultural "Whatever day" on the main page. I see no reason why april fools is special, or interesting in this context. Wikipedia is somewhere that people visit to learn things. User A1 (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the front page lacks of professionalism. I would love to be able to someday site this as a source in a paper, or be able to tell someone that I learned about something in the wikipedia and not have them look at me like it wasn't factual. This blatant waste of a wonderful resource isn't going to get the wikipedia any closer to those ends. I'll remember when I go to give money that my local NPR station doesn't give me fake news reports to try and be funny.Bobbit bob (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, only the main page is affected, all other articles are strictly off-limits to April Fools shenanigans. Secondly, this was discussed months in advanced, at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page, and it was a collaboration between many users. It's a tradition on Wikipedia, and indeed on the internet (many sites including Google and YouTube traditionally pull an April Fool) with the full blessing of the Wikipedia administration. Thirdly, if you phone your brother to tell him there's a war on, or cite an academic paper based on a single hook on the main page, you deserve everything you get. For that matter, writing any academic paper completely based on facts from Wikipedia is stupid as everyone knows we have issues of reliability even on our best articles. Clicking any one of the links on the main page would reveal the joke and present you with the unmodified truth. Fourthly, lighten up. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NPR -- for example All Things Considered -- always does an April Fool's prank. One year the US sold Arizona to Canada; another year's show featured a dog-bark translator. Unlike those pieces, our Front Page stories are actually accurate. I see no lack of professionalism here, and encourage the tradition to continue. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Main Page is not an encyclopedic article. It outlines some of the best content we have on wikipedia and any relevant info for the day (today is april 1 so i think main page looks extremely relevant). So ppl need to stop complaining and live with the fact they got fooled thinking wikipedia got hacked after looking at main page. And if u truly believe that it is not ok to put jokes on april 1st then go home and grow some sense of humor. Ashishg55 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

...atleast half of the items on the April Fool's are about England

Says something.--PsyopsGuy1982 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• England is awesome. Even I know that. 66.68.86.77 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think featuring England on April Fools day would mean something different? Matty (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I blame it on the Kenyan-centric bias we see daily on the main page. :d –  LATICS  talk  07:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's simple. We never left the colonial period. It's all a complex illusion... Pacific Coast Highway ^{{spring • ahead}} 13:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I count (using the broadest possible interpretation) 9 England-related items out of 24. That's not half, and doesn't even beat the US contingent (also 9). Algebraist 13:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an optical illusion. If you cover your right eye, it's an India-centric main page with a decidedly British Raj flavor. If you cover your left, it's a page full of recipes involving mock chicken. Graymornings_(talk) 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

CHEESY FAJITAS! It works. –  LATICS  talk  17:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Permalink?

Is there a permalink available for today's main page? I realize the content is transcluded from elsewhere, but as all the content today is fresh, such as ITN, I wouldn't think the usual technical restrictions would apply. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it myself. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the future!

Any reference source that deliberately permits false information one day of the year, will permit it every day of the year.

Chrmlssmn (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the truth, therefore delete it. The Wikipedia way. Long live Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrmlssmn (talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Chrmlssmn (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, nothing on the page is false. Just creatively worded. Enjoy! Newsboy85 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible ITN

A new item for today was suggested:

North and South Korea prepare for a hostile stand-off in Seoul, in their quest for world domination.

Because this talkpage has broader audience, I post it here to see if this is ok to have on Main page or not because it is a bit strong, as the public hanging discussed above. --Tone 07:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do it. They're all pretty bad, at least this one is funny. Matty (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok with it. This one won't have any BLP overtones. And we survived the attacks by Turkish missiles. :) Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There were some other BLP ones I could have chosen for this topic (a number involving Kim Jong-il), but I thought it better to steer well clear of them when drafting the above :) Daniel (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, seeing that the Brian Cowen blurb got trimmed. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed as of 11:26. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a resident of Seoul is OK with it and someone who is originally from South Korea finds it hilarious... whatever went wrong? Incidentally, what was the final score? I'm sure I could just check the article but it feels like an incomplete conversation and anyone who happens upon this will have great difficulty piecing it all together. --candle•wicke 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

South Korea won, 1-0. So I guess we could have updated this to read South Korea defeats North Korea in quest for world domination. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hanging" discussion move from WP:ERRORS

"public hanging" has a rather more violent implication that paintings. Perhaps a more specific phrase could be used. (Also, it seems to me to be less than noteworthy enough for the main page, IMHO).—Goodtimber (walk/talk) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The April Fools jokes were pretty unique, I do, however, believe the wording on the piece about the Irish Taoiseach was a little inappropriate. While the jokes were in good fun, they also need to be in good taste as well. PTPLauthor (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The most important requirement for a joke is to be funny. I thought the "public hanging" wording was funny, and the subsequent attempted rewrites are not, and the wikilinking is clumsy. jnestorius^(talk) 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You thought it was funny to suggest that a living person was hanged? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Now that the "hanging" is down, I suppose the rest of the main page makes for a good joke. "Row of suckers" indeed. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 02:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm less interested in the question of whether to make jokes about death than I am with whether it is responsible to use what is usually a trusted source of reliable information to imply that the head of government of a nation currently attempting to avoid a reemergance of regional violence/deal with an economic crisis has been assassinated by an angry mob. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What Grant said. 201.154.195.65 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is largely about different perceptions of the boundary between humour and bad taste, so this discussion is somehow apt. However, the current text seems reasonably funny and not likely to offend the sensitive, so I'll sign off. jnestorius^(talk) 05:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The story regarding nude oil paintings of Irish PM is NOT worthy of being on WP frontpage. Also the title is misleading and sensationalist. "Ireland's Taoiseach, Brian Cowen (pictured) is seen publicly naked in Dublin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.73.204 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (moved from WP:ERRORS)

I can understand the bit about misleading title, but why is a story that has been covered by media in Ireland and beyond not worthy of being on the front page? Kimchi.sg (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with the title? How is him being seen naked any more tasteful than being the subject of a public hanging? I personally thought that mentioning the lack of clothing was in bad taste. --candle•wicke 19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To The Miseries

I've just been reading some of the grouchy comments about today's April Fools pranks. It just astounds me that people are going on about cultural bias and so on. Now I don't discriminate based on culture or religion etc, but I do find myself being increasingly irked by certain 'groups of people' demanding their rights to practice certain customs etc, then jumping up and down and screaming bias and discrimination when other people exercise that same right. The English Wikipedia is written for a mainly Western audience which means most people looking at it today will realise that there is a prank going on. AND WHY NOT??? When Muslims all over the UK are allowed to take days off work to go to temple on one of their religious days for example, why should we be excluded from doing something that is a tradition in our OWN culture. Seems to me the Political Correctness police are on the case. (I imagine some hairy academic sat humming next to a burning joss stick reciting the mantra - other culture good, white culture bad) 78.150.147.42 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the April Fools' theme but I disagree with your assertion that "The English Wikipedia is written for a mainly Western audienc." It isn't, it written neutrally for a global audience. To use another example, WP:NPOV takes precendence over American-POV even if Americans make up around half of the readers and/or editors on enwiki. We won't have a Christmas theme on 25 December even though most readers would celebrate the holiday. Second, there is a significant number of readers of enwiki who are not from the Anglosphere (ie. English is their second or third langauge) because the Wikipedias of their native languages are tiny and hopeless.

And although I am not aware, I hope that the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias don't change their front pages drastically during a Muslim holiday nor the Chinese Wikipedia change during say, Chinese New Year. Wikipedia's policies > local culture of readers and editors. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said Gizza. And to the anon, don't claim April Fools' Day as your group's "own", it is a multinational holiday. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it as my groups own. I was merely stating that it is a tradition in my culture, I didn't say it was exclusively so. And as everyone seems to be disagreeing with me and spouting about neutral point of view etc, then perhaps you should stick to those policies and not be doing April Fools pranks either. I was just supporting Wikipedia for doing it, but now I wish I hadn't bothered... bunch of pricks. 78.150.147.42 (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, the encyclopedia is "written neutrally for a global audience". It would be a stretch to say that the Main Page is part of the encyclopedia in that sense, though! Gracenotes^T § 11:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I find myself increasingly irked by faux-controversy of all forms, whether "political correctness gone mad" or people being overly dramatic about a silly joke on one day of the year. -93.97.122.93 (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, this may be a bit off-topic, but if I remember correctly, the Chinese Wikipedia often places a drawing of an animal in the Chinese zodiac along with a banner in front of the logo, on Chinese New Year. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No POV! Not even in a joke day like April Fools' Day! Please.

I don't like seeing that North Korea vs. South Korea in the page. It sounds like North Korea's gonna nuke a football field if they lose. Please remove that. P.R.O.C.K.Y. (Mydoctor93) 10:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"It sounds like North Korea's gonna nuke a football field if they lose" - or South Korea's gonna reduce Pyongyang to rubble if the South loses. I don't sense any POV in the line. Kimchi.sg (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"South Korea's gonna reduce Pyongyang to rubble if the South loses.": LOL!!! I am originally from South Korea and I find the joke absolutely hilarious. :D --BorgQueen (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes, we do celebrate April fools' day in South Korea, to a lesser extent. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please clean up the April fools nonsense? Implying that North and South Korea are at war may be funny and fitting for children's blogs, not for an encyclopedia. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t10:37z

It's a joke. If you realize it's a joke then there's nothing to worry about. Besides, I find it funny even here on an encyclopedia. --82.103.239.99 (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, score's still 0-0, about 15mins in. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As a resident of Seoul, I find the whole thing hilarious. Waygugin (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed as of 11:26. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a resident of Seoul is OK with it and someone who is originally from South Korea finds it hilarious... whatever went wrong? Incidentally, what was the final score? I'm sure I could just check the article but it feels like an incomplete conversation and anyone who happens upon this will have great difficulty piecing it all together. --candle•wicke 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

South Korea won, 1-0. So I guess we could have updated this to read South Korea defeats North Korea in quest for world domination. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've propsed the following at WP:ITN/C but nobody appears to have noticed. It would be a shame to let it go to waste.

Venezuelan beauty queen Dayana Mendoza has a fun day at camp in Guantanamo Bay. [6] --candle•wicke 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo!

I commend whoever drew up the current version of the Main Page (well, the version as of this comment). A nice mix of humor, factual information and borderline nonsense. Especially the whole bit about British pay-per-view pornography. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{spring • ahead}} 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Sometimes facts are stranger than fiction! – Kaihsu (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo, indeed! Who says encyclopdeing can't be fun?! A most wonderfoul larf! Cheers! --Phyllis1753 (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I third (fourth?) that bravo. Sometimes this place just seems way too straitlaced, so when I see writing like this I can't help but enjoy it. It's all true anyhow, so no harm, no foul! --NovaKrazny (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who came in late, I'll explain. "wonderfoul larf" is John Lennonese for "Wonderful Laugh". Just follow the links! Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In the news

The blurb for the nude paintings of the Irish leader seems to have been changed from last night, and is now completely inaccurate. He was not seen nude; a painting was made that depicted him nude, and it was not painted from life.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I notice that all the news blurbs are written incorrectly and deceitfully. Well played, wikipedia, you've decided to subvert all that "BLP policy" claptrap just because of the calendar. I hope the day was worth selling off whatever reliability you still had.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the breach of BLP? --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sake, lighten up. For one day a year, the Main Page (which is not an article, and therefore BLP does not apply) has a mildly misleading hook on it - which I might add is technically 100% true, it's just worded ambiguously. As soon as you click on one of the links you'll find the real, untouched article. Get a sense of humour already. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages that talk about living people. While technically the blurb is correct, imo its rather cheap. There was no need to ridicule this person on the main page. —SV 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It was supposed to be handled with due care (i.e. not mentioning the nudity) but now it appears extremely tabloidy, I agree. --candle•wicke 20:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(←)The main page actually made the news (bottom paragraph). §hep^Talk 00:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured redirects

I've created a proposal for Featured redirects. I'd like to know, if this proposal goes ahead, should these be displayed on the main page. and if so, how? Please discuss on the proposal's talk page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a priority; I think we should work on Wikipedia:Featured footnotes first. There are, after all, more footnotes than redirects. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not! We should first work on Featured hatnotes, because we need to work from top down, not the other way around.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, April 1, 2009 (UTC)

If you take that approach, wouldn't we want to start with Featured maintenance templates first? But I do like the idea of working down the page: Featured maintenance templates, Featured hatnotes, Featured infoboxes, Featured section headings, Featured captions, and so on, ending with Featured interlanguage links. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's how the page is displayed that matters, not the wikitext. Featured categories should be done last. Featured interwikis are just a side issue. Algebraist 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, do we still have space for Featured citations? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{spring • ahead}} 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest they should be combined with featured comments —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Featured Policy Proposals? Modest Genius ^talk 19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Tivedshambo - I thought you were suggesting we feature comments that appeared on article talk/discussion pages, but you meant invisible comments in articles. Now that I understand, it seems to me that we've (so far) omitted the talk/discussion page entirely, despite that the number of such pages that are, well, fascinating. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Anyone else think the Main Page should be deleted? Just a place for lazy people to read the news or look at featured articles/pictures when they could go to P:CE or WP:FA/WP:FP, yet hard-working sysops have to maintain it. Æetlr Creejl 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? What would then show in your browser if you go for Wikipedia? --Tone 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If we used the random article feature as a redirect, that would usually send readers to articles that clearly need work, encouraging them to start helping out with writing rather than just sponging off the hard-working editors here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There would then be a (small) danger that they would hit a really good article. Your proposal would work better if we had a 'random terrible article' feature. I think I'll submit a bug report. Algebraist 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We could always make it so it goes to the same horrible page, and then lock it so that it stays horrible. I think that would answer your concern. APL (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps a sort of "collaboration of the moment"; all readers get sent to the same (horrible) page until it is improved to at least "C" class; then the target page is switched to another article that needs improving. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A problem is that people might still navigate away to other pages, which don't need improving so urgently, and work on them instead. This could be solved by making the CotM the only page available. Algebraist 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent variant of the "Buy this magazine or the dog dies" approach: "Improve this article or you'll never see another page in Wikipedia." -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to delete Jimbo Wales were preemptively stopped. I doubt deleting the main page will get much farther. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If this proposal goes ahead, main page will be deleted. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not as good as 2005, when five recursive attempts were made to delete (see the page log on that last link) User:Jimbo Wales at MfD. ROFL. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, it does seem to be getting a lot of support, despite well-reasoned "oppose" arguments like "Provides an outlet for vandals that would otherwise attack critical projects like Wikispecies". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)