Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 137

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130←Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140

Table tennis?

Really? That's news relevant to the world? Table tennis championships? I understand it's a legit sport, but... NIRVANA2764 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it any less relevant than, say, the Superbowl or Baseball World Series? Table Tennis is hugely popular in Asia. Seems fine to me. Modest Genius talk 02:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. ITN's purpose is not to document "news relevant to the world"; it's to link to articles that have been created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events of timely, widespread (but not necessarily worldwide) interest. Table tennis is very popular, and there is consensus for the inclusion of every major sport's highest championship (provided that the article creation/update criterion is met). —David Levy 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The power resources for india —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.108.250 (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Countries competing in the men's competition. Japan, South Korea, Denmark, Austria, France, Slovakia, Italy, Romania, Russia, Czech Republic, Australia, Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, Slovenia, Portugal, Greece, Russia, Poland, Belarus, Croatia, Serbia, Sweden, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Mexico, Ukraine, Egypt, England, Latvia, Belgium, Iceland, Spain, Singapore, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Scotland, Bulgaria and India. Others spotted in the women's competition include Colombia and DR Congo. Germany (a non-Asian country) claims to have the fourth best player in the world. Thank you. --candle•wicke 13:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly a few more than the FIFA World Cup, and a ton more compared to snooker, eh? –Howard the Duck 14:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm surprised it hasn't been included at WP:ITNR before. Just passing by there and I noticed the slightly older, Australia and New Zealand dominated Netball World Championships are already included. So snooker and table tennis being dominated by the UK and China respectively would appear to be no excuse for their exclusion. Can I just confirm that it is acceptable to add both table tennis and snooker to the list? I also have two further proposals, having just nominated the 2009 Cannes Film Festival at future events per the recurring items list. Would appreciate some input as to the debuts of Italy and Germany into the list of annual items. --candle•wicke 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I remember ITN adds the winner of the Palme d'Or consistently. And with that said, I'll be adding the AFC Asian Cup and the 9-ball championship. –Howard the Duck 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That seems agreeable. :) --candle•wicke 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Since every "major" sport gets in to be there, I don't see the point of maintaining it. What's the definition of a "major" sport? How about sepak takraw and my favoritest sport of all time kabaddi? –Howard the Duck 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If they're organised into competitions and there is one that stands out and has a following of some sort, then I don't really see why not? I was going to ask now to include Gaelic games as well since they weren't exactly disagreed with above and since we now have one more association football event and the American and Australian versions are still there. There's no real point to saying we can't include this sport or that as people are going to become annoyed. Also, it might be included in the list and therefore can be nominated but it can't be posted until it is updated so there is still work to do for each one. :) --candle•wicke 14:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I honestly had never heard of sepak takraw but if it's played in that many countries across Asia and Australia... :) the difference between this and Gaelic games though being that they have a major championship and there is a WikiProject Gaelic games who work to improve those articles. I wouldn't say the latter is any reason to go for or against, although it shows there are people who have come together and who are interested in improving this area. But surely there ought to be a definite championship to make an ITN wording easier? Is there one and can you inform us more about it? --candle•wicke 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about hurling though, and I saw it on the winter Olympics which presumes that is the more important competition? I guess that would've been the top competition of hurling. –Howard the Duck 15:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I presume you mean Curling? Hurling is a Summer sport (and quite possibly not played at the Olympics). Curling at the Olympics is, uh, interesting because the Great Britain team is basically the Scotland team, renamed (Curling doesn't seem particularly popular outside Scotland, North America and New Zealand). Anyway... what was your question?! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, there can be more than one "top competition" per sport. Many sports included in the Olympics have other championships that we feature in ITN. —David Levy 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So the purpose is not to be relevant but to link people to articles on current events that we consider to be exemplary? Hah, and I thought this was a news section. My mistake! NIRVANA2764 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes actually. I sense you were trying to be sarcastic but you're correct. Wikipedia is NOT NEWS. --candle•wicke 16:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Pssht. Now pocket tennis, THAT's a notable subject. I was just wondering, can you feature my victory over Triple H while playing as Hardcore Holly in SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 in ITN? I mean, since you're bending your notability criteria just a tad here. --Kaizer13 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? I didn't think we'd gone as far as including personal achievements of the virtual variety... but it would be helpful if the actual final or championship could be specified otherwise there isn't really much of a case. --candle•wicke 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think a systemic main page bias towards sarcasm detectors would be of great help to everyone. --Kaizer13 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What are we on about now? There's so much confusion surrounding topics with which I'm barely familiar that I can't detect the sarcasm any longer. --candle•wicke 18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I've lost track, too. Possibly "Pocket Tennis" refers to this, though given the presence of a partner it may refer to this. Possibly not a suitable topic for ITN. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow... I would never have come to that conclusion. Not as funny as this gem. --candle•wicke 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian floods

Is there any need for this news? I'm Brazilian and nobody, I mean nobody is talking about this here. I didn't even know it happened before I saw it here. Brady4mvp (Talk) 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

seriously whats with people arguing about every news item after it gets posted. go ITN/C and help pick proper ones. and ITN is not a news source. If the article is good and the event is interesting enough (which gets discussed for notability and international interest beforehand at ITN/C) it will get posted. Ashishg55 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the BBC, you are now experiencing your worst floods in over twenty years. Have you looked outside your window recently? --candle•wicke 00:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, no. Maybe because all the news are about the swine flu. Brady4mvp (Talk) 01:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Swine flu, is that still going on? Have the media not said "whoops and sorry for alarming everyone" yet? Dark verdant (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but that's the news. This isn't. Perhaps it is an attempt to deal with one disaster at a time on the part of the news. --candle•wicke 14:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured User Page

I think there should be a featued User page. Parker1297 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Who have you in mind? --candle•wicke 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
iirc, this was discussed before, but the primary concern against it was that each featured user on the Main Page would end up getting their user page and user talk page constantly vandalised for the duration of the day, especially those who are prominent or have attracted a bunch of enemies as a result of various heated disputes. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the main objection? What about the fact that we're not MySpace, the fact that it would cause bitter infighting (as it would sail dangerously close to commenting on the user, as userpages are by their nature personal) it doesn't aid the encyclopedia in any way and the main page is for readers, not for editors? Seriously, featured redirects would be more useful than featured userpages, but before them we have featured sounds, featured lists, featured topics, featured portals, featured image sets, good articles, good topics and valued pictures that all deserve more recognition than they are getting. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. But this conversation started with the concept of a featured user page. Where did the notion of putting it on the Main Page come from? --candle•wicke 21:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, anytime somebody proposes a featured X, the conversation always evolves into "can we put it on the main page". Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is on Talk:Main Page so my presumption would be that the OP wanted to put it on the main page. Of course we do get a lot of completely OT chatter here so who knows? Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the first page marked "discussion" which anyone will view... --candle•wicke 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Are we talking about a featured user or a featured user page? Both are very bad ideas but are quite different concepts. Nil Einne (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The section header says featured user page so unless there's been some mistake... --candle•wicke 01:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well Zzyzx11 and you seemed to be talking about featured users not featured user pages but it seems I was wrong Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems like a bad idea to feature things that are not content. Why would WP want to encourage people to put time into their user pages? How does that benefit the encyclopedia? APL (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes but then we would get into fights over what KIND of user is good, we would have to protect user pages, and in general it would be pointless. Besides, no user on wikipedia is worth being on the mnainpage.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a very cruel but agreeable way of putting it. --candle•wicke 02:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Clarification. The above comment does not necessarily mean I find cruelty agreeable. --candle•wicke 14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you guys it should be due to well you know Parker1297 (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

BREASTS?! ON THE MAIN PAGE!

Where is the decency in this world?! If I don't die from kissing all these pigs, the shock of seeing those spaniel's ears is sure to finish me off! Surely a cross section of a bra or a blurry purple image of a bra will do? I'm distraught here ... think about the children ... and the kittens! (BTW, "Bra" in German is "Büstenhalter", literally "Bust holder" ... easily my favourite translation EVER!) --LookingYourBest (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? It's possible all you saw was a little image vandalism. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
THIS was in the DYK section! Horror!;
*Gags*
--LookingYourBest (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit partial to her Elvis quiff though ... hmmmm! --LookingYourBest (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The US Patent Office should be ashamed of itself, publishing this smut - though perhaps it was just an honest boob, and they deserve our full (underwired) support. I don't want to make a tit of myself, but I felt I had to get that off my chest. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
/*claps* You racked up some points there! --LookingYourBest (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
We had better nip this in the bud. Agathman (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't be crazy, after all, wikipedia is nork censored! --LookingYourBest (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You guys sure milked that for every joke it's worth. 75.142.209.214 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree, but knowing wikipedia editors, I'm sure they'll find udders! --LookingYourBest (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Time to change the subject and moo-ve on before we all make right tits of ourselves. --candle•wicke 02:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh I don't know, with a bit of tweaking I think this is a great discussion ... or am I just groping in the dark? --LookingYourBest (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
We are thinking about children, it is called education. Censorship doesn't work that well and I see no problem with this subject. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Editors say "decency screening = censoring anatomy articles" and "this is no place for kids" but wikimania is using pictures of little 3rd world kids being given wiki-equiped computers for fundraising and if there is no place for decency screening, let's see some kiddie porn. You must agree, so long as policy and concensus is going to say that grannies fanny is not sacred, or that pulling the piss out of the idea is really entertaining, the place is unwell right there. Exposure to such microbes should (eventually) give equal chance to decompose the place or mutate it (swine flu) into a place where sickness has no more ground. (and next thing you couldn't read an article about penis, huh?) People forget that avoiding gang rape means asking the average granny if she fancies everyone seeing under her skirt NOT asking a mob if they are in general favour of wickedness or not. Looters have to be shot eventually or left to die in the disaster zone. 86.46.64.230 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you have just said, but I fight for your right to say it. Thanks for adding your two pennies. Also, thanks for thinking about the children as Enlil Ninlil suggested ... although I'm not sure that's quite the way they meant! --LookingYourBest (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What has this world come to that anyone could be so shocked at age 30+ of seeing something that was created to nurture that same person at age 0-3 or 4 or 5 or so? To say you are thinking about "the children" as if a child has never seen, touched, suckled on a breast? What on earth did you think breasts were for, if not for children? And someone is worried about children seeing a breast on Wikipedia???? Get a life. We need more breasts on the main page, not less. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw that picture on the main page for five seconds in school and never came back to my mind later. They are just breasts. I think this is a bit of an overreaction. --Cabbage9 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for the editor who initiated this thread, but I'm reasonably certain that they were acting as a straight man so that clowns like me could crack as many bad puns as possible. I don't believe there was any genuine concern about the corruption of the morals of children - most children have seen this kind of thing before, anyway. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.224.103.240 (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, yes it would be fun to see all the complaints demanding to know why their country isn't featured. I think we should leave it at the inordinate amount of complaints because of ITN for now, when that dies down maybe do a featured country just to keep the complainers on their toes. Dark verdant (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
We'd run out of articles by the 250th day. –Howard the Duck 14:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It depends how low our standards are: Category:Micronations would increase the number of complaints countries quite a bit. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Not if we included historical nations: Wessex, the Sabaean Kingdom, the Kingdom of Burgundy, the Federal Republic of Central America, and the like ;) Modest Genius talk 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If we could find one for every day of the year, each country would have its own day and they could be recycled each year. Then every country would get its day in the sun and it would happen each year. It would be like deciding TFA, there would be some more obvious dates than others, such as the US on Fourth of July, Wales on First of March, Ireland on Seventeenth of March, Netherlands on Fifth of May, Portugal on Tenth of June, France on Fourteenth of July, Switzerland on First of August and so on. Countries get their holidays posted every year anyway and maybe the Main Page is taken over by them in some cases. Images wouldn't necessarily be maps, symbols like national flowers or vegetables or whatever would do fine. I have to say that I think this is a lot better than the featured user proposal and a lot better than any featured proposal I've heard in a long time. --candle•wicke 16:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Within five mintes of the first country going up, the whataboutery would start - "What about the unrecognised right to independence/autonomy/territorial claim/droit de seigneur of the downtrodden people/glorious people/king/guerillas/gorillas of our nation/state/land/island? Why has this not been dealt with in detail, with footnotes, on the Main Page? Evil swine, we demand satisfaction forthwith." Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
True. Better than featured user though. --candle•wicke 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Cornwall would want one for a start and you may have to deal with a lot of very serious Cornish Nationalists who are terribly sure that Cornwall should be an independant nation. Besides you cant put anywhere near as much for Monaco (for example) as you can for major countries.92.8.152.71 (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside Cornwall, I disagree about Monaco - it's Europe's favourite tax-haven, home of the Monte Carlo rally, and a major stop on the F1 circuit. The King married a movie star. It's political geography is unusual, it's the second smallest country in the world, etc etc. Now, apologise to Monaco! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I unreservedly apologise to Monaco and i take full responsibility for my terrible slander. Monaco was only supposed to be an example (admittedly a bad one as i have now realised!). What about the difference between a country with thousands of years of history and one thats 20 years old (admittedly their is history within the country but not OF the country).Willski72 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up about it mate.  GARDEN  19:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! I still cant think of another very small country with not very much to talk about! My point seems to be crumbling before my very eyes! (Although i stick with the new country-old country hypothesis!)Willski72 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's Andorra, but I reckon any small country tends to be interesting. The same applies, I guess, to micronations. On the topic of new country-old country, did you know that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is only 82 years old?! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeh it used to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but then the Republic of Ireland popped up and ruined the timeline! But Great Britain's over 300 years old though and i'm not quite sure how old each seperate country within Great Britain is!Willski72 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, pr

obably over a millenia for England, Scotland and Wales. I've been thinking of small, new countries but the best I can come up with is Vatican City (1929) but it traces its history back to Papal lands since the dawn of Christianity. I'll keep thinking...!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Bahrain, admittedly i dont know very much about it and it probably has much more than i could guess, but possibly less than other nations?Willski72 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, I had high hopes for Bahrain - its neighbours at first seemed larger and more interesting - but in 1802 "it was governed by a twelve year old child, when the Omani ruler Sayyid Sultan installed his son, Salim, as Governor". Far too interesting to qualify, I'm afraid. What about Norfolk Island? Technically its part of Australia, but I believe its semi-autonomous. They speak a dialect of English (boring!) and don't have much in the way of history (boring!) - if we can call them a country I believe they tick all the right boxes. (Best I can find in the South Pacific; far too much in the way of interesting mythology, tax havens, battles etc). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bleedin hell who would of thought it! Looking around the Norfolk Island area what about East Timor? Its an independant nation that is dwarfed by its two neighbours (Indonesia and Australia). Its not actually very small and it probably has quite a big population but surely there isnt a huge amount you can write about it? (I know their probably will be!) I like the Norfolk Island idea, just got to be careful that its allowed in the theoretical Featured Article world!Willski72 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What am i saying! Featured COUNTRY world. Im sorry!Willski72 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, definitely not, I'm afraid - long struggle for independence, grassroots support campaigns in the developed world, UN peace-keepers - far too interesting ;-) Many of the -stans have interesting histories of struggle with Russia, or economies based on commodities, but I'm wondering whether Central Asia might hold a few dull gems? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I really should look these things up before i say them! I know what you mean about the stans, brief flashpoints of interest in history but long periods of not very much happening. Another good point is that as these countries are relatively new as independant nations much of their histories are intertwined and so its not technically the history of that country alone (but thats probably cheating!)Willski72 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I like the idea. We would just have to be careful that everybody can be included equally with no regard to size, age, notoriety, or politics. I also think that autonomous regions should be included. If there are more than 365, we could just cycle them all through, without assigning a specific day of the year to each.--Falconusp t c 04:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Could it be put on a randomiser? Im not sure if thats possible but its a good way of deflecting criticism, unless it 'randomly' chooses the same one over and over again anyway! In that way it wouldnt really matter how many countries you had in comparison to days (unless you wanted to give each country a day!)Willski72 (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

KOREAN WIKIPEDIA!!!

you people should make a korean wikipedia! If you already then put it up on the page where you select the language. put the korean wikipedia available here.--Nomichosso (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean like this?! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Korean Wikipedia is already available here. It's in the list under 10 000+, after "Galego". You might need to scroll down to find "10 000+", depending on your monitor. Art LaPella (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I *think* the user means in the interwiki link column. Who wants to shoot that idea down? 99.50.50.41 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article notice

I can't work out where it is myself, and I am leaving in minute anyway. The notice should say "The English Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,500 featured articles." rather than "The English Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating over 2,500 Featured articles." There is no need to automatically capitalise "featured"- we never do elsewhere when it is mid-sentence. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Done at Template:Main Page banner. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it me, or is the notice slightly wider than the two columns underneath? It would be nice if it aligned properly. Modest Genius talk 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It's wider for me as well. Firefox 3 BTW. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Looks a tad wider for me too, but only once I looked. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I came here to say this, so let me confirm that I see what the above user does. I'm using Firefox 3 as well, so I assume that's where the issue is. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem on Safari 4 68.104.142.242 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The banner is wider than the boxes below it because the mp-upper table has a slight (possibly 1px) padding on it between the actual border and it's cells' border. The text in said banner appears to be centered, but doesn't look that way because the Featured Article "column" and In The News "column" are not the same width. JPG-GR (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It would've been nice what was the 2,500th FA. –Howard the Duck 09:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that it's Arthur Henry Cobby, counting back in the May FA log. Daniel Case (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Accordng to this edit and the FA log, 6 articles were passed at once, achieving 2,500: Nancy Drew, Arthur Henry Cobby, Bruce Castle, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, Fort Ticonderoga, and Franklin Knight Lane. I hope we will get to 3,000 soon! Reywas92Talk 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it!  GARDEN  19:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I hope that's not been bothering you all weekend! Thanks, though - I can confirm it's fixed, at least from my Firefox/XP combo. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Modest Genius talk 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, more than 2500 FAs have been created, beacuse some are delisted. I, for one, do NOT thank the users who have wasted their time simply to create a featured article, and I think the banner should be removed. Physchim62 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought our goal here was to bring every article up to FA status? In that context, editors who have participated in this Herculean task definitely deserve our thanks, IMHO. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

note that many good and proficient editors don't give two hoots about the FA process. The real task is getting the myriad crappy articles up to useful status, and keeping them there. FAs are a nice extra. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, and I guess I'm one of them - I've never participated in FA: my edits tend towards gnomery and vandal reversion. That shouldn't diminish the FA process, and its contributors, however. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel like "contributors" should link to Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia, not Wikipedia:How to edit a page. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In the news picture

I'd recommend reverting back to the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono picture for the moment. With no picture for the featured article today, the lindane graphic makes the main page look a bit bland. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 16:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no image for the FA (sorry, that's not directed at Sillyfolkboy in particular - just anyone who knows). The image on The Million Dollar Homepage is quite striking, and too small to advertise anything, as far as I can see. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. While the ChemDraw image is not colorful or spectacular, I really don't see why we have to use male headshot images so often. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is their a more colourful picture of lindane? One of it in reality for example (but then if its poisonous not many people will be taking pictures of it!) Or in fact we could even have a picture of one of the other banned substances. In this way we dont have to have a headshot or a black and white drawing.Willski72 (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just thought, pictures of chemicals arent really very interesting! Maybe just a chemical tub with a DANGER! sign or something like that so that people get the idea!Willski72 (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Something like this? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I suppose. I much prefer this chemical warning sign. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree a picture of a bottle of one of the chemicals or something would look prettier, but I think using a warning symbol would be a little silly- we're an encyclopedia, here to educate, not a blog. The reason there is no image for the featured article is not for advertising reasons, but as the only image in the article is non-free. J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Doh! Screenshot of a website. That should have occurred to me. Thanks. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess the dog symbols would be useful for restaurants that serve dog meat. The first one with fire: dog barbecue. The second one... oven-roasted? The third one... overcooked. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You're more imaginative than me - I've struggled for a while now to think of a good use for them, outside Uncyclopedia. I even thought about using them for training cats (that has to be possible, right?)
Back on-topic, "Today's featured picture" brings some colour to the page, but don't we normally have "featured media" at the weekend?
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
No, there's no "weekend" schedule for media; they just come up whenever it's their turn in the queue, or if there's an anniversary or something. (Note: yesterday was a film AND a featured sound). howcheng {chat} 18:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it, thanks. But film and sound? That's just showing off! Yesterday, that wasn't big and it wasn't clever. You'll make the other days feel small if you keep that up. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the manual of style violations, I thought the featured sound was a great idea. It would be nice if we could get that sort of thing more often. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Just come back on. The orange picture with the skull and crossbones would of given a few people a fright! I wonder how many would of thought something terrible had happened?Willski72 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Shanabarger

For the article on Ronald Shanabarger in the Did You Know section, I not sure the article should even exist, let alone be on the main page. While a murder of an infant will get some news coverage, there isn't any information provided in the article that indicates the person is notable enough for an article. I think similar articles on people who got breif news coverage for single event are usually deleted at AfD under WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. At the very least, I think the article should be about the event and not the person per WP:BIO1E and Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Calathan (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I just want to add that I think the page should be renamed to Murder of Tyler Shanabarger and the main page blurb modified so that Tyler's name links to the article. Calathan (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
As stated in the big header at the top of this page which is also displayed when you edit this page, errors should be reported to the error report section. As stated in the section, the main page defers to articles. In other words, it's pointless complaining here about a problem which is a holdover from an article that has not been resolved. I suggest you take this to the article talk page and/or WP:BLP/N and/or WP:AFD. As long as the article exists and is new or recently expanded enough then generally speaking it is eligible for WP:DYK. There is no further notability considerations for DYK. Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there was anything factually wrong with the blurb, so I don't think it would have been appropriate to post my concerns in the error report section (I'm not sure why you are even suggesting that). I do think it would have been appropriate to discuss renaming the page on the talk page for that page, but I figured then I would have to start a second discussion here to have the blurb rewritten, or more likely that no one would read my comments until long after the page was off the main page. I figured things would move faster so the page could be renamed while still on the main page if I posted here, but it turns out I was incorrect, so the issue of rewriting the blurb is now moot. Calathan (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I want

I want a map of Brownsville Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.133.137 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We have File:Cameron County Brownsville Highlighted.svg, but if you meant a street map, then may I suggest your local AAA office or perhaps Google Maps? howcheng {chat} 05:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but how does this has anything to do with the Main Page? Please try to stick to main page issues here. Thanks Ashishg55 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pm expenses row

Why has this story been removed from the front page news? Misortie (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the lotto news had more money involved. </sarcasm> –Howard the Duck 09:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Because of this discussion, where it was determined that there was no international significance to the story.  GARDEN  10:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Shouldn't this read "it is said to embody the spirit, tradition, and passion of the Tech student body"? or "is considered to" - it's talking about subjective emotions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Or we Could just remove that phase entirely, It doesn't belong on the Main Page. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 18:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. howcheng {chat} 18:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Telugu wikipedia

Please include Telugu wikipedia (te) in both interlanguage links and in 20000+ article list. Telugu wikipedia has 43,000 + articles and is the largest Indian language wiki. Thanks --వైజాసత్య (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is your link? Darrenhusted (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
[[:te:|<span title="Telugu (te:)">తెలుగు</span>]] Thanks--వైజాసత్య (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
[[te:]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by వైజాసత్య (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wrapped your te: links in <code> to make it clear that you mean them to display and not link. Telugu WP currently has 42,820 articles, 87,291 pages total, 407,148 edits (4.66 per page), 9,817 users (15 admins), and a depth of 5 (the minimum for inclusion). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As I noted in March at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Telugu wikipedia over 40K, I viewed several dozen random articles, and almost all were bot-created/edited stubs/placeholders. —David Levy 16:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with David. I just clicked random article 50 times and on just four occasions I got an article which was longer than one line - Dumelow (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I got same with 10 random articles. However, some kind soul has posted me a message, so it ain't all bad (SUL, where would I be without you?) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
David, I agree with your observation that in a random test you come up with bunch of one-liners generated by bot. Most of these one-liners are below 50 characters. There are about 14,000 articles that make it to unofficial count[1] (>200 characters)which are not bot generated or further developed by edits from various users. Would you exclude Telugu wikipedia even if it reaches 20,000 mark not taking into account the bot generated one-liners? Please direct me to the discussion about the criteria where I would like to make suggestions regarding these criteria. I respect your subjective judgement. But, if a wiki like mr[2] could make it to the list, I am not too confident about the subjective criteria --వైజాసత్య (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
1. The number of stubs/placeholders would be irrelevant if the number of qualifying articles were to reach 20,000. However, a 200-character threshold is far too low.
2. You can find discussion of the criteria at Template talk:Wikipedialang (where you've already posted) and in its archives.
3. You're quite correct about the Marathi Wikipedia, which was added to the lists in September without discussion. Indeed, it also consists primarily of stubs and placeholders, so I just removed it. —David Levy 22:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you to recheck the entire list again as there are many more undeserving candidates --వైజాసత్య (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't enough free time to check the entire list, but I'll check any specific Wikipedias that you name. —David Levy 05:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Depth is an established metric. If the Telugu and Marathi Wikipedias meet the criteria for inclusion on interlanguage lists, then they need to be included as long as the current policy stands. If you want to discuss changing that policy and requiring a higher number, this isn't the place to do it. Newsboy85 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe this has been discussed before I can't remember where. As has been explained numerous times, depth is an infinitely flawed metric when it comes to trying to measure what we are doing which is measuring. I vemehently opposed it's usage for that reason. However at some stage people started using it and no one objected (to be honest I didn't even notice) so it became policy. Perhaps not surprisingly, wikipedias with largely bot created articles started appearing with a greater depth. Whether this was intentional or not I can't say but at that time, someone decided to keep excluding these wikipedias despite meeting the nominal depth threshold. Personally I opposed this as well (I agreed with the principle of removing crap wikipedias but felt we needed a better method then such an adhoc system especially without any real discussion or explaination) but no one else seemed to care. So the current policy for a long while (several months) appears to be excluding wikipedias with a low depth or which otherwise look like primarily bot create stubs. In other words, this is current policy whether you agree with it or not. If you want to change it, it will be you that needs to take action (elsewhere). P.S. I see that the meaning of depth has been changing as well so it's perhaps not as bad as it was before but still a flawed measure since there is no objective way to measure quality of something of this sort Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
See Template talk:Wikipedialang/Archive 3#Quality requirements (Volapük) and Template talk:Wikipedialang/Archive 3#Volapük (114,588 articles, depth 5) Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Baily's beads

On this day, 1836: should Baily's beads be bolded instead of Francis Baily? Ansh666 (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean Plane Crazy ought to be bolded in 1928? --candle•wicke 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware we generally bold the article which best describes what the OTD item is about regardless of whether it is the most suitable article (I'm not sure if that helps in this case, I didn't check what this is referring to) Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

fair use images on featured...

Okay I remember a discussion back in the day about not having fair use images on the main page for the today's featured article... Yet we do today. Wondering why an exception was made here in this case. I mean if you're gonna use an unfree image anyways, why not use a gameplay screenshot instead of just the Nintendo logo. I would rather have no image at all. (User:Zachary via mobile) 01:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.132.56.156 (talk)

This image, or text depicted in it, only consists of simple geometric shapes and text. They do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.. J.delanoygabsadds 01:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't buy it. Their logo was the work of a graphic artist (or artists), who had to choose a font, placement, shape, color, weight, etc. Making a logo is not just slapping some letters on a shape. I disagree with the no-fair-use-images-on-main-page policy, but if we're going to have it, we should adhere to it. --Nricardo (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct in that someone designed this logo. However, a logo that consists of just text in a font with a simple geometric shape does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. This is not a non-free image, although trademark laws will protect its usage. howcheng {chat} 02:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Irrespective of the above, an image of the video game system is more illustrative of the article's subject than the company's logo is, so I've made the switch. —David Levy 02:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Awww, but displaying their registered trademark made it look like a formal banner ad. We could almost pretend that Wikipedia was getting paid for displaying it! I'd give ten to one odds that somebody is getting paid for it, though I'm not in a position to guess who. Whoever is laughing all the way to the bank on this, I beg you... someday when you've retired at the age of 25 or moved on to greater endeavors, please take the time to jeer at us all in the media. I've said it before and I'll say it again: let's just switch to a pay for play policy and sell "feature article" space as advertising, because that's all it is anyway much of the time. Wnt (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you implying that you would prefer that all commercially available subjects be excluded as Today's featured article candidates? —David Levy 04:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I would only exclude articles specifically about trademarked commercial products. Classes of products, such as side-scrolling video games, I'd have no problem with. But at this point I'm becoming cynical enough about the process that I'd be overjoyed just to see out and out ads and know they have to fund Wikipedia for it. Wnt (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do you object to the inclusion of articles about trademarked commercial products? What harm does this cause? And on what evidence do you base the assertion that "somebody is getting paid"? —David Levy 05:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Would an image of the system with the game loaded be slightly better? — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and there's a good one on Flickr. I considered using it, but that struck me as analogous to displaying a photograph of a child holding a Mickey Mouse doll as an alternative to a drawing of Mickey Mouse. This has been cited as an invalid workaround, as the non-free entity is the primary focus in that context (regardless of how much free content surrounds it). —David Levy 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This isn't an issue for the main page in any case. If you genuinely believe the logo is subject to copyright then you should take this to File:Nintendo.svg and ask for the licensing to be modified to a NFCC license. If not, then it's irrelevant. The main page policy on NFCC images is completely irrelevant when the image itself is not NFCC tagged Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hook deleted in the middle of run

After it had sat on the suggestions page and and the DYK queue for about two weeks with no objections, DragonflySixtyseven unilaterally removed my hook in the middle of its run. I don't think he was justified in doing so, as every part of the hook is quite well sourced in the article, and I don't think it was overly negative. I am willing, though, to remove the first part leaving it as

I'd like the hook to be given another full run. — Jake Wartenberg 20:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Is her lawsuit still in progress? DS (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe so. It was filed in 2002, and my research hasn't indicated anything to the contrary. — Jake Wartenberg 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Since her lawsuit is about whether her dismissal was justified, I don't think it would be a good idea for our front page to flatly state that yes, her dismissal was justified (which that hook pretty much did). DS (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the modified hook, above? — Jake Wartenberg 21:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This woman is only notable for contested allegations that are the subject of legal action? I'd say this is NOT a candidate for the mainpage.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to why you don't feel the hook is appropriate. Are you questioning the notability of the article? — Jake Wartenberg 22:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No, she's notable enough for an article, because of the contested allegations and the effect thereof. But given that this is all still the subject of legal action, it would be horribly inappropriate for us to have a hook about it. And the neutered hook isn't actually very interesting. DS (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur on the problem of it seeming a bit dull. How about, hmm. "...that scientist Joyce Gilchrist provided forensic evidence for over 3,000 criminal trials in Oklahoma?" - means we avoid emphasising the death-sentence issue, since that's contentious, but has a big enough number to still seem interesting. Shimgray | talk | 22:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Her principle notability concerns the allegations, which are under legal dispute. This is simply not a responsible situation that wikipedia should get into.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Width of left and right side should both be 50%

{{editprotected}}

I would like both the "TODAY'S FEATURED ARTICLE; DID YOU KNOW" and the "IN THE NEWS; ON THIS DAY" sides of the main paged changed to style="width:50%" because it looks better with the left and right sides the same width.--Chuck Marean 23:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Previous experimentation and discussion led to a different determination (though the matter certainly can be revisited).
2. Per the {{editprotected}} template's wording, please use the tag only to request edits that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus. —David Levy 23:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've now read the fine print. However, the edit did not seem controversial to me. I tried the edit in a sandbox and it works. This is how it's done: under "IN THE NEWS; ON THIS DAY" it says "class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%;" and above under "TODAY'S FEATURED ARTICLE; DID YOU KNOW" it says "class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%;" If they are both changed to 50%, both the left and right columns are the same width. They are so similar in width now, the difference in width looks like accident. Chuck Marean 01:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of how to perform the requested edit. But you need to understand that any significant change to the main page's layout is likely to be controversial (even if there is consensus for it). Also note that this idea has been considered and rejected in the past. That doesn't mean that it cannot be reconsidered and accepted now, of course.
Personally, I prefer the current appearance. For some reason (perhaps because of the lack of bullet points in the Today's featured article section), making the columns equal in width causes the right-hand column to visually dominate (IMHO). As that column's sections are In the news (whose content typically remains on the main page for the longest duration) and On this day... (whose content is recycled from year to year), that isn't what we want. —David Levy 02:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I cannot remember where the discussion is archived, but I recall that the column with the "Today's featured article" summary is wider because it is all prose, while the other three sections are bulleted lists. And with more space, the prose is easier to read on a low-resolution 800x600 monitor. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I recall that as well. I believe that this was discussed during the 2006 redesign process (and possibly elsewhere). —David Levy 02:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's on purpose, maybe it should be 60:40 so it doesn't look like a mistake. I think the right-hand column dominates because of it's color.--Chuck Marean 07:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that it looks like a mistake (and I don't recall that complaint arising before). —David Levy 10:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC) It doesn't look like a mistake to me. It may depend on your window width. At 1280 it looks fine to me and I expect increasing it will make it worse. With a lower width, I guess it could look like a mistake although it's still a bit of a stretch and in any case it still looks fine to me and I expect making it greater will just make it worse, not better. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at the Main Page again using a low-resolution 800x600 monitor: the 55:45 looks alright, but resetting it 60:40 would make the right column harder to read, especially the first bulleted item next to the image. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
In any case you can't determine consensus without discussion of which there was none at the time and the proceeding discussion demonstrates that there is no consensus anyway. In conclusion, presuming an edit is not going to be controversy because you think it's a good idea without discussing first when it is a significant change to a highly visible area of wikipedia is an inherently a bad idea Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I mean it’s obviously not 50:50 and I’ve always thought it was not intentional. However, after comparing it with 50:50, I notice it does draw attention to “Today's featured article” rather than “In the news,” which to be objective should contain more civilized news than hard news. --Chuck Marean 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"[W]hich to be objective should contain more civilized news than hard news." That point is, it seems, irrelevant to the instant discussion, but I should much appreciate your elucidating it; I don't understand the suggestion at all. 68.249.7.161 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, not so much bad news, i.e. to be better reading and role model and more slice of life. Maybe history would be better if they had reported more of the good things they took for granted. Anyhow, if 50:50 is used, an extra border around "Today's featured article" would also draw attention to it. For example: |style="color:#000;" | <div id="mp-tfa" style="border:1px solid #22AA55;padding:.3em">{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</div> --Chuck Marean 19:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruth Padel

Fellow editors and admins, at BorgQueen's departure (and to avoid talking to myself at WP:ITN/C again), I have come to ask your thoughts on the current image problem at ITN on the Main Page. Would a cropped version of Ruth Padel reading at Somerset House do the trick? The image in her article is no longer on her website so we will have to improvise in our task to oust the repeated flags and symbols syndrome of recent days (what next, maps?)... --candle•wicke 04:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Call me copyright paranoid, but I am hesitant on any website that clearly does not state that it is free content that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. In fact, I would rather this discussed somewhere like WP:MCQ first instead of here, since the first step is actually figuring out the correct license before you upload it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"These below can be used without a credit." --candle•wicke 04:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
A declaration stating that "These below can be used without a credit" does not necessarily mean that the image has been licensed under the GFDL, or any other free content license in which it can be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. Glad to have that cleared up. :) --candle•wicke 06:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Current DYK item query

The source that has been used and verified for British Comedy Guide - currently on the main page - is the subject's own website. As there is no proof of notability, I consider this to be a pretty poor candidate to be featured on the front page. A quick Google search comes up with the British Comedy Awards, which are not the same thing and there is no evidence of press coverage, recognition or quotes by the winners of the awards mentioned in the article. I think this should probably be removed until it can be proven to be a notable article. Howie ☎ 02:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest these sort of comments are posted to WP:ERRORS where they get addressed speedily. I regret I personally didn't see this until now. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Current DYK item query

The source that has been used and verified for British Comedy Guide - currently on the main page - is the subject's own website. As there is no proof of notability, I consider this to be a pretty poor candidate to be featured on the front page. A quick Google search comes up with the British Comedy Awards, which are not the same thing and there is no evidence of press coverage, recognition or quotes by the winners of the awards mentioned in the article. I think this should probably be removed until it can be proven to be a notable article. Howie ☎ 02:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest these sort of comments are posted to WP:ERRORS where they get addressed speedily. I regret I personally didn't see this until now. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Women"

Is there something about them somebody isn't telling me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.19.89 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you having some problems with your girlfriend? --BorgQueen (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a grammatical complaint about the ITN article "women are elected to the...". Maybe the anon is trying to complain that it sounds as if all women were elected, and instead the anon thinks it should be "four women are elected to the..., the first women to be members of the Kuwaiti parliament.". Or I have this completely wrong, which is also possible. The anon could have communicated more clearly. User A1 (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this isn't even a complaint, just a request for more information on women. The questioner obviously thinks there aren't enough women on the Main Page at the moment. Has anyone any suggestions on how we can improve this; I find ITN to be especially biased... have we anything on Norwegian women? That is a topic worth knowing about. --candle•wicke 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
/me wolf whistles :)  GARDEN  14:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we should have more on Japanese women. I don't recall seeing anything about them on Main Page, perhaps except some porn actresses. There are a lot of talented, intelligent women in/from Japan, even though they might not be as globally well-known as Yoko Ono. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There, 69.242.19.89, is your answer. --candle•wicke 15:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I assumed the query was a variant on the geni/fairy godmother/god joke. [Subject wishes for highway/motorway across Atlantic/Pacific to visit mother/brother. Reluctant to grant wish as interferes with laws of nature etc, request to pick another wish. "I want to understand women." "OK. How many lanes do you want on that highway?"] The querist is obviously concerned that there is no article on understanding women. I am working on this article, but I am not sure if there will be enough space on the Wikipedia servers... Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it was because at one point ITN was replete with news items about women - first woman this, first woman that. This has been slightly addressed by the removal of the poet story, following discussion at WT:ITN. The grouping of similar stories was a curiosity and merely a coincidence. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The current ITN trend is all the more worrying - victory this and victory that. A victory for Norway in Eurovision, a victory for the collective forces of Italian and Spanish police, a victory for the UK tax payer (and probably numerous MPs) and the whole section reads as a victory for women in general. And that's before you get to the actual "declares victory" which the Sri Lankan government claims to have had. The trouble with all this victory is that it leads to an overwhelming sense of loss - the demise of the Tamil Tigers, Raffaele Amato and Michael Martin, the suppression of men and the dejection and heartache of most of non-Norwegian Europe... --candle•wicke 00:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Especially Finland... after losing their Eurovision points record. Poor Finland. --candle•wicke 00:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Apa News Item

I don't really see the significance of this. If somebody else were to overtake him in number of summits, that would be noteworthy, but him maintaining his own record isn't all that special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.247.88 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As admirable as the bloke is, I have to agree. If you've survived Everest 18 times, than managing to do it again surely isn't that surprising. --81.157.137.147 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is quite silly. Is he going to be mentioned every time he climbs Mount Everest? He'll be breaking his own record again every time he does... 124.176.20.49 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Also at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Apa. --NE2 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Not if this is his last time. But who is to say that it is not? He has to have some recognition!! Give him some credit! --86.40.209.112 (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I had an exam yesterday. It might be the last one I ever do. Why am I not on the Main Page?! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You didn't break a record (even one you'd set)?! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors - it appears there is already a discussion on whether to remove it. Matty (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Me being pedantic again! but the featured article mentions Hong Kong, talking about how he was the first ethnically Chinese member of the council etc. A modern audience may not understand what is going on there, i think mentioning that it was part of the British Empire would link it in much better (him going to England to study etc). Cheers!Willski72 (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure this is about TFA? It is about a dinosaur... --Tone 11:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It should read "picture" - I've modified the section heading accordingly. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone it makes sense now!Willski72 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this not posted on WP:ERRORS? That's where requests for small changes on the main page should go. --76.64.77.134 (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Because the original poster wasn't discussing an error, but a concern. Other editors shared that concern, and the main page was edited accordingly. In other words, this wasn't blatantly an error - it was a way in which the main page could possibly be improved. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I do wish everyone wouldn't jump down everyone's throats with WP:ERRORS. It's no the be all and end all for the Main Page. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If they weren't able to tell people to go to Obscure Projectspace Page #1924178 they might have to fix the issue themselves, and that is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that everyone apart from you should edit. --81.157.137.147 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Blame the vandals for making page-protection necessary. --76.64.77.134 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

i think wikipedia should have a themed front page

--Wikiapples (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? —David Levy 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Different colours maybe? --candle•wicke 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Like dinosaurs on Monday, food on Tuesday, etc? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And dinosaur food on wednesday! (Although some dinosaurs eat dinousars? The complexity of the position is unravelling!)Willski72 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The journey of food through the digestive system of a dinosaur day? --candle•wicke 00:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well thats the first Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday done! Friday could be the different types of digestive systems over the different dinosaur periods (Jurassic digestive system,Cretacious digestive system etc)Willski72 (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really helpful. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What? Sarcasm? I think not! We have nearly a weeks worth of good stuff here! I think that article you kindly draw us too is very succinct in explaining how helpful sarcasm is so i may begin to employ some myself. If i pass grade one i may even begin to throw in a few puns just to liven up the mood!Willski72 (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire section (and indeed others on this page) are varying degrees of sarcasm if you look closely. This is what happens when someone leaves a completely random comment and we can only speculate as to what it might mean before drawing our own individual conclusions. --candle•wicke 16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

North Korea Conducts Second Nuclear Test

Can this be added to the front page? [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCoolo (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the latest. [4] --LCoolo (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
CNN news article and adjacent video. [5][6] --LCoolo (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Oficial conformation of a 4.7 seismic earthquake by the USGS. [7]--LCoolo (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Go to WP:ITN/C. --74.14.17.47 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Auto Racing

I'm not suggesting any alternative at the moment, but auto racing reads as being very American which isn't great. dottydotdot (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been raised in WP:ERRORS. I can't think of a suitable replacement - "motor racing" is UK English which merely shifts the bias over the pond... perhaps "car racing", although that seems pretty informal. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a shot at making it neutral although it's now rather long - however as the page isn't level anyway it hasn't made that much difference. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Garden, that's better. dottydotdot (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Pleasure :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd recommend changing "American Championship Car Racing" to "the IndyCar Series". The former article describes the evolution of the top level of American open wheel racing, while the latter is the current top level competition (of which the Indy 500 is its most famous race). --Boznia 13:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jenson Button winning the Monaco Grand Prix

So what if Jenson Button won a single race, and some body won an Indy race. It is only one win, shouldn't wikipedia wait until Button wins the Championship (which he will, barring disaster) and Brawn win the constuctors, and the Indy guy does the equivalent before being worthy of the honour of being on 'wikinews'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.65.144 (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because the section is to feature new current events articles, not necessary those that are more newsworthy than others. 86.132.163.34 (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Both the Indy 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix are listed at WP:ITNR as recurring events which should make the front page. This is because it forms part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport and these races are often considered the most prestigious in their fields - Dumelow (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Bolded link should be [2009 Rabat stampede] not [Mawazine]. Stevage 05:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that article is nearly long enough. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I've found a place for it anyways. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It was one line at the time so a bold link would have been extremely questionable. The festival had not even been created. --candle•wicke 19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

The arabic wikipedia has got over 100,000 articles now. It should be moved from the over 50,000 to the over 100,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.82.201 (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

and also please update the main portal of the wikipedia http://wikipedia.org/ "i know that's may be out of your tasks but please tell the foundation that thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogaio (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to bottom of page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫
I've mentioned this on Meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template#Arabic. Looks like someone has already updated the main page here, for future reference, asking at Template talk:Wikipedialang may (or may not) be better. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually looks like someone already did it at www, I didn't look properly. In any case, I've also noticed it's possible for anyone to edit Meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template/temp and in a clearcut uncontroversial case like this, admins should just update the real thing accordingly. If they don't notice, you can try asking at Meta:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat or alternatively ask at the template talk page and attach an {{editprotected}} which also exists on meta Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Expo 67

Expo 67 is mostly about montreal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.118.154 (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dweller (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_137&oldid=1136981059"