This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
We had just a few people complaining about layout (and pretty convoluted with a bunch of FA versus FL stuff). Let's move forward. I bet 80% plus of the community prefers SOME design having FL on the front page to Sandy's "if the layout does not look perfect, I don't want it at all" Rumsfeldian dead-ender in Iraq perspective. Just make it, get it voted and roll. Then quit, if the community dithers. But show leadership and lead. There are people living, birthing, dying, killing, all over the world. This is just a website. Let's roll! TCO (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
We were rolling, but an unfortunate series of misunderstandings briefly derailed the process. That situation has been resolved, so we can get back on track.
But this isn't a race. There's no need to rush. In fact, such haste apparently played a significant role in the confusion. Let's take our time and get things right.
An explosion at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (pictured) in Ōkuma, Japan, raises fears of a nuclear meltdown.
A 9.0-magnitude earthquake off the coast of Japan triggers a 10-metre (33 ft) tsunami, killing more than 600 people.
The wording on both these items are poorly thought out. In the first 'raises fears' is an opinion and not encyclopdic wording, it's not in the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant either. If you put that in an article it would not stick an FA review, I don't think we should be promoting point of view(Avoid stating opinions as facts) in the news titles either, although maybe news don't have the same standard? In the second we have misleading information: the '10-metre' was the max so I think this should say upto 10-metre as the article does, while the 600 people is out of date as the figure has been confirmed to over 1353 people (see sources in 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami). Regards, SunCreator(talk)15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Temporarily uploaded pictures
Why are the pictures who are used in TFA and DYK temporarily uploaded instead of bein editprotected on Commons, while the Featured Picture is directly included and not even protected on Commons? F. F. Fjodor (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realise that because the tab said "Edit", despite it is cascading protected. But why are then the TFA and DYK images still uploaded to Wikipedia? F. F. Fjodor (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The DYK images are inserted (and subject to change) with little notice, so it's more practical to simply upload them here (unless the person preparing a queue happens to be a Commons sysop, in which case the image sometimes is protected there).
The same is true for ITN, which also often contains images cropped specifically for our main page.
Images appearing in the other sections usually are planned well in advance and protected at Commons unless they've been specially cropped (as I did with today's L. Ron Hubbard photograph, the uncropped version of which previously was transcluded from Commons). —David Levy18:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this for real? How did that get on the front page? That sounds a bit WP:WEASEL. Surely a more interesting fact could have been found than the colour and size, if it should have been on the front page at all. Sounds astroturfy. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, that's spam, pure and simple. It should be removed, and whoever added it should be warned or outright banned. Mokele (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The user who added it was User:fetchcomms. I can't see that it is *intentionally& spam, but considering the pre-existing discussion on the talk page for the article, this seems like a really bad idea. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? I never added that. Please check because unless my account was compromised I never did such a thing. This is ridiculous. /ƒETCHCOMMS/01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. But if so, you'll have no problem deleting it, as it's obviously promoting a recently-released product. It might as well be a banner ad. Mokele (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, I really don't see how this is advertising for the products. It's thinner than an iphone and comes in black and white. As long as it's an authoritative statement that's sourced in the article, is it really such a problem? Advertising it would be, "Did you know that the all new iPad 2 comes with all-new features, and has been brilliantly engineered by Apple to make a better, and friendlier, user experience for you?" I don't think this is advertising. Nomader(Talk)01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
If it's advertising, then everything here is advertising. You could say every DYK on the page is advertising for the respective item it talks about, and the Featured article is an advertisement for the book, and the featured picture is an advertisement for NASA, and the in the news is advertising for...... N419BH01:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Really? You honestly don't see how publicly touting added features of a newly-released product can be seen as advertising? That line could have been lifted verbatim from an Apple advert. Mokele (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a vague description of an object that could fit any number of things. That's not advertising by any stretch of the imagination. That said, if anybody wants to make a sensible suggestion for an alternative hook, I'll consider it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Off the top of my head? "...that sidewinding costs a third as many calories as slithering the same distance?" or "...that the peak power output of a Cuban tree frog jump is over 7 times what its muscles can produce?" or "...that a sand lance is a small, eel-like fish which dives into the sand to hide?". I can give you 20 more in short order, just from research done within 5 doors of my office. Mokele (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Mokele, if this were, say, of a certain species of flower, would you raise the same issues? "[Some flower] is shorter than the rose and comes in red and yellow varieties." This seems to have been spurred on by some anti-Apple sentiment, and while I don't disagree that the hook is poorly worded, we should be improving it, not just removing it. Whatever happened to building an encyclopedia, not removing its content? /ƒETCHCOMMS/01:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually own an iPad, so it's not anti-apple, it's that WP is not supposed to be advertising. This is "telling people about" a product that's currently available and engaged in a huge marketing campaign, and specifically telling them about desirable features. Simply informing someone that a given flower is a certain size or color is unlikely to directly promote the interests of any particular corporation, even if it does motivate someone to go to the florist. Mokele (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you have missed the point of my original comment. There is nothing notable or interesting about the colour. I would never have thought that "did you know that cows come in black and white" would have been on the front page. There is no "hook", and no reason for the thing to be on the page, other than that it is a new and shiny toy. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually own an iPad, so it's not anti-apple, it's that WP is not supposed to be advertising. This is "telling people about" a product that's currently available and engaged in a huge marketing campaign, and specifically telling them about desirable features. Simply informing someone that a given flower is a certain size or color is unlikely to directly promote the interests of any particular corporation, even if it does motivate someone to go to the florist. Mokele (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I just point out that if something as simple as "The iPad 2 is released worldwide by Apple" failed to make it to ITN because of concerns over free advertising, I'm truly dumbfounded that a more promotional line on it made its way to DYK. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Maybe we have to add something to DYK about the google tablet, and the dell tablet, and the microsoft tablet, and all the other tablets including the ones that haven't even been developed yet just to ensure we give equal weight to the entire sector... N419BH01:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)</sarcasm>
<sarcasm>And clearly, as someone who's not contributed to both, I had no idea!</sarcasm> In reality I think this only strengthens the point pushed by some people (no names) in the past that DYK is too lax, although personally I disagree. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe the point was to distinguish from the previous iPad and the problems that have plagued the white version of the iPhone. Being offered in both colors is somewhat notable. Anyway, can we work on finding an alternative hook? Maybe something like "Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs personally announced the launch of the iPad 2, despite being on sick leave?" /ƒETCHCOMMS/01:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a lame entry, no doubt, but "really lame" isn't something that disqualifies a submission, as far as I recall. I haven't looked at the article, but I'm sure something better could have been submitted. Regardless, it most certainly is not so bad as to warrant bad faith warnings against editors, which Mokele has thus far failed to apologize for. Resolute01:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not see the problem. That the iPad 2, essentially a tablet computer, is thinner than a phone made by the same company issurprising (i.e. an interesting fact). That it comes in black and white is just a simple fact (albeit a bit unnecessary with the first fact). The only problem, it seems, is that the iPad 2 is a commercial product. However, I do not think commercial products should be disqualified from DYK and the Main Page. We've had a number of commercial products as Today's Featured Article, and even a couple in In the News, without incident. Its position is DYK is even more innocuous.
And, your templating of Fetchcomms and description of the item as "spam" is ridiculous and insulting -- even before considering Fetchcomms had nothing to do with the DYK hook. -- tariqabjotu01:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to drag this up still/again. Its not really that different from where we were a minute ago. Two "facts" are now replaced by one weak fact. Why not just pull up something else that was in the list of stuff for today? Can we say its been agreed that it is "lame"? For the record, DYK says that "# The hook should [... (not likely to change, fine)], and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness.", so the number of countries it is to be released to is simply newness. If the Ipad was created by the same guy (this is fictional) who built some notable castle down the road, that would be interesting; this is fluff, 129.67.86.189 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thats just promoting the status quo; we can totally do better than this. I read the article, and it was little thin on the ground (fine, its new), but this page Template:Did_you_know/Queue has lots of stuff which is better; we should be creating the best wiki we can, and we aren't even trying?129.67.86.189 (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I like "... that the Mymensingh Museum in Bangladesh contains Saraswati and Vishnu statues from a Muktagacha zamindar palace, and a huge shade used during hunting from a Gouripur zamindar palace?" 02:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.86.189 (talk)
(edit conflict) I don't think it's up to you to decide when Fetchcomms should move on about the templating/bad-faith. Regarding moving on past this thread in general, the question right now is whether the people who thought the original hook was bad are fine with this new one. -- tariqabjotu01:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that Did you know seems to have articles that have very recently happened? Do you think this should be allowed that is should there be at least a 1 year time period before an artical can make it into DYK. Example from today "that the 2011 Christchurch earthquake broke William Rolleston's (pictured) neck?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.12.148 (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
New articles and stubs that have been sufficiently updated to be articles. From some of the suggestions in this discussion, I don't think 86 is the only person to be confused by this. I think this somewhat proves my point the other day that it does matter people understand that DYK is not primarily intended to be a collection of interesting facts but instead primarily serves to highlight new content. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
As a final note, failed ITN candidates used to be ineligible for DYK, but it appears that restriction has been removed. howcheng {chat}16:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
If WP had existed a century or so ago - would we be having discussions on whether the fact that {Company X) produces cars in colours other than black, unlike the Ford Model T?'
'New products unveiled' should be added to my list of topics that cause much discussion on the talk page. 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel (talk • contribs)
excuse an interruption to your discussion by an occasional dippr-in to wp, but surely the kind of people who use the site are not gooing to read the entry for the i product and rush out and buy one. they will be able to evaluate and digest the information. the important thing must be - is it true, factual.
Daiyounger (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Feedback regard page view statistics requested at Village pump
Please, please forgive me if it is inappropriate to bring this subject up here. I posted an idea at the Village pump relating to page view statistics being displayed on article talk pages. Since page view statistics sometimes go hand-in-hand with Main Page appearances (DYK, current events, today's featured content, etc.) I thought Main Page contributors might be able to offer feedback. Any assistance would be appreciated (and again, I apologize if this request does not belong here). --Another Believer(Talk)23:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really accurate to say "Following a series of accidents at Japan's Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (pictured), engineers work to contain radiation." when workers who are not engineers are putting their lives at risk working on it, too. 67.52.81.242 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we could still decide on one image then ask DigitalGlobe if they would be willing to remove the NC stipulation off that one image. Resolute20:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
They're not releasing them on Flickr, but they've sent an email to OTRS (ticket #2011031710013124) allowing use under CC-By-SA. So if they have an image of the plant that's better than the one we've got, my understanding is they'll let us use it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
That being said, I don't think any of the images, including the one currently there, are suitable for the Main Page. For the article, they're certainly informative, but for the Main Page, it's hard to tell what's going on at such low resolution. -- tariqabjotu21:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the first, personally. I think it's clearer. I agree it's tricky to get an image that shows what's going on well at 100px. I just thought I'd suggest it in case anyone thought some of the others would be useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes when you start a conversation, it goes in directions you don't expect. ;-) This image starts from a higher resolution, so it might be better to grab crops from. This one dramatically shows the (radioactive?) smoke blowing away from the plants. I'd like to hear others' thoughts, however.--Chaser (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
To be honest? Both pictures are not very good, and are long out-of-date and have the potential to be misleading. I would much prefer people look at such pictures themselves, in context, rather than have them presented (possibly in a misleading context) on Wikipedia. People (including Wikipedians) are making unwarranted presumptions about what is being seen in these pictures. And trying to find the "most dramatic picture" is a step on the slope to sensationalism. Carcharoth (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Search Box Is Tempramental
I don't know what has changed but I'm finding that these days the "Search" word that is filled in in the search box is interfering with the actual search.
So if you quickly click your bookmark for wikipedia, and click straight on the search box and start typeing very other you end up with work "Search" stuck in front of it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As an outgrowth of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_Wikinews_links_regarding_Japanese_Earthquake.2FTsunami I'm proposing that the link to Wikinews be removed from the front page. WP:NOTNEWS is universally ignored and major events have articles started on them almost immediately. Wikinews coverage is slower than ours - what's the point of linking to a news source that operates four hours behind us? By the time they get going, our coverage is as good as anything they can do and has been available since the start. There's no longer any point linking to this project when we do the job better ourselves. Exxolon (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
OpposeWP:NOTNEWS is a policy, not a guideline, and as such should NOT be ignored. Our coverage is only slower than yours because we have to review it thoroughly before we post it. We don't pick up the pieces after it's already in the public view. BarkingFish16:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose "XYZ project's not as developed as ours. I know, let's give it less exposure to potential editors!" ...Not really getting the logic here. 狐 FOX16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Whilst Wikipedia anihilates Wikinews on speed and quantity, Wikinews pretty comprehensively beats Wikipedia on reliability. WN uses FlaggedRevs to ensure factchecking, POVchecking etc is done. Also, WN does sometimes outdo WP - n:Talk:45 killed after Yemen protesters fired upon and n:South African serial killer guilty of nineteen rapes, sixteen murders versus Jack Mogale show that it does still happen. But, most of all, for other reasons entirely [1][2] I feel the two projects go well together. (Note: I have no idea where that debate will go, both sides raise good points and such must be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, I think the reasons given for resolution of that content dispute are perhaps even better as arguments against this more general proposal.) Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait I think that Exxolon makes a good point, and in the case of the Japanese Earthquake, we got it posted on the front page at 7:58 (UTC), and the article was pretty good at that stage - probably better than WikiNews' 90 minutes later. However while ITN was very quick in this case and does seem to be moving forward it doesn't always work that well. If we can make ITN work really well - and I think we have a good chance of that with the suggestions at WT:ITN3.0 - then maybe removing the link from Wikipedia's front page to WikiNews is a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Whether Wikinews should be linked from In the news is debatable, but Exxolon made no mention of that section. Based upon the linked discussion, it appears that Exxolon regards the Wikinews project as obsolete/redundant and wishes to remove all links to it. —David Levy16:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. If you believe that Wikinews is obsolete/redundant, feel free to propose that it be discontinued. Advocating the wholesale removal of links to an active sister project is simply disruptive. —David Levy16:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that he only means from the main page as he only mentions that link at the top of this section, which would be the link in the In the News section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Exxolon is "proposing that the link to Wikinews be removed from the front page." He/she hasn't specified whether this refers to the link appearing in the In the news section, the link appearing in the Wikipedia's sister projects section, or both. In the linked discussion, Exxolon states that "Wikinews has been superceded [sic] by Wikipedia" and "links to Wikinews are redundant." So while there are legitimate reasons to consider removing or modifying the Wikinews link appearing in the In the news section, it's clear that this proposal is part of a larger campaign to eliminate Wikinews links from Wikipedia. —David Levy18:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - the "[sic]" dig is mean spirited - "superceded" is correct for british english which is my native language. Exxolon (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Clarification - my proposal here is to remove all links from the front page to Wikinews as I feel that it's redundant to us. I'm not proposing shutting down the project or removing all links (links from articles can remain under the same criteria as any other links - that they are useful) - I'm objecting to giving Wikinews special status because it's a sister project. Exxolon (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear friends, may I ask you to add a hyperlink to our Tatar Wikipedia (http://tt.wikipedia.org) to you homepage. Tatars - are turkic nation living in Tatarstan Republic, seond biggest nation in Russian Federation. hope to hear from you soon. sincerely yours, Muhtac (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not rush to create articles for the purpose of reaching the minimum quantity (as other Wikipedias have done in the past). If most of the articles lack a substantial amount of useful information, the link will not be added. —David Levy17:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
So, since Wikipedia isn't censored, made me realize there should be, like, a content warning somewhere along the lines. Like all the other porno sites have. Or adult pages on Blogger. Maybe it's just me, but seeing all the little kiddies come here makes it seem like decent practice. --Reichax (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed something, not unusual. What happened to the featured sound section? I thought it was up and running. RxS (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Merceditas Gutierrez is linked to as the first item under "In the news", but her article has both outdated tags and the tag that states that more citations are needed. Before coming here, I tried to deal with it myself but found it surprisingly difficult to find sources. Perhaps we should look at having a new item in the lead there? Kansan (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Copying to errors in the news (near the top of this page) where more people involved with In the News will see it. --Banana (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't because I didn't know if it was an error per se. Either way, in the last few hours, the article has been vastly improved so it's a moot point. Thanks to those editors who worked on it. Kansan (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
She is not yet impeached, as the actual trial to determine whether she will be impeached or not will happen after the Senate of the Philippines convenes on May. What the House of Representatives did is transmitted the Articles for Impeachment to the Senate. The one on the main page says that she is already impeached. Please correct it. 112.210.234.142 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.234.142 (talk)
The Main Page has no way for a reader to enter the category system. I am sure there was a link at the top in the past to go directly to categories. Can we have it added? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK today says that German ship Columbus scuttled herself before she could be captured (during WW11). More likely she was scuttled by the crew. Moriori (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
ON THE MARCH 27 "ON THIS DAY" BOX, THERE IS AN ERROR. IT SAYS THAT NIKITA KRUSCHEV BECAME PREMIER OF THE USSR IN 1958. THIS IS WRONG; IT HAPPENED IN 1953 (SEE ARTICLE). PLEASE CORRECT THIS AS IT IS A BLATANT ERROR IN THE MAIN PAGE. THAN YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.20.97 (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
What would be a reasonable period for reposting a picture on the main page? The question is practical, to decide whether to use the picture of the day of 27 February for a DYK leading hook soon (in two days or so). Materialscientist (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
While I do not have a hard number to give you, it would seem that the question to ask would be whether a casual reader would be likely to notice a pattern. Unlike this example where a single image was being reused multiple times in single section during a single week, your example would have the image reappear after roughly one month and in a different section of the Main page. Given the length of time and difference in location, only a hard-core Wikipedia addict or someone with specific interest in the image or its subject are liable to notice any pattern. Thus there should be no problem with reposting as you are considering. --Allen3talk12:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems like common practice .. I am asking myself another question - how did this image become FP? (quality is not stunning, what is educational about this type of sandals?) Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The credit(s) of Today's featured picture is listed, whether it is a specific group, organzsation or specific Wikipedia user. This has been the practice for the Featured Picture of the Day since 2004. As for that specific image, the FP nomination discussion page for that specific image is listed here, if you are interested. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it's mainly an FP due to not having many FPs in the "human culture/lifestyle" (or similar) category. 狐 FOX09:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to ask whether there is a way to blur the brand logo of the sandals? It sure seems like an advertisement for, or at least an endorsement of, this specific brand and we usually avoid that kind of thing. Could we at least add a disclaimer to the box that the photo is in? One other question. Is there usually a 17 month lag between the discussion of a pic and its use on the main page. That seems to be fraught with out-of-date ideas and issues. MarnetteD | Talk14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
We don't do disclaimers and featured pictures remain featured pictures until they are delisted regardless of when and whether (and even if) they appear on the main page. They are not likely to be delisted due to 'out-of-date ideas and issues' but they may be delisted as our standards adapt Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a prude, but the April Fools Joke is remarkably low rent and just icky. Including an 11 year old child at the end of the punch line amuses who, exactly? Townlake (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
A marginal improvement; we're still spotlighting vagina scratching and cocks on the project's most prominent page. Shall I assume this won't be edited further and I should let it go? Townlake (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I have three Venezuelan friends named "Fanny", and doubt they would appreciate your view that their name raises "sniggers". Just glanced at the main page, nice job! There's nothing wrong with having fun once a year-- it keeps editors interested, and always generates good press. Chill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Malleus isn't aware of the double meaning in what he wrote. One would hope the individual responsible for posting this to the main page would have noticed it, though. Bewildering and disappointing that this actually got approved. Townlake (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please don't presume to know what I do or don't know. I'm perfectly well aware of the different meanings of "fanny" in the US and the UK, although rather surprised that so many others apparently didn't. But I have no tolerance for prudish interventions, so anyone who complains to me is talking to the hand. MalleusFatuorum02:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I think most 11 year olds will really enjoy the Main Page today. And don't we want children to enjoy learning? Qrsdogg (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably not I would say. "Bunch of sweet Fanny Adams" currently garners zero hits in the Google corpus. Most Brits I know use the sensible "load of fuck all" (approx 26,0000 hits) or the slightly more derisive "load of shit" (4,940,000 hits). Just being helpful FightingMac (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It is indeed worth reading, though a few words ("sticky buns", "randy", "hush puppy" [if you can find them]) are actually used in the British sense in the U.S. Unquestionably "Nipple" is the entry worth reading above all others. Wnt (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I find the whole concept extremely juvenile, but at least none this year's DYKs are offensive, unlike last year. – ukexpat (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, come on, it's not that juvenile. Nothing wrong with a little humor <0.3% of the year. It's not like we make up content for the day. SwarmX03:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
At least the ITN isn't full of April Fool's stuff. Last year it was full of non-current content, such as saying how Winston Churchill (grandson) had died recently even though the news was a month old at the time. And I forgot it was April Fool's and didn't even realize the article was titled Cock Lane ghost for at least several minutes. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I liked the ITN joke about Mayotte becoming a part of France. Brilliant! I mean, who would want to be a part of France? It has to be a joke! :) Ripberger (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Cock, fanny, har har. Are we all still 11? I'm sorry, but none of the jokes on the front page are actually funny. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I liked the one about a "messenger" from Mercury. I like the April Fools Day content -- why not have a little fun, eh? MNrykein (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think "fanny scratching" will offend a lot of people. Let's remember, we need to address the gender imbalance. Tony(talk)09:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am genuinely struggling to understand why it's funny. Is it simply because you used the word fanny and redirected it to cock? Is there a discussion page where this is decided? Could you direct me to it? I'm sure it couldn't be something so puerile. Thepm (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I find it quite hilarious that Victorian values have lasted this long. Contemporary observers of the Cock Lane scandal would find your view similarly amusing. Parrotof Doom11:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. That must be it. It is actually incredibly funny but my Victorian values prevent me from appreciating the humour. After all, I was born and raised in Melbourne. Thepm (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, there's no difference between scratching one's ear and scratching one's backside, or vagina. They all perform extremely important functions, only modern sensibilities suggest that mention of the latter two is somehow offensive. Parrotof Doom12:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You're obviously another Victorian. It's not sex that's funny, it's redirecting one naughty word to another naughty word! Next year, we're going to redirect poo to wee. Thepm (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that "Fanny" has very different definitions in the US and UK (and probably differs around the rest of the English speaking world too, if I had to guess). In the US, "fanny" just refers to someone's bottom, in the UK, I am told that it is much more specific to a part of female anatomy. (correct me if I'm wrong) Falconusptc15:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Get off the US Bashing
Ntrepid did not receive a government contract to create sock puppets. The article describes accurately that the contract covers an online technique that is sometimes referred to as "sock puppetry" but that is far different from the tease in Did You Know. Wikipedia does not need to be the National Enquirer or The Globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starranger00 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you miss the date? Anyway as far as I know they were hired to create sock puppets. The fact you thought of the wrong sockpuppets is not our fault. When reading the hook, the other kind of sockpuppets didn't even enter my mind. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHAHA Jack Sebastian, comments like the one you just posted are the reason why i work on the April Fools main page.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Disgraceful. Keep the April Fools Day jokes off Wikipedia!
We are supposed to be a website of information, not mis-information. Aprils Fool's Day is not a cultural universal and it is confusing to international visitors. It's hard enough reading in a second-plus language let alone deciphering humor and sarcasm. Leave silliness to less important websites. Call me old fashion and boring but Wikipedia is supposed to be above such triteness. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the main page contains a great deal of interesting information. It's just presented in a somewhat humorous fashion, which will probably lead to more people taking the time to read the articles. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Overlords have heard your request and agree. It will take several hours for your concerns to be addressed, but rest assured that we will have returned to the regular wikipedia by tomorrow. Be aware, however, that issues like this one may occur in 1 out of approximately 365 days of the year. Quietmarc (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree with Qrsdogg, and I suspect that Jason Quinn is gaslighting us all by pretending to be a stick in the mud about April' Fools Day. I think we don't get odd enough on this day. Only the intellectually stunted cannot take a joke. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I was quite serious. Wikipedia should not pander to the lowest common denominator by feeling a need to entertain readers to keep them interested. The urge to entertain and provide information is exactly what caused Fox News and CNN to become vendors of trash instead of news. Wikipedia, especially the English language version, has an international audience. April Fools Day is mostly a Western concept therefore part of the audience that will be reading isn't even aware of April Fools Day and will take misinformation presented as literal and real. Quite frankly, this is acting like children and it spoils some of Wikipedia's reputation as a source for good information. If we want the encyclopedia to be taken seriously, we have to act seriously. It's not a matter of being a "stick-n-mud". It's a matter of knowing the boundaries between proper and improper behavior and when and where to be serious and not to be serious. If editors feel the need to do an April Fools joke, do it on your personal blog. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Jason Quinn, is English your first language? I will be surprised if the answer is yes, because English certainly is my first language and I had to read your posts twice to understand them. That said, last year's 1 April TFA got over 300,000 views, the fourth highest in Wikipedia's recorded history, so perhaps your boundaries might benefit from being expanded. Parrotof Doom16:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I found a couple minor mistakes (an omission of the word "to" and another botched word in my comments) which have now been corrected. Neither mistake made my comments hard to understand. Parrot of Doom, when you say "I had to read your posts twice to understand them" there's another possible interpretation that you didn't consider. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have mentioned the irony in your exclamation that international visitors might find the main page difficult to comprehend, while that same exclamation appears to have been written by a 10-year-old. So is the interpretation you claim I missed that you're just trying to hide your own deficiencies? In which case I might remind you that the English Wikipedia is but one of many, and perhaps you're reading the wrong one. Parrotof Doom17:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It'd call it a statement rather than an exclamation, which I think is a strange choice of wording, but I digress. As a scientist, I have much experience with non-native language speakers from the beginner-level to true polyglots who speak five or more languages. I know and understand the pitfalls they have when reading English sources. I also know that these people often go to the English Wikipedia even before the Wikipedia in their own language. It's simply a better resource usually so they go their first. Parrot of Doom, you really are starting to trend into uncivil territory here. My points were valid, or at least valid enough not to deserve ridicule. You have offered less in the way of refuting them than you have in insulting me (rather unfairly in the first place). Jason Quinn (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think my points still remain: April Fools jokes are not a cultural universal, it can lead to potential confusion (every year it seems like some newspaper publishes some April Fools joke as real so this is a valid concern), and as another editor points out, spills outside of April 1, so that March 31 and April 2 are contaminated by these jokes, which further causes confusion to international audiences. Heck, why not use "April Fools jokes" on pages outside of the main page too? This is not something that should be encouraged or become an annual tradition here. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Jason. It's trivia. Definitely NOT encyclopaedic. And, living in a place nearly as far from the zero meridian as one can be, very misplaced in time. The would be comedians may want to create their own page, but don't stuff up the front end of Wikipedia. Claims of popularity do not demonstrate merit. Tabloid media is popular, but we don't otherwise try to emulate it. HiLo48 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
How is Melbourne or thereabouts 'nearly as far from the zero meridian as one can be'? It's not even over 145! Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Still having daylight saving, we are 11 hours ahead of UTC. In effect, that's "nearly as far...as one can be". HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree totally that a joke is only as offensive as you want it to be. If someone gets particularly offended at seeing "fanny", perhaps the internet isn't the best place for them... Juliancolton (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
If someone is offended, then it's offensive. Many of the people offended are regular users of Wikipedia, i.e. not Conservapedia people. Telling someone they shouldn't be offended never works. Such content would never normally be on major Wikipedia pages. Why do it at all? HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Eh. We get into this debate every April 1st. It used to be a lot worse, when actual misinformation was placed on the main page. I remember one year there was a faux announcement about Wikipedia being sold to Britannica, resulting in an admin edit war. The current compromise involves intentionally misleading prose explaining actual facts. It's not so bad for DYK or TFA, but for Current Events and On This Day, it's rather grating. Serious events have happened and continue to happen on April 1 and they're often slighted in the Main Page hijinks. Personally, I think it's one of those things that goes against the previously stated aim of trying to achieve Britannica quality or better. But hey, it's popular, so what are you gonna do? --Jtalledo(talk)20:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Get people to think about what those opposing it are actually saying, and not just brush it off with WP:ILIKEIT. Tabloid media is popular. We don't try to emulate that on Wikipedia. If "it used to be a lot worse", at least you're acknowledging that it's a negative thing, and you're saying we're heading in the right direction by having less of it. Let's have none. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I would also concur about making a joke about a story wherein folk are actively suffering, but then, that would seem to be a given. Everything else, I feel is fair game. I think that the main impression of some is that Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed a single day of irreverence because we are trying to be Britannica or whatever (comments like 'it brings down the tone' smack of precisely this disconnected viewpoint). If so, they are wrong; Wikipedia is a phenomenon unto itself, but it would be incompetent and self-deceptive to augment Wikipedia's weight as more than it is. It's an online encyclopedia than anyone can edit - guess what? Most folk have more than a small-sized sense of humor. Thank God (Gaia, Satan, The Great Pumpkin or whatever your pleasure) that they remain in the minoririty. Levity is equally important.
JTalledo makes the critical point that the April Fools page is better in that it doesn't offer fake facts as real. That would damage our credibility and "lower the tone". Wit means taking a fact and turning it slightly to find something funny about it. True, puns are the lowest form of wit, but there is little accounting for personal Laugh-o-Meters. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for pointing this out. However, it's April Fools Day, and per tradition, the 1st April Wikipedia main page is a bit... Different. :) --KFP (contact | edits) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I actually did that bit of "vandalism". It's a bit like saying "George W." instead of George W. Bush. I think his friends might have actually called him "Thomas Jefferson" sometimes. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I also no longer wish to continue with my subscription. I'd like to know where I can go to schedule an appointment for someone from Wikipedia to come over and remove it from my internet.--Boznia18:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
And when you are done, could they stop on over and remove the 'why fie' from my home? everywhere I go with my computer in my home, it's telling me it cannot see the 'why fi' - it's causing an existential crisis on my computer, and it isn't listening to any intervention arguments I propose (like, 'why not fie?'). And yes, might as well have them remove the internets as well. It's using up all the good clean air in my home. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK today
Thanks and congratulations to all the editors who helped with this set of sharp, witty, ridiculous, and still-factual DYK articles and hooks. You all rule, even the fanny scratchers. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The DYK section seems to suggest that Batman province is half female. Are you sure? In the article there is NO mention whatsoever of gender balance or imbalance. Do you have a SOURCE for your assertion that there is no gender imbalance in Batman provice, or are you taking that out of your not-so-smelly arses? Sorry about the joke I couldn't help myself...
But now, really, I was under the impression that April Foollery should be funny and slightly misleading but CORRECT. Is this correct? Probably NOT. In the same way we could say that Dubai is half female and then tell our unsuspecting readers: ha ha fooled you, it's actually just a quarter female. And there goes Wikipedia's credibility, what was left of it, down the drain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"The total population was 510,200 in 2010 with 373,388 people living in the urban areas, mostly in the capital. It was 49.8% female." Good enough? DS (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
At some stage in the past, when Wikipedia was much smaller, a handful of enthusiasts got support for trying to have some fun on the Main Page on April 1. Now those who remain keen on the idea present it as though the tradition is as fixed, and the abandonment of it as unthinkable as that of Christmas, Valentine's or New Year. None of those days "infects" every element of MP, yet alone diverts many of those elements from their essential function or nature. If the Main Page elements have any purpose, such as a role in securing Wikipedia's intended reputation as a reliable encyclopaedic source, it has that purpose every day, including 1 April. I see no objection to a humourous pic or a trompe d'oie being selected as TFP in honour of the day, or selection of some scam as TFA: an encyclopaedia should report journalistic fun and games, but it should not ape them. Discuss. Kevin McE (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree: It's become a nuisance in its own right, comparable to vandalism, and this year (see section below about 'fanny scratching') very far from mildly amusing, rather bordering on the outrightly offensive, to British English users (who understand 'fanny scratching' as 'scratching the vaginal area'), an infelicity hugely compounded by the absolutely excruciating reference to an 11 year old girl. Questions of elitism arise 1 (today) American elitism 2 the elitism of the Wikipedia administrators who presumably control the main page and who are necessarily making judgements beyond their remit to administrate an encyclopedia. Implicit in every April Fool is the message 'hah hah cleverer than you': it really doesn't become Wikipedia. FightingMac (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree: Unequivocally. Google might alter its banner, and the Wikipedia might do the same, however it would be unthinkable for Google to spend the whole day providing an objectionable banner and misleading links that go to the wrong site or some such. If the Wikipedia is to be taken at all seriously, then it must maintain a foundation of stability. Obvious and intentional references to "fun" articles that are relevant to the history of the day are one thing, but there's no need to be misleading or deliberately change any page that would be offensive or vandalism on any other day. FightingMac, I don't know what Americans or our supposed elitism (as if we're the only ones) has to do with the price of tea in China, but I'm fairly certain that making edits to their encyclopedia is fully within the purview of the administrators, no less than it is with the editors of the Britannica or O.E.D. Regardless, had I bothered to look I myself would have reverted any objectionable material on sight, regardless of day. Besieged (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In "On this day": "The people of Iran (flag pictured) overwhelmingly approved a national referendum to renovate their government buildings." Is that meant to be funny? 'Cos it's not. There's no actual humour or 'fooling' here, just being stupid. Can we please change that? Fences&Windows00:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I Agree with Fences -- people died in that event. I do not this this should be used as humor even if the link takes you to a serious article. dashiellx (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I feel that the jokes were cut back alot this year which is a real shame, I mean why is everything so politically correct now? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This one is top of any class: "Arsoles are only moderately aromatic"! It is at once a perfect April Fools' hook, and yet an absolutely truthful and generally quite enlightening description of the compound which, after you've reviewed the formula and the article, will stick with you for many years to come. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
We still have four out of five fields taken over. ITN was in a far too much critical situation to have joke items because we saw very fast moving events yesterday, along with the Libyan Crisis and the Earthquake. My original query on the subject was on the Earthquake itself: I didn't expect the whole thing to become that big. --Marianian(talk)01:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think wikipedia's credibility is in any way damaged by the April Fool's Day MP. Everything is still factual and encyclopedic, but our ability to not take ourselves too seriously 1 day out the year is what reminds us this is a community of volunteers, not a bunch of stuck-up profit-driven "scholars". I really do look forward to the April Fools day MP...and yes, I know uncyclopedia exists, but dammit, we aren't professionals! Why should we act like them? Antimatter--talk-- 04:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a pity that Today's Joke requires two ship names to be written in plain text while two others are in italics (in Did You Know). Kind of seems like an error to me but I'll report it here since it's connected to the more general April Fool's Day thing.--Cam (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There's another ship and a book title in hooks for tomorrow afternoon that aren't italicized either. I think the nature of the jokes would be too obvious if italics were correctly used. Italics will be used for a species name, however, but I think the joke survives. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's credibility isn't damaged by a little bit of fun one day of the year. The word play, even if crude, is witty, memorable and informative. Good God, the two are not mutually exclusive -- Chaucer and Shakespeare joked about country matters, after all, and none revile them for it. The Fanny one is especially brilliant since it has multiple layers of hilarity. "OH MY WORD, TIS OFFENSIVE IN BRITISH" -- what? I assume that vaginas, much like penises, do in fact itch sometimes? People, lighten up. We have a policy against censorship and a policy about not taking things too seriously (no?), and this little bit of fun (with attendant great press) is a fine example of that in action and a great reminder that Wikipedia is not yet absolutely a soulless bureaucracy. Zelse81 (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There are clever April Fool jokes and there is mindless self-indulgence. This year's effort is so juvenile and crass that it makes me creep... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeefart (talk • contribs) 13:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think it help's Wikipedia's credibility that we use a special occasion as an opportunity to educate.
No joke, I'll bet more people learn more things from today's main page than on any other single day. APL (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I think it would be nice if the jokes were less juvenile overall - though keep some of it, as no type of humour should be excluded just because - but at least our jokes are factually valid. Kind of hard to claim that we will lose credibility when we are using absolute truth in our jokes, while every media outlet in the English speaking world using complete fabrications for their jokes. Resolute14:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
So the BritClique so thoroughly dominates WP now that all the April Fool's humor on the front page are nothing but references to UK culture? I'm guessing the argument is "Well this is the english language wikipedia, I'm sure the german language WP has German references, etc. etc..." Sorry to inform you, but other people speak english too. As if it wasn't obvious. Jersey John (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's just that UK wikipedians were the ones who got most involved in the planning for the day. We could solve that next year if more [people of X nationality] got involved with the April Fool main page preparations. Then again, I'm an American and I nominated a DYK hook about a British guy for today. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, that's probably because the Brits get up earlier in the morning than us former colonialists. The early bird (especially those that have created masterpieces like Monty Python and the Myth of Hugh Grant's Sense of Humor) get's the worm, or in this case, the worm is a mention in the Mainspace. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Some clueless admin shoved a bit of code into one of the transcluded templates I guess. I'm all for a laugh, but whoever did that seriously needs to rethink "laugh" v. "stupid". It appears to have gone away now (although may just be my settings) Pedro : Chat 20:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The first time I saw it (about four years ago, I think) it made me laugh. Perhaps we could have Pedro peeking in, for the sake of variety!? I think I'd manage a giggle. ---Sluzzelintalk20:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Kittinger photograph: High-altitutde record set by photographer (Kittinger was #2)
As I recall, Kittinger went up alone. The Air Force wouldn’t think it necessary to put a photographer in a pressure suit and let the photographer set a world altitude record greater than Kittinger’s by staying longer in a balloon that just lost a few hundred pounds of ballast (Kittinger and his pressure suit).
As I rather clearly recall, Kittinger flipped a switch on the camera that started it automatically taking a series of pictures, and then he jumped. I think the current caption on the Main Page (…in 1960, Volkmar Wentzel photographed Capt. Joseph Kittinger making a record-setting…) is very misleading. It strongly suggests that Wentzel was there to snap the picture. It is much more accurate to state that Wentzel was responsible for the photograph (that is, if anyone can dredge up the National Geographic article to which the Volkmar Wentzel article links. Wentzel probably was responsible for choosing, configuring, and installing the automated camera in the gondola. 15:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg L (talk • contribs)
Cricket
I can see putting the winner of the Cricket World Cup on the front page, but I've never seen a runner up put onto the front page like its big news. FreddyPickle (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
if its unusual then there must have been a reason behind it... right? please read up (search on google) on the magnitude of the match or WP:ITN/C discussion to educate yourself. thanks. Note: the blurb will be replaced with the final winner in couple days so it wont stay for too long anyways. -- Ashish-g5520:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
FreddyPickle is right, cricket is way overrated in Wikipedia. Almost every week there's a piece of news in the front page about a cricketer who is probably already dead whereas the portrait of Vettel was removed from the front page in less than a day, the most recent a rather unexpected champion of Formula 1, the sportive competition that moves more money in the world. Curiously the portrait of Ferraro, the runner up for the vice-presidency of the US more than two decades ago, has remained days for something so transcendental as having died of cancer after years with the disease, a disease who suffer a die of millions of other people in the world every year. Totally biassed. 81.60.184.222 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Cricket appeals to nations whose populations exceed a total of nearly 2 billion. Your politician did not have such a global appeal. Not "biassed". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
A little story. My daughter, from Melbourne, Australia, recently caught a cab at Oslo airport, Norway, driven by an Indian taxi driver. When he discovewhere she was from he wanted her to tell him all about the Melbourne Cricket Ground. This interest is not just local stuff. It's all over the world. It's being predicted that there will be a shortage of taxis in Melbourne tonight while the match is on. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Dunno about Norway, but the closely related nation of Denmark has participated in the Womens Cricket World Cup at least twice. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Canada participated in the men's World Cup and I don't think they knew they even had a men's team. The Globe and Mail's sports section doesn't even have a page solely devoted for cricket. (Amusingly, the "football" page contains news from both American and Canadian football, and the baseball and basketball pages don't feature Canadian teams playing in Canadian-centric leagues.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
List of countries by English-speaking populationExcept for USA, most of the English speaking world follows cricket, so cricket would get a representation on the english wikipedia page122.177.147.5 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Disclosure first up: I am from India but hopefully that reason alone wont disqualify my arguments. Agree that the semi-final alone should normally not qualify for the main page. But the context of the match makes it important (May be this page will help):
2. First time that Pakistan plays in India after Mumbai 2008 attacks;
3. Coincides with resumption of peace talks, countries agree to permit investigators from opposite country on their soil;
4. Match attended by both Prime Ministers;
5. Both countries almost come to a halt - offices shut down/shops closed, Pakistan government declares it a holiday;
6. Allegations that the match will be fixed;
7. Spontaneous frenzied celebrations after the match in India and others parts of the world where large number of Indians live (and you guys know that means everywhere).
It's only short when compared with other cricket matches, or maybe golf. Just about every other sport I can think of is of shorter duration. Of course, compared with the Timeless Test in Durban in 1939, this match was over in a blink of an eye. That one was abandoned after 12 days... HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed at length on WP:ITNC. The fundamental thing is that this has made the front page news around the world, including the Economist, Guardian and Xinhua. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess it wasn't because a cricket match was held, it was more like it was the first time Indians and Pakistanis interacted with one another in an organized event, one-on-one since the Mumbai attacks. The cricket match was incidental. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Another excellent point. April Fools Day spills over into other days with a world-wide audience. Keep the silliness off Wikipedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Jason Quinn, I humbly ask you to tell a joke right here, right now, in the comments section, so that you can prove to us all that you aren't a stuck-up stickybeak troll trying to ruin our April Fools day. It's not on a content page so you won't be "lowering" the standards of Wikipedia. Yes, the joke can be at my expense, if it helps. I am not trying to put you on the spot, but I think it would go a long way towards redeeming yourself in the eyes of the pro-April Fools camp, and put everyone's mind at ease about this whole affair (at least until next year). Antimatter--talk-- 22:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That's effectively a personal attack. Try to discuss what other editors say, rather than other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
A Catholic priest, a Rabbi, and an investment banker walk into a library. The priest loudly and proudly asks the librarian, "Where is the section on Catholic ethics and morality?" Not to be outdone, the Rabbi clears his throat and adds, "And I'd like to know where the section is on Jewish ethics and morality." Before the investment banker speaks, Jason Quinn, reading at a nearby desk, asks if the trio can keep it down and respect the rules of decorum for a library. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I've checked the main page archives, and it seems that every April 1st we have the exact same discussions repeated ad nauseum: "Ho, ho, this April Fool's Day sure was funny", "No, it wasn't, it's trite and a waste of time", "Oh, come on, you need to get a sense of humor", "Wikipedia is better than this", rinse and repeat. It stands to reason that Wikipedia is consensus-driven, but what I am detecting here is clearly a lack of consensus culminating in what seems to be frustration, personal attacks, incivility, and in the worst case scenario, angered contributors leaving Wikipedia.
If we might all be serious for a moment, is there perhaps any concern of having the same issues discussed every year? Is there perhaps a way of coming up with a perennial solution to all of this? I, for one, would like to have a fair idea of exactly what Wikipedia is and what it stands for, since there are so many disagreements on that line along the wording of "this doesn't represent Wikipedia's professionalism", etc..--WaltCip (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
In complete seriousness, I suspect consensus on this matter will be impossible to achieve. It will be a perennial argument. Fortunately enough, considering other perennial arguments which never cease regardless of the season, this one seems largely to limit itself to one day a year. Fwiw, I arrived on this talk page just now to offer kudos to those who compiled today's main page content. I thought it did a superb job of injecting a welcome bit of tasteful well, maybe not that harmless lightheartedness into an otherwise serious (and properly so) project. There were no hoaxes, no misinformation, just clever wordplay. Humor being a highly subjective thing, it's unsurprising that many people weren't amused. But many others were, and those who followed a link or two and read what was there had the opportunity to learn something new. I, for one, hope that Wikipedia continue to take part in the rich, multinational tradition of April Fools humor if it can do it as shrewdly and elegantly as it did today. Good job! Rivertorch (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "today"? Where I live April Fools jokes have to cease at midday. That was 23 hours ago here. And obvious ignorance among some Americans about the crude meaning of fanny elsewhere was NOT evidence of clever wordplay. It was evidence of an insular culture. And I love humour. I use it every day in my work. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the folks who came up with the "fanny scratching" bit were British, so I don't think we can completely blame this on American Ignorance. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well. My mistake. My apologies to Americans. So, it was people who would have known for certain that it would offend a significant proportion of readers, yet still posted it here. That's appalling AND poor taste. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't personally see body scratching as either appalling or poor taste. But I think it's time to give it a rest. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The "poor taste" argument is actually separate from the April Fool's argument, and is usually answered by NOTCENSORED. As to front page use, I notice that the limits of acceptable ledes, as interpreted by the administrators, seem to be based on what actions/locations etc are tolerated in public, however barely. A Cock Lane does exist in public. People do scratch their fannies (Brit or American) in public. But when an 11-year-old girl was involved, that phrase was removed. Again, the question of whether people *should* be doing such actions or keeping such names in public is not one for Wikipedia to solve.
As to the Wikipedia April Fool's front page itself, an earlier comment pointed out that although the reader may be led to a false assumption by the lede, the ledes are never factually incorrect. Other publications may differ in policy -- but Wikipedia prides itself on an attempt to accuracy. Wikipedia -- all WP volunteers -- are responsible for the accuracy of its articles. Wikipedia is not, however, responsible for assumptions made without having read the main articles -- and especially not on this one day, dedicated to the questioning of assumptions.
Perhaps it seems silly that we should have such a day at all. Consider, however, that the greatest scientific breakthroughs have come from questioning fixed assumptions, and that most of those scientists have come from the same western tradition in which April Fool's somehow persists. Perhaps the tradition of April Fool's is a training ground for our future geniuses? - Tenebris
Surely the point of April Fools Day is to amuse, not to offend. Crudity is guaranteed to not amuse everyone. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I would not dare, myself, to proclaim what *the* point of April Fool's is today. I could tell you its history and how it came to be, but that would be neither here nor there. I might also invert a slightly different question, and ask the value of having an April Fool's at all. Surely removing it altogether would once and for all solve the differing opinions of what its purpose ought to be? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.136 (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
HiLo, your statement that crudity is guaranteed to not amuse everyone is true on its face but perhaps a bit misleading. One could well broaden the claim and say that no attempt at humor is guaranteed to amuse everyone. One might also acknowledge that there is no consensus, on or off wiki, as to what constitutes crudity. Personally, I find much of what passes for humor in the world at large to be crude or juvenile or just plain silly, but I don't find that any one topic (e.g., fannies in either sense of the word) automatically makes a given joke unwelcome. Context is everything. But that's just me. If we continue to acknowledge April 1 on the main page—and I hope we will—we will disappoint some people every year. That much seems inevitable. Rivertorch (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear me. I could say that by the same token your response is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; you know some will take pleasure, but you put your own offense ahead of that. But I choose to assume nobler motivations on your part and simply agree to disagree, which illustrates my basic point—the subjective nature of all attempts at humor. Rivertorch (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it's cultural differences, or deliberate obfuscation on your part, but I will restate my original point without irony, to avoid the possibility of the former. Crudity is guaranteed to offend some people. This April Fools stuff is optional. It's not informational content for articles. One has to make a deliberate effort to post it, beyond what is required to make Wikipedia a great encyclopaedia. I am concerned about the ethics and moral position of people who consciously choose to go out of their way to offend others. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing new under the sun, and there is nothing guaranteed not to offend anyone. Unless you find or force universality, HiLo48, offense will be caused to someone, guaranteed. Please don't think your attitude is exempt. A determined purity can be just as offensive as a determined crudity -- and neither position is likely to be abandoned just because others are offended. After all, when it comes to acceptable forms of humour, each and every one of us is absolutely convinced that our position is right and those who don't agree are wrong. Nothing in Wiki policy per se will solve this dilemma, precisely because Wiki policy does not dictate universalities of personal opinion and morality -- and that is precisely the nature of these questions. Wiki only goes as far as NOTCENSORED, and carefully leaves it there. - Tenebris
Each time I post more than one idea, you fail to notice, and attack one part of my post in isolation. Very frustrating. AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER STUFF I'SAID (in caps so I hope you will look this time), I pointed out that the April Fools stuff is not needed. It adds nothing to the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia. Some content that causes offence to some can be justified because it is part of valid articles. The April Fools stuff WILL cause offence, and isn't needed. Why offend when we don't have to? HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Small correction. I choose not to get involved in the discussion as to whether something is or is not offensive or whether crudity is or is not a valid form of humour. The moment that particular point is raised at all, it colours the remainder of one's argument, since it strongly suggests the true motivation behind other recommendations. If motivation is not addressed, all else is a superficial bandaid. As to whether Wikipedia's participation in April Fool's hijinx is appropriate, I believe that discussion is immediately below, in a different section, and I have discussed that there. - Tenebris
Again you have completely missed the point. Ah well, I will draw the obvious conclusion from your unwillingness to engage. HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
If that obvious conclusion is that I see no value in determining who is RIGHT and who is WRONG in this discussion, you would be correct. - Tenebris
Well said. I got to thinking this morning . . . what if William Shakespeare, master of the risqué double entendre, were resurrected in the 21st century and became a Wikipedia editor? We'd have to block him every year on April 1 or risk puerile crudity and poor taste invading the main page. It's a foregone conclusion, of course, that Jonathan Swift would be topic-banned from content relating to Ireland, children, or food. Rivertorch (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
If fanny and cock jokes are done in a sophisticated fashion they aren't an issue. The ones used on the front page were crude and obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
And Shakespeare's were not? and quite a bit more explicit at that? Yeesh, I should do a modern-language translation of some Shakespeare sections, and see how well that would fly on the front page. - Tenebris
If I may comment, I believe that some of the infamy behind Shakespeare was how the classic nature of his work has been maintained throughout generations in spite of the risque nature of his work. Translating it into modern form would almost certainly shortchange its quality and notoriety. Put short, it wouldn't be "Shakespearean."--WaltCip (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
@Eraserhead1 Shakespeare's double entendres were extremely obvious to audiences of his day, and many of them are perfectly obvious to the reader or theatregoer in 2011. Whether they were crude or sophisticated is, of course, a matter of opinion, but they were numerous and included prick jokes and balls jokes and at least one "country" (strong accent on the first syllable) joke. I don't have the OED at hand, but I rather suspect that the lack of fanny in the Bard's canon may be ascribed to one or more meanings (anatomy or given name) being unknown in Elizabethan times. Rivertorch (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
My point is that the Main Page doesn't have to offend anyone, on any day of the year, and on every other day of the year care and effort is given to just that end on not just the main page, but EVERY page of the encyclopedia. The Britannica may have had pictures of half-naked tribesmen in it, but it did not splash them across its cover, and it certainly declined to detail the Kama Sutra as extensively as it might have. Shakespeare worked on the Bible, and while there is some question as to whether or not he inserted his name into one of the Psalms, he certainly didn't insert any risque puns: so sorry to burn your straw man, but it was already covered in lighter fluid. The ONLY people who will be offended by the main page not being a source of inanity on April 1 are a handful of trolls and entitled editors: this is of necessity much smaller than the number of people whom any particular joke or prank will offend, which can only further damage the reputation of the encyclopedia in the eyes of those people and others who see it as a tool, not a toy. If you want some place to play on April 1, stick with 4chan, please. Besieged (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Briefly on a lighter note, your username seems singularly apropos, Besieged. <g> As to the remainder -- the Britannica has no images at all on its covers other than its crest and certainly does not have the luxury of reprinting a different front cover every day, so that cannot apply as a parallel. It also has a very different article and Internet front page policy on multiple levels from Wikipedia -- but we are not discussing either the article or general front page policy here in any case, just the April Fool's policy. Neither are we discussing how Wikipedia editors ought to write when they are working on the Bible, Psalms, Qu'ran in translation, etc. We are discussing only how front page administrators ought to write Wikipedia, and that solely for a single day each year. Whether or not one wishes to use changes to the April Fool's policy as a foot in the door to changes elsewhere, *this* discussion should remain tightly focussed.
Btw have you noticed how you went straight from "the Main Page doesn't have to offend anyone" to "the ONLY people who will be offended"? You yourself have now chosen to create deliberate offense in full knowledge of that offense, but find it acceptable because you have decided that the opinions of those who would be offended don't count (as "a handful of trolls and entitled editors"). Nor can you know with any degree of certainty that their numbers are in fact smaller -- judging from the comments on this page, it would seem that their numbers are larger. (Apologies for playing with your username, but a secondary implication of "besieged" is frequently "a relatively smaller garrison besieged by a larger army". Were the numbers reversed, the garrison would not be besieged for long.)
And finally, as to "reputation" -- if damage to reputation were so widespread, surely other institutions which also make a living based on their reliability and reputation would never dare to pull an April Fool's prank -- and yet many, many do so every year, with no one questioning their broad reliability based on the prank. As was pointed out earlier, several newspapers and other news media run outright fake stories on April Fool's. Those hoaxes do not seem to damage their reputation for reliability in the slightest, or call into question whether their public links are tools or toys. (Do they ever even print retractions?) Wikipedia holds a higher standard -- its current level of April Fool's pranks never involves a single false creation. But even if there were a reputation issue for Wikipedia, surely there ought to be at least one outside reference to that effect that would be found acceptable by standard Wikipedia citation standards. Please, do link it here. After all, Wikipedia deals in verifiability, not unsourced claims. - Tenebris 13:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Rocks and hard places
Basically, the arguments in favour are "It's funny, its only once a year, ILIKEIT".
The arguments against are "Its not what we're for, it's puerile, IDONTLIKEIT".
Truly encyclopaedic arguments are in short supply, so as someone says above, its hard to get a meaningful consenses.
In that case, can we not seek compromise?
Allow an April Fool day page, but maybe one year in 3 rather than every year.
Each section of MP (ITN may wish to opt out of the cycle) takes it in turn to take on April Foolery.
Acknowledge character of day by selections (something quirky, but not totally re-written, on TFA; trompe d'oie on TFP), some wordplay on OTD and DYK but not every item.
Without meaningful proposal or discussions now, we just roll into the same situation next year, and so on ad nauseam. Let's try to actually get somewhere now, so that people know where we stand next year. Kevin McE (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
At least in the UK, most newspapers scatter occasional April Fool jokes hidden (or at least not so advertised) within the regular content of their pages. If nothing is upfront or overt, readers get lulled into a sense of security, that nothing is different, until they come across a "news" item that they do a double-take over, and eventually realise the date - they've been "fooled". Why can't WP take the same approach? Within the DYK and OTD sections, intersperse some confusing (but factually accurate) hooks within the usual selection, but not take over the whole section - which, to some extent, defeats the point. For FAs, the idea of doing April Fool leads some years but not others is a good one, in my view. And simple crudity that is intended to give offense should be avoided. Essentially, we're here to inform readers (worldwide, not necessarily well informed of UK/US cultural values), not as a playpen for editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I, for one, would miss the full April Fool's front page, precisely because it so deftly skates the line without once uttering a falsehood, unique among April Fool's gags. There is art in that.
Perhaps more importantly, there is interest. Wikipedia is a site devoted to the wide sharing of knowledge -- but acquiring knowledge begins with interest. One suspects that a higher demonstrated level of interest, leading to more front page click-throughs to article pages, would be desirable for Wikipedia.
Fortunately for us, Wikipedia keeps daily traffic reports, both on the main page and on article pages. Would others be willing to allow the level of traffic increase on April Fool's Day, based on main page entry points, to dictate the future of a Wikipedia full page April Fool's? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.221 (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately for us it does keep traffic stats. According to the main page stats the readership numbers were 5.2 million on Friday 1st April, compared to 5.0 million of Friday 25th March, 5.0 million on Friday 18th March, 5.2 million on Friday 11th March and 5.2 million on Friday 4th March. So there was no significant change in Wikipedia's traffic on April fools day beyond what you'd expect for the day of the week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Your page view number is highly misleading. It makes sense that the main page views would be the same, because most probably don't even know that Wikipedia does anything for April Fools day until they look at the website and see it. To get an accurate measure of how popular the April Fools articles are, you have to look at the views for the articles themselves. The Fanny article got over 200,000 views, which is many times what the average TFA gets. I didn't do a check on the DYK articles, but I'd be willing to bet that the views are considerably higher than on a normal day as well.-RHM22 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The April Fools TFA is consistently one of our highest viewed: see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed. It always sets records; for comparison to typical TFA stats see here. We already lost some editors who were disgusted at the indef of The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk·contribs) because a few admins couldn't grok his sense of humor and unfairly indeffed him over long-resolved issues (he wrote the Ima Hogg April Fools' blurb, which IMO was our best, and got very nice press reviews, see the article talk page)-- do away with April Fools, lose more good editors who like to have some fun to break up the hard work every now and then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Stats tell you nothing, but the number of times an http request was sent -- its silly to think otherwise. Engaugement is not a number on a graph. Facebook gets more page view than wiki, but no-one would suggest turning wiki into facebook to get more views. There is no answer to how to engauge with a user. Its a complex question, which I can be no means answer in one sentence (and it is unreasonable to ask me to do so) But one can start by writing articles that are good; ie WP:FAC -- through inspiration, through reducing your (plural) profile to the validity of being able to state that this is somehow an "editors club", but rather something accessible to any old end user, by fighting instruction creep, by reducing complexity in wiki, and by having clear guidelines that are not necessarily motivated by tradition or "this is how we do it around here". In short, by having clear rules that people can abide by without getting into long talkpages like this. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
So you do not believe that TFA for April 1 was not a high quality article? I'm having some difficulty in understanding how any of the above relates to the April Fools Day featured article.-RHM22 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
So? It's a featured article, just like any other that appears on the main page. The quality is as high as any other FA, but it was chosen for the main page on April 1 because the content was considered humorous. Just because something might sound funny doesn't mean it's bad content.-RHM22 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I never recall questioning the articles quality -- I must admit I have not read it, and have little intention to, seeing as it is not, to me, an interesting topic. The discussion here is being sidetracked. The discussion needs to be framed in the area of -- is this a good thing for wikipedia, and does this engauge readers to disseminate article content in a better way than otherwise. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Stats can have meaning, if they are understood and are not created solely to obfuscate what they claim to show. RHM22 has it right. The key Wikipedia stats for April Fool's Day interest are not the main page lands but the click-throughs -- and check click-throughs for some articles as well. (Always use a Friday for comparison.)
Stats also happen to be the only objective measure we have. Take away objective measures, and all we are left with is a difference of opinion over something which is inherently subjective and which is not addressed by Wikipedia guidelines. The articles are as accurate and NPOV as any on Wikipedia, the ledes too are accurate. Nothing on the April Fool's front page breaks any of Wikipedia's pillars. Really, all we do have for guidance here is ILIKE, IDONTLIKE, and NOTCENSORED -- none of which really help us here. - Tenebris
What about choosing to deliberately offend people with content that adds nothing to the rest of the encyclopaedia?
(And Tenebris, has anyone ever asked you to please sign your posts with four tildes, i.e. ~~~~ ? It would improve your credibility here.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
"deliberately offend" and "adds nothing" are quite subjective; do you read minds, to know that the offence you and some others feel was deliberately planned, or was it simply an issue of differing tastes in humour? Have you conducted a poll to determine the proportion who believed the April Fool's mainpage to be offensive versus those who found it funny or engaging? Can you say categorically that it added nothing, when statistics show that it increased clickthrough and thus increased the number of people who read the posted articles. Whether or not statistics are the best way to measure "engagement", they can't be dismissed out-of-hand. 02:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Are we back to that again? We see other people having made a deliberate choice to offend only when we don't agree with their choices. We ourselves -- every one of us -- equally make deliberate choices to offend all the time, but we ourselves never see it that way because obviously nothing we ourselves say or write ought to be offensive to others. Only people who are not *us* ever do that. (I, however, am willing to repeat as often as necessary.)
(And no tildes, because I do not and will not have a Wikipedia account. You cannot know my previous work on Wikipedia with the ease of looking up my userpage, and I accept that. My contributions, even when I completely rewrite a page, remain anonymous, and I accept that as well. My work will stand or fall on its own merit within Wikipedia policies, here and elsewhere; and there will be no barnstars to mark its passing. Here and now, you have only these words and the fact that I am presumably a fellow human being to whom Wikipedia matters. If those do not give me sufficient credibility for what I say to be considered, even though Wikipedia itself does not require me to have an account by its own written policy -- whose then is the issue? - Tenebris)
(While I cannot comprehend your reasoning, it would be nice if you could find a way to add date/time stamps to your posts so that sequence of posts remains clear. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
Done. (Thank you, Rivertorch - I did not know that.) - Tenebris 12:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.83 (talk)
Compromising with censors is like compromising with Republicans; it is prima facie evidence of weakness, which is in turn certain justification for contempt and abuse. If we skipped the April Fools' for two years, we'd be told that since we lived without it that long, why should we have it now? Because we didn't have it in every section, it's suggested we have it in fewer; eventually in none.
The simple fact is, Nature (journal) plays April Fools' jokes, and there's nobody on the planet with a higher academic reputation - alas, despite the substantial successes of the open access movement. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this discussion will go anywhere, as those who can make the alterations are not keen on it, nor on the discussion. Now, regarding the idea that it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT vs WP:ILIKEIT, I think this is a little not quite right -- what about Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Why it matters and what to do. April fools, as far as I know (and I am no expert on this), is recognised in, largely in the US, Somewhat in France and Denmark, the UK to a small extent (occasional newspaper article, school prank) and similarly in New Zealand and Australia. I do not believe India, Japan, or other nations recognise this "day" at all. Whilst Japan is not an English speaking nation, there are many English speakers there, and India *is* an English speaking nation. This is an editor in-joke arising from combination of systemic cultural bias and wiki-tradition. Calling it IDONTLIKEIT vs ILIKEIT is not really valid. This is not censorship -- by all means put up gropecunt lane; as long as it is clear that this is not some kind of in-joke, but is really being presented because the article itself is good. Similarly for other areas of this page. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by 'recognise'. AFAIK most countries even the US, UK etc don't officially recognise April fools day at all. I don't see any reason to presume there isn't some recognition of April fools day by the Indian middle class just as there is with many other English speaking countries like Malaysia where it was definitely recognised to some extent even before the internet although perhaps not to the extent of joke articles in papers (although where IIRC the issue has caused controversy as it has in other Islamic countries over whether playing pranks is allowed in Islam [4] and whether April Fools Day came from celebrating Christian victory of Islam in Spain [5]). E.g. for India [6][7][8][9] (see the comments) [10][11]. As for Japan, I'm guessing in the internet era the concept has somewhat spread to there too (if it hadn't before) [12][13][14][15] although perhaps not so much this year for obvious reasons [16][17]. BTW just to be clear, while the blurb is written in a humorous fashion and the article is chosen specifically because it is considered funny by some, all TFAs including the April Fools ones need to meet the same FA standard and of course the vast majority of FAs including the April Fools one are eligible to appear on the main page at some stage (when is ultimately up to Raul654 although the system does allow priority to be given to articles with a strong connection to a date) Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the confusion with the April 1 main page is that people don't realise the things are actually true, just unlikely or worded in a funny way. So suggest making it clearer that all the things are actually true and not made up 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggest future locking of Main Page on April 1
I'd like to suggest that in the future the Main Page be locked against changes on April 1 by anyone except Administrators, 'crats, etc., for the duration of the day to prevent vandalism and inanity from rearing its head during that time; Admins who abuse their powers can be rather more readily dealt with than the average user and random IP's. This day seems to bring out the worst in some people. Besieged (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That's the whole reason for the "Errors" section at the top of this page - so non-admins can report errors, as only admins can correct them. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Quoting Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page: "The Main Page and its templates are permanently protected and may only be edited by administrators ... This cascading protection was implemented as a result of repeated vandalism of the Main Page and keeps our welcome mat clean." In other words, the Main page would be the first target of vandalism without the protection, no matter which day of the year. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The April Fools Day Main Page may look like vandalism, but it's actually a controversial but authorized, annual event. Art LaPella (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, the gag is that articles are chosen and then presented in such a was that looks like hoaxes but are actually completely factual. APL (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Changes to Polyzellus (MP April 5th)
I've made some copyedits to the lead of the MP article for tomorrow (Polyozellus) and request that someone with admin powers replace the current blurb with the new version. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Japan and the Middle East and North Africa protests
In the news section, why are the links to the earthquake in Japan and the Middle East and North Africa protests being added and taken away so much? Can't we agree on something? Elium2 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
they were removed due to lack of significant updates to the article for 3+ days. if something big happens they will get a new blurb. -- Ashish-g5517:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. They are not being added and removed with anything approaching "so much", and each time they're added or removed, it's with consensus at WP:ITN/C (except for one time when someone accidentally restored them). So, yes, people are agreeing. -- tariqabjotu15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I accidentally restored them when (thinking I was clever) went back to a version a day old or so to remove a posting that had some issues. Turned out to be not too clever and lesson learned...RxS (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that -almost- anyone can edit.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:SNOW close. For multiple reasons, including the lack of support here, the legal/technical aspects that the WMF would have to sign off on, and the harm that this would do to Wikipedia's image, it's safe to say that this isn't going to happen. Sven ManguardWha?20:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
In the mainpage we can read: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
However, there have been changes in the official policy which includes the Child protection policy which excludes some people from editing on wikipedia. This exclusion is immediate which means that it applies to newcomers so I propose that the text on the mainpage is changed to reflect this. Here is my proposal for change:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit."
We could have a secondary slogan that reads : "Hey, kid, we didn't say that anyone could edit it right now. Come back in a few years. We'll still be here." APL (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That's right, it is the group named pedophiles that are banned from editing. However, one might not necessarily like that group but the fact remains that this policy makes the "anyone can edit" statement to be clearly false and in need of correction. This has additional benefits in that it will silence many critics who have claimed that the statement is false. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem with this proposal, and the steady stream of others seeking to make similar changes, is that it seeks to cast an advertising slogan into the roll of disclaimer. Slogans express broad principles or visions and are expected to contain a certain level of puffery and ambiguity. Requiring a slogan to fully delineate all possible exceptions and qualifiers results in an unusable mess. Besides as anyone with real world experience knows, "What the big print gives you the fine print takes away". See the links at the very bottom of this and every other Wikipedia page for additional details. --Allen3talk18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Why not even go for a more grandiose slogan in that case? "the fault-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and just add some disclaimers in the fine print? The reason is obvious: The slogan would be to out of sync with reality, just like the current one is. With the new official policies that so blatantly goes against everything that the early vision stood for, the slogan leaves a very bad aftertaste. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If you check you will find that Wikipedia's purpose is creation of an encyclopedia and not as a forum for unregulated free speech. As for "new official policies", the core policies that form the basis for these reasonable restrictions have existed with little to no change since I registered my account in early 2005. --Allen3talk18:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, you have the Founding Principles as a guide and as they evolve, so should the slogan on the mainpage. What do you think is the problem of a more realistic slogan? Will people perhaps assume that there are restrictions on who can edit on wikipedia? Would that be a bad thing (given that it also is true)?Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If anybody wants to be that technical, one could say there's a difference between "can edit" and "may edit". However, we all have better things to do than worry about this. Kansan (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, very few things (on wikipedia) are more important that the fundamental matter of what the wikipedia vision should be and how it should be shown to the visitors of wikipedia. But oh well... Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no case where anybody without a blocking history cannot edit in the first place (unless they're caught in a range block, in which case, that can be appealed easy enough). I looked at the child protection policy and all it says is that people who either admit to being pedophiles or who act on it on wiki are to be blocked on site. If somebody has feelings such as that, but would never act on them, and would never say anything about it on wiki, nobody would ever know about it. Kansan (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, you can technically make an edit, but you will also be banned if someone finds out. That doesn't exactly qualify as being able to edit. You can express free speech in a dictatorship, but you will also be shot if you do. That is not free speech, just as this case is not "anyone can edit".
And there is no need to act on it, only registering and account is enough if the person also expresses his orientation in some way. It goes against everything that wikipedia was supposed to stand for. This kind of policy is just to avoid possible negative media attention and it cheapens the ideals of wikipedia. And we should reflect this in the slogan instead of pretending that everything is fine. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I value child protection very highly, and I guess the only other thing I have to say in response is that I strongly disagree and will leave it at that. Kansan (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You consider pedophilia to be an "orientation"? Is it possible that English is not your native language? Because the last time I checked, English-speaking nations (while sometimes disagreeing on the boundary between orientation and perversion) were in unanimous agreement that the mindset known in English as " pedophilia" is a perversion, a sickness, and a precursor to the sort of behavior that has rightly caused its practitioners to be labelled as the very worst sort of subhuman scum ever to walk the Earth. I don't think Wikipedia is violating any sort of principles by denying felons (or would-be felons) the right to make victims of its other users. Perhaps you feel differently... 174.252.136.207 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia as long as they follow the prescibed policies. A pedophile can edit wikipedia all they want if they don't make a statement that they are a pedophile or attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships. We have many people who are permanently blocked or banned from editing wikipedia. If they had followed the policies and community norms they would still be able to edit. They all made the choice to act in a way that got them blocked. The same applies to anyone blocked under the child protection policy. It is not Wikipedia that is stopping them from editing it is their own actions. GB fan (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Calm down guys, cool heads will prevail so let's not get gripped by masshysteria here. The policy of child protection have actually nothing to do with child protection, it has never been used that way and it most likely never will. That is not the issue. Neither is pedophiles the issue. It could have been any group of any kind and the problems would have been the same. It could have been constructionworkers from central London who where banned and then my criticism would be exactly the same. It would be a policy which violates the idea och a free encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit. It is not, and the slogan should reflect this change in policy. Simple as that. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, you want a cool head? Simple? Here's a simple, cool-headed answer. The slogan is imperfect: granted. Go click it (the "anyone can edit" link). Check the third paragraph: "it is allowed to be imperfect," referring to the project as a whole, which obviously includes its slogan. 'Nuff said. 174.252.136.207 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It also says right before that "Wikipedia is a work in progress." so why treat the slogan like it was written in stones and handed down by the gods? Why not make improvements when possible? What do we stand to lose? No one seems to be able to answer that question. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Has an improvement been suggested? Your proposal leaves much to be desired, for reasons given by Allen3 above. If someone presents a new slogan that is clearly superior, I know of know reason why it couldn't be changed. I haven't seen it written in stone anywhere; so far, I've only seen it in easily-changed-if-change-is-warranted electronic text. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing inaccurate about the current slogan. Anyone can edit wikipedia. It is when they decide to not follow the rules or community norms that they are asked/told to leave. GB fan (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
A reminder: just because someone is saying something silly, does not obligate you to argue with them all day. After a while, ignoring them is also an option. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The earlier discussion seem to suggest that a slogan should be grandiose and give a neat impression on the visitors of the site. On the other hand, there are issues with the slogan being too far removed from reality, even as far as slogan goes. So, why not make a compromise? By simply dropping the false notion of "that anyone can edit" we get the much more simple and truer slogan of: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Sometimes less is more. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The truth is, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Just because you may not be able to edit a specific page on Wikipedia at a specific time does not make the slogan any less accurate. we have 3.6 million articles and I think three times as many non-article pages. 99.99% of which are wide open for anyone's editing pleasure. Also, the issue of marketing/branding is something I think is better discussed at the foundation level, since a slogan change would change how most people view Wikimedia as a whole. Resolute21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Offical policy now bans a whole group from editing despite them having made no disruptive editing or comments. How is that "anyone can edit"? And what does you guys stand to gain from this marketing scheme? Money? Fame? I can understand why Coca Cola or Pepsi would do it, but who would you? Why should we sell a product using false advertisement? Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
To any editor who might consider replying: it is of course your own business whether you reply to this thread. You might save yourself some time, though, by reading the previous thread, closed by Floquenbeam a mere 8 minutes before Kingofthosewhoknow reopened discussion here. Flogging? Trolling? Further discussion seems pointless either way.
For the record 74.176, I was the one that SNOW closed the above thread, and I'm the one that is closing / closed this one for the same reason. Cheers, Sven ManguardWha?01:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jim Calhoun is awfully happy about that shipwreck
This really isn't acceptable. I know this has come up about a million times before, but putting someone's smiling face near such news is getting close to a BLP issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Three and a half million articles on english wikipedia isn't it becoming slightly spam ? For how long more are users going to be able to add their new articles (few times non-encyclopedic ones) ?
For how long wikipedia is going to last ? Once i've run into an article which was reapeated twice only that it was named differently.--Sweetcorn(msg)15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe we will ever run out of notable topics to add. One there are new topics everyday that become notable and two, there are, probably, millions of older notable topics that don't have articles yet. No one can predict how long Wikipedia will last, it is here today and even if it goes away tomorrow the information that we all put together won't go away. If I were to find an article that is duplicated, my response would be to determine which article was created first, look for content in the newer article that isn't in the older article, merge that information in the older article and then redirect the newer name to the older name. That way all the content is maintained and the newer name is preserved as a search term. GB fan (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
If nothing else - and I'm sure there's plenty else - we lack articles on almost all non-Western composers, their compositions, and much else, with the exception of maybe some of the most recent. Hell, we don't even cover folk music for Europe, let alone, say, Vietnam or Tanzania. There's plenty more to cover. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the first human spaceflight.
I just remind that this event should be reflected on the main page. I do not know if any free images are available for this event, so I prepared a collage from two images taken from commons: the portrait (with signature) of the first cosmonaut and the (copy) of the first space ship.
Please just go for it, and don't waste any more time awaiting opinions from others. It's already "tomorrow" in Moscow, the most relevant city, and will very soon be "tomorrow" in UTC. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I presume OTD will cover this, but I take issue with the suggestion that this, or any other event, "should" be posted on the MP just because the event was the first X. Plenty of other considerations need to come into play (including article quality, althoug this particular article appears fine on that). Just saying that nothing is, or should be, guaranteed an MP mention. StrPby (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Only admins can edit the main page, and for the most part, the main page is other pages transcluded to here. Basically, to approve content change on the main page, you have to be an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I am not interested in editing the main page in general, however, with regard to this particular case, to whom should I address? I've already changed the anniversary page [18].--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why an image pertaining to the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's space flight "should be on the Main page" instead of an image pertaining to the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Fort Sumter and the start of the American Civil War? Both are notable in their own right, and thus both events are listed today. And please don't get into those tiresome "USA bias on the Main page" complaints that frequently pop up here on this talk page. Thanks. Zzyzx11(Talk)00:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Reasons that some events "pertain to world history" more than others or some events are "more internationally significant" are extremely subjective, IMO – not sufficient enough to change the image. Even the WP:OTD guidelines clearly state that it is "NOT solely based on what are 'the most important or significant' anniversaries on this day." Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
However, your initial rationale was based on significance. And, if OTD is based not solely on significance, what else it should be based on?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Because that seemed to be your original reason for wanting that image on there in the first place, so I was trying to understand more clealry why you thought that way. And hopefully others would comment to. Other reasons in selecting the image include, as Ashish has commented below, an image that looks better on a thumbnail scale. Another reason is an available free image that clearly depicts either the event or the person involved. Others can be found on WP:OTD. I cannot specifically say why the image of Battle of Fort Sumter was selected instead of one of Yuri Gagarin since I was not involved in the process of the final selection, but I don't like changing images on the Main page just because one user feels that an event is more significantly important than the others. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
That was my fault: I've just realised that there is no image for this event and prepared this collage just few hours ago, so today morning it simply was not available. In future, I'll try to prepare images in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
i wouldnt normally support something like this but the current OTD picture you cant really see anything. way too detailed to be that small. i dont actually care if its yuri's picture or another from same article but i think the current one isnt that great. -- Ashish-g5500:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I have temporarily changed it to an image of Yuri. IMO, the images of the Fort Sumter do not look great on a thumbnail scale. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
After a long time (2 years), reading Wikipedia, and taking it in, there are still many articles of which I have to read still, but I have read quite a lot also. If you look at certain sections of Wikipedia, you will realize that;
Photos - are added by the same groups of people
Large and Important Pages - are edited by only a small percentage of editors
But what got me the most, is the fact, that, major editors of Wikipedia, such as administrators and patrolling personnel , feel the need to shove their opinions and article bias on to other people.
For example, if an administrator, has an Irish background, he/she will go on and make large edits to pages related to their background. Even subliminal edits, for example, where an actor, with maybe Irish parents, will have a much larger page than a more notable actor with an English, Welsh or other background etc.
I am in no way exaggerating , but I have seen over and over again, in my time reading Wikipedia, that a lot of edits are made to the same certain groups, mainly:
Jewish related topics
NASA related articles
Google and it's interest
Death pages
Microsoft articles
University pages
Modern music (2008-present) , where less thought has gone into the production, compared to that of 20 years ago, but more people are sadly aware of it, compared to that of the glam rock era etc.. (just an example - Friday by Rebecca Black has a much larger page than Bizarre Love Triangle by New Order).
and the list goes on...
If anyone else agrees with me, even just a little bit, comments on this topic would be greatly respected.
Well, what do you propose we do? Force people to edit articles they have no interest in? Wikipedia, for all its faults, is still the largest compendium of knowledge in existence, on every type of subject although, yes, there are more efforts going into certain areas. I seem to remember a statistic some years ago (although it's probably outdated by now and no longer true) someone pointed out to me there were more articles on Star Trek than there were about world politics. Speaks volumes about the interests of Wikipedians. Antimatter--talk-- 01:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
As Karl Marx would have said had he been a WPedian - having identified the problem, find an under-represented area and do something about it. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia languages section
Apparently both the French and German wikipedias (of course in addition to the English one) have passed the 1 million articles point; considering this, it would seem to me informative to add a "More than 1,000,000 articles" row to the list. Any thoughts? —Iamthedeus (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Right at the top of the page: "If your question is related to the Main Page, please search the archives first to make sure it hasn't been answered before:"
You forgot that Polyozellus came the day before! and looking at the cue for the next few days.... Populous: The Beginning, Parkinson's disease, and Pattern Recognition are next up! I think Raul is screwing with us. hahahahahaha--Found5dollar (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
If you'd to continue the "P" theme, Raul, I've written a little blurb for the city of Peterborough which can be found here. I don't think we've had any city articles recently... Bobtalk15:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Done, although for future reference, the non-specific date slot is the best place to put such requests. (And I'm *always* looking for them). Raul654 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The suggestion was launched at WT:DYK to add "that" to the "Did you know" line and remove it from every hook to avoid repetition. I guess this has been brought up in the past and was rejected for some reason we don't see. The "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" bit would then become awkward and could be removed (it is already awkward because a large fraction of DYK articles are not new but expanded). Thoughts? Materialscientist (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, well I think this thread may be a tad premature, as I would have preferred to test consensus at WT:DYK first. However, matsci has slightly misstated the proposal at WT:DYK. That proposal was to drop the word "that" altogether, not add it to the DYK header to make it Did you know that ... As a reader pointed out in the discussion, the word "that" in front of every hook is uninformative clutter that only makes it harder to read the hooks as well as taking up additional space, and it isn't really necessary, grammatically speaking, in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It complains about an empty <ul>...</ul> container, which is generated by an empty menu. Nothing to worry about. — Edokter (talk) — 08:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Timeline on FS/FL on Main Page?
A while ago we had two big discussions on adding FS and FL to the Main Page, both of which resulted in support for their inclusion. Do we have a timeline on the progress of this? Any updates from our coders? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
X! hasn't been around, and a couple crises eliminated much of the free period I had set aside to work on it. I'm trying to finish it up, but I don't have the free time I had last month. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you actively coding the prototype? Have you considered waiting until consensus on a layout is clear before proceeding (as previously requested)? Will you allow such discussion to resume? —David Levy21:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Can we lay off the damn sniping? That's the other reason why I'm moving slowly: I get nothing but grief over this, so it's a little hard to motivate myself to work on it when I do have a little free time, instead of something I actually enjoy. Adam Cuerden(talk)10:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I realize that Adam has experienced a great deal of stress regarding this endeavor (to the extent that he quit at one point), which is exactly why I did give him his space until he returned to this page to discuss the matter. I responded with some sincere questions (in no way intended to insult or provoke him), and I'm at a loss as to why he apparently took offense. —David Levy20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Adam, I can (sort of) see how you might have interpreted David's request for an update as an unfair prod but honestly - it doesn't parse that way to me at all. I'm sure many, many editors appreciate the graft you do around here and please don't think otherwise. Pedro : Chat 19:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, my response wasn't hostile or mean-spirited, and I'm sorry if it came across as such to Adam. I've stated several times that I sincerely appreciate his efforts. There's been considerable confusion/misunderstanding regarding the process, and I'm simply wondering where things stand.
I didn't intend to "prod" Adam or complain about a lack of progress. On the contrary, my point (which I've expressed to him before) is that he shouldn't invest time in coding a prototype until the community has reached a clear consensus on the layout. (A discussion was underway, but Adam closed it amid the chaos.) —David Levy20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
[unindent] Sorry, I'm a bit superbusy of late, and this project - which I'm finding it hard to fit in - isn't helping my stress levels. Once the prototype's up, cosmetic changes should be relatively simple to implement, so they can easily be discussed and tweaked then. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
"This is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted."
so I have to know, was the pixies album (doolitle) used as a quiet reference to the Doolittle Raid which took place on Apr 18? And which isn't listed in the "on todays date" this year? If so thats pretty cute 66.220.113.98 (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Much more likely it's because quoting the first sentence (with added emphasis):
Doolittle is the second studio album from the American alternative rock band Pixies, released on 18 April 1989 on 4AD.
Whether the timing of the release of the album had anything to do with the Doolittle Raid, I can't say, the article doesn't mention anything about that
On today - 121 years ago, Hitler was born. Yet this seems to of been missed out on the "On this day" section. Was he not notable enough? Wikipedian2 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:OTD, birthdays and deathdays are usually only posted on centennials. Even if someone was the most notable person in history, his or her 121st birthday would generally not be posted on there. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Is the death of an Indian guru at 84 more relevant than the anti-government protests in Yemen?
The order in which new events are reported in the the main page has been exceptionally altered to keep the death of an Indian guru aged 84 on top of the list leaving the newest headline reporting the agreement of the current Yemeni President to step out in 30 days in a second level.
This decision reminds me the day when current Formula One World Champion Sebastian Vettel won 2010 driver's championship against most predictions and combinatory. The following day his portrait had been already removed (in less than 12 hours) whereas the report of the death of Geraldine Ferraro was kept for about a week. I have the suspicion that the criteria applied to decide which event are worth to be kept longer in the main page are either arbitrary or biassed. 81.60.184.222 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If I had a dollar for every time a person got pissed off at the joke that is ITN, I could afford to edit Wikipedia full time. A huge debate just a few weeks ago leads to... no changes. Sven ManguardWha?16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that it's like pulling teeth to get anything posted. Participation is low enough that many times one or two editors can block an item from being posted. There should a be a couple postings a day but things tent to linger because no agreement can be made on new items. And then there's blood curdling arguments from time to time when someone doesn't like what does get added. It's no wonder no one wants to get involved. (that's not ITN's only problem of course) RxS (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually there seems to have been a reasonable increase in the amount of content posted. The primary issue actually seems to be content not being updated.
Maybe also moving the timer over to a 12 hour cycle would be worthwhile as well - just needs an admin to go and make the change. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of the current set Death of Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu, Haitian Election, Kunming Singapore Railway and Wikileaks are all just awaiting article updates before posting.
And there are also two further candidates, Cambodian–Thai border dispute blossoms up and Tanks advance on Daraa that are just waiting for an admin to post them.
The problem is the article quality and updating bit. I see one, maybe two of those that are postable. Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu has a one sentence update, Wikileaks is a mess, last I looked Kunming Singapore Railway is a stub. I posted Tanks advance on Daraa. But there's not as many ready as it first appears...RxS (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. There as no change in order. Ali Abdullah Saleh agreed to step down on 23 April. Sathya Sai Baba died on 24 April. I haven't looked in to the time zones but I doubt they are different enough that Ali Abdullah Saleh agreed to step down before Sathya Sai Baba's death. Therefore the items are still chronological as they always are on ITN. Importance, is irrelevant when it comes to the order, as it always is. It may be that the item regarding Ali Abdullah Saleh stepping was added after the one on Sathya Sai Baba because the item took longer to reach ITN standard, or it took longer to achieve consensus or whatever I'm not sure. But this isn't unusual either. In other words, there's nothing exceptional here, no altering of the ordering or whatever else was claimed above we are simply following chronological order as we always do. There is no real criteria to keep items longer, this only happens in exceptional circumstances anyway like an ongoing event such as the Japanese earthquake so it's not really an issue. Items are just added and removed in chronological order. Sometimes updates are slower whether because of less going on or whatever so items stay longer but this isn't that surprising and updates aren't witheld because of a desire to keep an item on ITN. (ITN also tends to have things happen in waves rather then a dribble.) Edit: A final comment to avoid confusion. I believe occasionally if two items happened on the same date an admin may remove the one which is listed higher up if they consider it less important. But AFAIK the criteria here is fairly fussy anyway. Our ordering is I believe a bit random when it comes to items that are the same date. Also I think we tend to just list items by date rather then looking in to details of precisely when something happened, in fact it's possible/probable? we've listed something which happened in somewhere like NZ as being after something that happened in Hawaii even if the NZ thing happened before simply because the date on NZ was later. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
order has been exceptionally altered apparently since the IP managed to go back in time and have yemeni president resign after sai baba's death. either that or the original complaint is fairly wrong and the comment made right after in support of IP pretty much constitutes trolling. -- Ashish-g5517:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Now there are three [Ready] articles as Wikileaks is ready as well. I could post something on ANI, but as that's truly dysfunctional its unlikely to help. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
A final comment. I seemed to recall this and a check thru the history confirmed [19] that the reason we removed the Vettel image had nothing to do with any conspiracy to undermine his victory (and incidentally I followed Formula 1 watching every race and I don't think his victory was that surprising) but all to do with the fact the image was a probable copyvio. The source image was later deleted Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sebastianvettel2010.jpg suggesting the right decision was made. Funnily enough, the same thing happened with the image of Sathya Sai Baba hence why we now have an image of Ali Abdullah Saleh instead. In fact because the image of SSB was only added very recently, came from a Flickr page that identified it as being copyrighted by the AP (despite also claiming it was under a free licence) it was quickly detected unlike the Vettel case where I believe the image lasted longer. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"order has been exceptionally altered apparently since the IP managed to go back in time and have yemeni president resign after sai baba's death." by Ashish-g55
@Ashish-g55, The Yemeni President resignation was on 23 April but it wasn't posted in ITN until 13:31, 24 April 2011 in a posterior revision to the inclusion of report of the death of the Guru. You didn't even bother to check it, did you?
The Saleh story was posted less than an hour after the death of Sai Baba was. Is that what you're complaining about? Seriously, find a better use of your time, or at least don't waste ours. -- tariqabjotu19:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
As I've already explained, we always order items chronologically (meaning in order of when they happened) not by importance or when they are added. There was nothing exceptional about this case simply normal practice (again as I explained). In fact this case was even less 'exceptional' since it's not unheard of an item can be added a day or two later yet still be (correctly) ordered below the top item in chronological sequence but in this case as you've proven yourself the Ali Abdullah Saleh was added only 36 minutes later (but still happened ~ a day before). Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the habit to check hourly any possible change in ITN (I and many other readers). When I fist read the comment on the death of the guru was already there but there wasn't any comment on the President resignation, after more than a day the death of the guru was still in the upper line. If I (and many other readers) find the same text in the first line, I don't go on reading all the other entries to find any possible change just in case newer reports have been arbitrarily included directly in lower lines. 81.60.184.222 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Is that the same criterion that was arbitrarily changed when the blurb on Geraldine Ferraro's death was moved to the 2nd line to introduce the march through London and later put back again? Who decided which event had occurred first?
The first female major party vice presidential candidate in the United States, Geraldine Ferraro (pictured), dies of complications from multiple myeloma.
Archaeologists in Texas find evidence suggesting that human settlement may have occurred in the Americas 2,500 years earlier than previously thought.
Canada's Conservative minority government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, fails a vote of non-confidence, forcing an election.
Security forces open fire on protesters in Syria, killing at least 20 people.
A 6.8-magnitude earthquake hits northeastern Burma, killing at least 75 people.
As someone else said in this thread, when two events happen on the same day, the one posted later is usually posted closer to the top. Sometimes people will try to figure out which event happened later or which event is more prominently in the news and put that one closer to the top. But, when one has a picture, it's customary that the one with the picture goes above the one without; that's what happened here, and that's what you would have discovered if you took all of five seconds to read the edit summary rather than playing conspiracy theorist. Regardless, when two events happen on different days, the event that happened later is always placed closer to the top. -- tariqabjotu21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally according to [20] Ferraro died just before 10am North American Eastern Standard Time (not mentioned in our article probably the right think since it's not particularly important). This is 3pm GMT which the UK was observing at the time (see British Summer Time) and according to [21] before "Ritz hotel in Mayfair becomes a target." Having said that, I'm sceptical of the ref saying it was before 10am NAEST anyway [22] says it was before 10am local time which makes more sense and according to the earlier article and Time in the United States, Massachusetts does observe daylight saving time and it had started by then so perhaps 2pm GMT is the correct comparison and that was when "Green flare triggers an attempt to storm Topman in Oxford Street." This BTW I suspect highlights one of the reasons we often don't bother to the level of precise time of event, generally just going by date instead. Working out the time for events can be difficult since it's often not mentioned, and not needed to be mentioned in our articles. For some occurences like the London march there's no real time of the occurence anyway (and yes to be fair, some events may span multiple days). As I've already said it's probably true some times even when we go by date, one event dated D+1 may have happened before one dated D (or in some extreme cases even D-1), the system isn't perfect but it works okay. And incidentally, events happening in NZ or around there are obviously at an 'advantage' compared to events happening in the US because of this. One and the reason for the prioritising items with pictures is partially because of the continual complaints about non-alignment. P.S. If 81 is volunteering to be the official time keeper for ITN attaching times to each item I'm sure people won't mind sticking more carefully to chronological order. Nil Einne (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It is extremely common for people to say "standard time" when they really mean "daylight-saving time". So, yes, it was 10am EDT (2pm UTC). Regarding advantages, I don't know about other people, but I often put the dates in UTC (particularly for events that happen in the U.S. in the evening, like the Super Bowl). -- tariqabjotu23:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I sincerely find all these arguments about ITN to be extremely aggravating. First off, the OP's post is pure, utter nonsense because the death of Sai Baba occurred after the announcement by the Yemeni president.
Moving on, I check ITN/C more often than any other page on Wikipedia and am always willing to post an item to ITN. That being said, I'm not very happy when no blurb is present and I'm forced to read half an article to figure out what to post. It's time-consuming, and so I tend to ignore items without blurbs -- i.e. items that waste my time. Now, it's really no big deal to me that articles may take an extra couple hours to post, but apparently it is to some people. And, yet, some people seem to believe it's a better use of their time to whine about the problems than to fix them. Do recall, folks, that the only thing an admin is needed for in ITN is to post an item. Anyone can update an article and anyone can write a blurb, and yet there are perfectly newsworthy events suggested at ITN/C that linger there for days because no one wants to update. Again, this is a volunteer project, so you don't have to do anything. But if you're unwilling to bring an article up to snuff, I absolutely do not want to see you complaining about the slow nature of ITN. I am more than willing to name names; at the same time RxS is here complaining about blood-curdling discussions about whether something posted should have been posted, he's over at ITN/C talking about how poor the Guantanamo files article is in. There are no orange tags on that article, mind you, and the article is of decent length and of decent importance. So, what's wrong with it? Oh, nothing, but it seems customary to complain about nothing when ITN is involved. -- tariqabjotu19:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I heard my name mentioned. Please let me respond. First, I've done my share of updating when an ITN candidate needs it. But...and it's a huge but...there's absolutely no reason why I cannot point out articles at ITN that need updating without obligating myself to update them. Let me repeat that, if I'm not willing to update an article (for what ever reason), that does not prevent me from making comments about the need for an update at a particular article. You said that but then in the same breath went to to complain about it. Why you've selected me to bitch about is beyond me. As far as the Wikileaks article goes, no orange tags is not the standard we should be shooting for. That article is at the absolute bottom of the acceptable range and there's no reason I can't push for higher standards. I pointed out in detail what I thought was wrong with the article, so please spare me the the "So, what's wrong with it? Oh, nothing..." You might think it's good enough for the front page but I don't and we can disagree without you getting condescending and snippy. RxS (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Unbelievable. You don't know why I mentioned you by name? I even said why I mentioned you by name. But, since, you didn't get it, let me repeat. And, yes, this will sound condescending because you clearly can't see the obvious.
You begin a post here by saying it's like pulling teeth to get something posted and continue with a remark about blood-curdling discussions after an item is posted about whether it should have been posted in the first place. Meanwhile, you're over at ITN/C doing, what? Oh, complaining about an article that was already posted. It was pulled. Three people said it was fine, and so it was reposted. And, what do you do? Still complain about it. I don't care that you disagree about the quality of the article. And I don't care that you don't want to update certain articles. But I do care that you come here complaining about the behavior you're doing right now. -- tariqabjotu20:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's start from scratch here. First of all, when I made the pulling teeth comment I meant getting consensus to add an item, not finding an admin to post it. And the blood curdling discussions are the NCAA/Ted Kennedy type outbursts. I'm assuming that talking about something after a posting in a calm manner doesn't count as blood curdling to you. Does it? Because my comments were pretty mild mannered. So, no I'm not doing what I was complaining about. And by the way, I was not the only one objecting to the Wikileaks posting. If you think continuing to talk about a posting counts as complaining then maybe you should stop posting ITN items as you seem a little thin skinned. If you can't handle your judgement questioned without bitching about people complaining then it's probably time for you to step back, you're not the only admin capable of posting ITN candidates. RxS (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I really see no reason to argue with you. If believing that what you're doing is completely different from what you're denouncing helps you sleep at night, power to you. -- tariqabjotu00:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
If i remember correctly NCAA was posted and as usual a few complaints came but it was not taken off. people complain about every little thing as evidenced by this thread. so that is expected... for ted kennedy case i am pretty sure all the complaining was done before it was posted and afterwards quite a few took it upon themselves to behead people that opposed. so completely wrong example to give... i dont mean to make this conversation any more heated than it already is but it does piss me off when a completely false complaint is followed by ITN trolls such as Sven whatever above and announce ITN as a joke without actually explaining to the OP that they are wrong. -- Ashish-g5500:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
Done. Sorry to see you go. --Closedmouth (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
