Wikipedia

Talk:Main Page/Archive 133

< Talk:Main Page
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Orngjce223 in topic Two Column format
Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135→Archive 140

Wikipedia languages

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

This Wikipedia is written in English. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.

The WIkipedia language section in the Main page does not mention about the language telugu though it features more than 46 000 articles, the highest in Indian languages. Please add this language in the main page under the category "More than 20 000" articles.

To add to the above, the section "languages" on the left side of the main page (Vertical section)does not feature "Telugu" though it has the larget number of featured articles in any Indian Language.

06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)PVK Vijaykumarpvk (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)PVK

Request belongs at template Talk: page {{Wikipedialang}} (talk). I do agree though, they had 38,125 at the end of 2007. §hepTalk 06:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Per the FAQ linked at the top of this page, "The Wikipedia languages section and standard interwiki list on the main page only include Wikipedias that have more than 20,000 articles and a minimum depth of 5" Telugu currently has a depth of 4, so it is excluded at this time. --24.19.39.134 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  Forgot to check the depth when I replied. For the requester, that is listed here for convenience. §hepTalk 07:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What does "depth" mean in this context? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

meta:Depth ((Edits/Articles) × (Non-Articles/Articles) × (Stub-ratio)), being a rough indicator of activity on a Wikipedia. Created after complaints that several Wikipedias with a small number of active editors were being populated largely by bot-created stubs and were being pushed up the Wikipedia size rankings despite being of lower quality than many expected. - BanyanTree 10:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - one of those occasions when the meaning is 'not the obvious one' Jackiespeel (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say British Isles?

Latest comment: 15 years ago31 comments13 people in discussion

Really you got to be callin folks idiots? I thought this was a professional forum. Cork is what you put in a bottle(or your kisser to stop it from yammering) well known to the English as any school kid can tell you it.

It happened near Ireland but it says British Isles. Explain! Cork is not in Britain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.240 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Because some idiots like you can't look about five centimetres up the page from here. 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.34.226 (talk)
Ireland is one of the British isles. It is not part of Britain. Similarly, Pakistan is part of the Indian subcontinent, but it is not part of India. —Verrai 18:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Further, you seem to not understand the difference between the British Isles and Britain. Cork is part of the British Isles. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not use the word "idiot" to describe another user be they IP address or not. It is very discouraging. I happen to actually think this is a problematic term. We discussed this during the recent snowfall event and I have to say that if we are to remain neutral (which is presumably one of our aims) it should never be used on the Main Page, especially in prominent positions on ITN. Take a look at what our own article says on the term. There are actually three sources after the line which states the Irish government's long-standing opposition to the term. This line is in a very prominent position in the opening, thus indicating its importance. It would therefore be fair to say that it is considered a backwards term in some quarters. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that there was any controversy regarding the term. I think it's a little strong to suggest that it should never be used on the main page- there are plenty of governments that would reject the use of "Israel" on the main page, too. What would you suggest as an alternative? J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah see, that's the problem. Nobody is aware of these difficulties so that when complaints are made they are brushed aside... I don't see what was wrong with the original wording which worked well enough for the recent snowfall. It was far more inclusive, a lot less controversial and led to no complaints from disenchanted Irish readers, some of whom must be scratching their heads in disbelief at how it is currently phrased. Also I have to say that Israel is used a lot more often in everyday speech than British Isles... I rarely hear of "British Isles" outside Wikipedia where its use seems to be excused in an effort to make space or for other reasons relating to design. However, I have a feeling that this would offend quite a few people in Cork in the same way as it would in, say, Dublin or Galway... I don't think any of the Irish news sources would use the term either, which makes its use here seem a bit strange from my point of view. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The old wording did raise complaints- someone wasn't happy at the idea that it affected "Great Britain and Ireland" when, in fact, it was more concerning Ireland. Further, I do hear (and use) the phrase "British Isles" a lot- where are you from, out of interest? J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ireland. You? What I'm saying is that in my experience I have never heard the Irish media use the term. If it's only affecting Ireland then why is the term "British Isles" necessary at all? Surely its use in that case makes it sound more extravagant than it actually is? I was unaware of this as I was led to believe that it would affect others too. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, someone has also raised the "British Isles" issue on the article's talk page. What irks me the most is that I carefully phrased it to avoid this controversy and now I find myself still trying to defend the original phrasing when I could be doing something more constructive elsewhere... speaking of which, if anyone who is bored is reading this, ITN is always in need of volunteers! :D --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm in England- that may explain the language difference. I'm in the same boat as you- I changed it as I believe my term would be less controversial. If you believe your wording was better, you're more than welcome to revert me. (Feel free to mark it as vandalism too, then protect it, I'm sure we can make this even more exciting). I don't know anything about the spill itself- changing it to the most severe in Ireland in # years would probably work. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The article doesn't use biggest spill in Ireland for xx years as the only sources I have found have used biggest spillage in the British Isles since Sea Empress at Milford Haven in 1996 (although some say 1999 with Sea Empress which is clearly wrong). If someone can find a reliable source with the years since the last big Irish spill then that would be fine. However the Irish Coast Guard has said that the spill is likely to wash up in Wales as well so that makes it international. I have no real opinion on which wording is better although "Great Britain and Ireland" made the tagline feel overly cumbersome (at least to me) - Dumelow (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How about something like: The largest oil spill to affect Great Britain and Ireland in 13 years occurs in the Celtic Sea. Does that solve the problem, or is it more important to mention that it occurred off County Cork? - Dumelow (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted it back to the original wording. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  Well as the spill occured off the coast of Ireland I think Ireland sould be first. Why should Britain come first?
  It does not make sense--SWOO (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If everyone is going to kick up a fuss to the point we use inaccurate and clumsy terms, can we not just find a better story to go in there? What happens if a bit of the oil hits the Isle of Mann? Or somehow the Channel Islands? The story would get a increasingly long just to avoid using the term wikipedia itself uses for the island chain. No, if people really find it so offensive, we are best off removing the news piece and just not having any stories that affect UK and Ireland in future. If they can't play nice with the toys, they go back in the box. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just the names of 2 countries - how on Earth can it be considered offensive? The Americans wouldn't kick up a fuss if we put "the US and Canada" or "North America", so why do we? I know the Irish want their independence, but that doesn't mean they can't be mentioned in the same sentence as Britain! Dendodge TalkContribs 11:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why the country most affected by the incident is again listed after the country second-most affected. Qqqqqq (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Because "Great Britain and Ireland" is a widely-used term and sounds more natural than "Ireland and Great Britain", which sounds clumsy. Why should we not make our prose sound good just because of overreacting nationalists? (No offence meant to anyone). Dendodge TalkContribs 12:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the names of two countries joined by a conjunction sounds unnatural. It seems misleading to me to list the more distant and less affected country first. Qqqqqq (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Great Britain is not a country. It is an island. Do you think it should say 'Ireland and the United Kingdom', or perhaps 'the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom'? Algebraist 12:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, the names of two islands. But yes, either of those two phrases would be more accurate Qqqqqq (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The simple solution is to say Ireland (or Eire) as the coast off Cork is too far away from GB to justify a mention. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support that. It doesn't sound clumsy, and should please everyone. Dendodge TalkContribs 12:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If that were done, then the figure of 13 years would become silly, since the Sea Empress spill didn't affect Ireland. Algebraist 12:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Then when was the last oil spill to affect Eire? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why not just say "A large oil spill occurs off the coast of County Cork, Ireland"? Dendodge TalkContribs 12:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I would be fine with that, but the current phrasing seems to be wanting to give its magnitude by comparing to oil spills past. But I don't think that's so important, so drop the year. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) That seems reasonable. A problem with saying 'to affect Ireland' is that the spill hasn't affected anywhere yet, and when it does reach land, it is expected to hit Ireland and Britain at about the same time. Algebraist 12:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, then is it news? Is every oil spill an ITN event? I think the one think for certain is that at the moment it is off the coast of Eire and as such the item should be rewritten to reflect that, once it hits Cornwall then amend away. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why we shouldn't include it - we just don't need to compare it to any others. Dendodge TalkContribs 12:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the article, the oil has not yet entered the UK's territorial waters. The statement that the spill is affecting "Great Britain and Ireland" or "Ireland and Great Britain" is thus misleading no matter how you phrase it. I agree with a few previous editors that the news hook should only mention Ireland (at present, anyway). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Great Britain and Ireland" is right. 2 Reasons.

1. They put the name according to alphabetical order.
2.Great Britain is bigger than Ireland.

Minor Problem

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The top story, about the stimulus package being signed, should say "pictured" after Barack Obama, and not after "into law", because it's not the stimulus package that's pictured, but the President.—GodhevalT C W 18:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Report here 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.34.226 (talk)
It's the story as a whole- it is the report package being signed that is pictured. If it was to say "pictured" after Obama, it would just be a generic portrait of him. It's correct where it is. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my good ol' antagonist, Mr. Milburn. Actually, it's not correct, because it doesn't make any sense. Thanks to the other fellow for pointing me towards the report page. —GodhevalT C W 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The act of him signing it is what's "Pictured". The signing is pictured. That Obama is present is incidental. APL (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC)"U.S. President Barack Obama signs a US$787 billion stimulus package into law" is what is pictured- that headline would serve doubly well as a caption to the image. Placing "pictured" after "Barack Obama" would be ridiculous, as that image has not been chosen to illustrate Obama, but to illustrate that story. (Also, where the hell has "my good ol' antagonist" come from? This isn't a battleground- I disagree with you, I'm not some kind of archvillain.) J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
May I interject and humbly suggest that in such circumstances as these the (pictured) be placed after the full stop? When it comes directly after a word or phrase on the Main Page, we expect that specific thing to be pictured. When the content of the whole sentence is pictured, perhaps we should finish the sentence (put a full stop) before writing (pictured). 129.67.127.65 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the picture is of him signing it, can't (pictured) go after the word signs? Dark verdant (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just a picture of someone signing something, it's a picture of Barack Obama signing a US$787 billion stimulus package into law. It's picturing everything. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured article image nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG, currently used on the main page, has been nominated for deletion on Commons. I leave this to someone else to deal with, if anything needs doing, as I am going to sleep. J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Wikipedia?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What is this mobile wikipedia banner, how does it work, and what is mobile wikipedia?--Ipatrol (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the banner (?), does WP:MOBILE help? §hepTalk 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The banner shows up for people on mobile browsers. See http://leuksman.com/log/2009/02/18/mobile-browser-links/ for more info. howcheng {chat} 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Whole Lotta Darwin?

Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments13 people in discussion

Just a query. Is the appearance of Charles Darwin in every section of today's Main Page except "In The News" intentional? -- saberwyn 00:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly. As you'll have noticed, it's his 200th birthday. Algebraist 00:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the discussion on the timing of today's featured article. Algebraist 00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Shiny. Thanks :) -- saberwyn 00:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's also Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday and he gets shafted. Redsox00002 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
He's mentioned once in OTD and twice in DYK. If you had a relevant TFA choice, you should've posted it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests at the appropriate time (weeks ago). Algebraist 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected, but it is still 5:3 in favor of Darwin.Redsox00002 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is your suggestion to put licoln's name twice randomly on main page to make it even? The way i see it both were given importance and there is no reason for them to appear exactly the same number of times. there were featured items available for Darwin, hence they were used. if u have suggestion to improve current items then please provide them rather than complaining about ratio. Ashishg55 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Insert picture of Wikipe-tan huggling Darwin and lonely Lincoln off in the corner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
He needs the love; over at the ever understated and equitable Conservapedia, he appears on the main page in a split-image alongside Adolf Hitler. Joe 08:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I love the way Conservapedia manages to give the impression that racism from the likes of Hitler and (allegedly) Darwin is a bad thing... but as I recall some of the things they said about Obama during last year's campaign... "understated and equitable," indeed. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey - this'll start a bunfight. It could be argued that in the grand scheme of things, Darwin is way more important - his discoveries have a worldwide importance and effect, while ol Abe really only affected the US. 86.155.202.152 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. Darwin is far more significant in the longrun and worldwide. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? I think Darwin was weird, but everyone always thinks he believed in macro-evolution when he believed in micro-evolution, in fact he tried to disprove macro-evolution toward the end of his life! BennyK95

Abraham Lincoln was known worldwide. Count Tolstoy described how peasants in remote regions of the Russian Empire had heard of him. Lincoln's influence has never waned.[1] The problem is that his article is not a Featured Article, and therefore was not eligible to appear on the main page. Kablammo (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Darwin's discoveries affected the world, and the way we see the world. Abe Lincoln's actions didn't have a worlwide effect - sure, he was heard of by the Russian peasants but his actions didn't affect them. That's the big difference between Abe and Chazza. 86.155.202.152 (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Read the link. The acknowledgment of the importance of one in no way diminishes the importance of the other. I originally suggested the 12 February TFA and believe it was a good choice for Darwin's birthday, but we should not denigrate the influence of Lincoln. Marx and Nehru didn't. Kablammo (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
No one denies Abraham Lincoln is an important figure. However it's true his actions didn't have that great a direct worldwide effect, particularly outside the Western world. Many would even question whether concern for the slaves was really the primary reason for the civil war and Lincoln's involvement thereof and from a current POV, his expressed views are hardly what many would call fair (and they were hardly revolutionary either, it's just that he had the power to do something about them). P.S. To be frank, my POV, I'm quite sure shared by quite a lot of people is that Lincoln was a decent American politician for his time, but hardly someone worth looking up to. He may have been part of righting a horrible wrong, but only a small part and it's questionable if it was his primary reason for doing it and it's also hard to get worked up when there was still so much to achieve which Lincoln didn't seem to care about (indeed some of his expressed views are a bit disgusting) and which others did long before Lincoln. Other people achieved far more then him, e.g. Gandhi, Martin Luther King... The fact that some other people (of greater significance) were influenced by him doesn't change my view much. P.P.S. If it isn't obvious, what I'm saying is that while Abraham Lincoln was undoutedly important, in a comparison between him and Darwin, there's just no comparison. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)



As a suggestion to this Lincoln vs. Darwin fight, a seperate Wikipedia for the United States should be created. I mean, I think it's just the opinions of two seperate hemispheres in which fight over who should've been the star of the main page.
Darwin is probably unknown to half the American population, but a star in the UK, and he contributed much in a world-wide sense. Lincoln, on the other hand, is probably known by almost all the American population, but by only 3% of the British population, yet he was a major factor in which helped America to come out of its turtleshell, thus to burst out onto the international scene; then, who actually truly did contribute more? Why couldn't multiple anniversaries be featured? Just wondering ... IlStudioso 07:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha you believe that only 3% of the British population know who Abe Lincoln was? We have also heard of George Washington as well (though he is probably more famous). Anyway wasn't the reason Abe not being featured because his article isn't featured article status? I dont like the idea of a separate wiki for America as I quite like reading articles that are about other countries. It's always nice to learn new things about the rest of the world instead of only thinking that the UK is the be all and end all.
Sorry, I'm only talking hypothetically. Didn't mean any offense, as I truly favor Britain over my America. Though I do believe that the English have caused quite some problems for the other three British nations (Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland), thus the English are those who I favor the least, no offense against any one individual in particular. I don't literally mean a separate wiki for the article on America. I mean a separate wiki for America, and the other for the UK. People always argue here about the spelling of words, like organise vs. organize, or colour vs. color. In fact, though, wikimedia should start deciding over a standard of English suited specially towards wikis. Like, we can have the word favourite (in British variant), while we have organize (in American variant). Do you see what I'm talking about now? IlStudioso 00:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
No offense was taken, I just thought the 3% was funny. Yes I can see what you mean as we wouldn't have the whole USA vs UK etc bias week in week out. However I think it would be a ball ache having a separate wiki for USA. Spelling in articles doesn't bother me that much, though I think a standard spelling throughout might make this more "neat" possibly. Having a separate USA wiki may be bad as certian articles that may be interesting to people would be missed as they wouldn't appear on the main page. Dark verdant (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a terrible idea. You would be effectively splitting English Wikipedia in half, over a few minor spelling differences. Further, I would suspect the vast majority of Americans and British would have heard of both Darwin and Lincoln, and, in any case, unless the new projects decided to throw NPOV out of the window, the Lincoln vs. Darwin debate would not be any closer to being solved. If you're looking for an encyclopedia geared towards the U.S., try Conservapedia. Further, such a split would not solve everything- see the debate about Irish and British terminology below. And where would Australians find themselves? Which one would this Wikipedia be, and which would have to split? The list of issues goes on and on and on. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

FA; Devon

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Could someone change 'Devon' to help non-natives of England? 82.24.160.83 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Change it to what? Majorly talk 02:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Pls suggest changes at WP:ERRORS. --76.64.76.46 (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
To "Devon, England", I imagine. Joe 08:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Devon, United Kingdom would be more correct - England is not a sovereign nation Modest Genius talk 18:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion (2)

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I have a suggestion for tommorows featured article, it should be the pirate bay trial, after all it is an important current event.

Me three--76.126.99.143 (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay trial is not currently a featured article- it would first have to be nomianted and promoted at featured article candidates. However, as a current event that will be changing rapidly, it would not pass. Further, suggestions for TFA should be made at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article auto semi-protect

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since the featured article is on a highly visible area of Wikipedia, I suggest that all future featured articles should be automatically semi-protected to combat IP vandalism on these highly informative articles. If one would look at the history tab of the current featured article, there is a massive amount of IP vandalism. This should reduce vandalism on future featured articles. --Vinni3 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. We rarely protect the main page article except in the case of extreme levels of vandalism. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up for me. :) --Vinni3 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Communist Theorists?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The title page claims Marx and Engels were "theorists". In what sense? Communism isn't a scientific theory in any sense of the word since any specific predictions it makes have been largely falsified and any predictions it makes that haven't been falisfied are vague and ambiguous. Among economists not controlled by communist governments it has been a dead model of economic behavior for several decades now, so shouldn't it read more like proponents or philosophers of communism? 24.8.102.238 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

They were theorists not in the sense of making predictions, but in the sense of laying out something (communism as a economic framework). The main page is correct as-is. Raul654 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A question on languages

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am somewhat puzzled as to why some Greek-Americans have their names written in Greek. Is this what wikipedia does with German-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Russian Americans, etc? Kostantino888Z (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Page is not a Greek-American and its name is not written in Greek here. You may want to ask your question on the talk page associated with the biography of the Greek-American whose name is written in Greek. Not here. --74.13.131.236 (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Meshuggah

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Wow, one of my favorite bands is today's FA. Way to go Wikipedia! :) AmiDaniel (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to drop a note on user talk:Lykantrop. He's the one who did the heavy lifting. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hah, Meshuggah on Wikipedia's main page? Awesome. Bloodbath/Naglfar tomorrow please! 141.163.102.62 (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Bloodbath nor Naglfar (band) are currently featured articles. Feel free to work on them so they meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, nominate them, and if the nomination passes they'll have their day of spotlight :) Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Share wiki articles on social networks

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey guys lets right a code to enable sharing wiki pages easily in social networks. Encyclopedia , youtube and newspapers do it.

Why shouldn't the Wiki do it ??! It will implement it eventually . Let's do it know. Please bare my ignorance , if this is not the place to discuss this issue, tell me where to go. (Borhan0 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

You want WP:Village pump (proposals). Ottre 09:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to possibly biased article on main page

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the news

Tamil Tigers launch a kamikaze-style suicide attack on Colombo, Sri Lanka, killing two people and injuring over 50 more.

2009_suicide_air_raid_on_Colombo

Might it be a good idea to make sure there are no links to possibly non-neutral articles on the main page? It could seem like someone with permission to edit the main page has a definite bias here. 213.48.46.141 (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, articles that are tagged with {{POV}} do not get posted on the main page. But of course, it doesn't really help when you were the actual one who tagged the article as {{POV}} a few minutes earlier.[2] Luckily it was the oldest event listed as thus the next one to be removed. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

3 "Kills" in a row in the news

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Is it by chance or someone's playing too much Quake? --AaThinker (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN is much more open than it used to be- now we get these comparatively minor news stories that, if they had happened ten years ago, we wouldn't be covering. It's a good example of recentism, if you ask me. However, all things considered, it's possibly more interesting than the rather common phenomenon of three elections in a row, which used to happen very frequently. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
But we're overloaded with death right now - could we have a happy story about a skiing budgerigar to balance it out? Dendodge TalkContribs 17:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.242.206 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Even John Atta Mills wouldn't smile at those headlines. Joe 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Everybody happy now? The next one (if it is approved) is related to Antarctica... --Candlewicke ST # :) 03:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FA + GA +FL

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The total number of FAs, GAs, and FLs recently passed 10,000! See WP:GA. Should this accomplishment be listed on the main page? If not, the number of WP:FAs is getting close to 2,500, which is a good milestone to celebrate! Reywas92Talk 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Where and how? Meta-accomplishments are not usually mentioned on the main page, but it may be worth getting it in The Signpost. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
They have been many times in the past: at 2,500,000 articles, at 2,000 FAs, at 10 million articles project-wide, and more, but it hasn't been used recently. These notices can be made for the main page at Template:Main Page banner. Reywas92Talk 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think the FA cabal would approve of this? –Howard the Duck 00:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Display problems on mobile Main Page

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are a few obvious display problems on the mobile version of the Main Page. I just fixed one of them in the "Other areas" section, but I'm not sure what's going on with the bar in between the left and right columns. Any ideas? --- RockMFR 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

An obvious bias complaint

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

There is a mention of early 20th-century battleships in ITN, DYK, and the featured article is about an early 20th-century battleship! The wikipedia community exhibits a clear pro-early-20th-century-battleship bias which gives a visitor to the main page the idea that early 20th-century battleships had a disproportionate influence on human knowledge. Please try to think of other things more important to humanity to put on a pedestal on the main page. Antimatter--talk-- 01:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CSB, and start typing up articles that interest you. --74.13.131.236 (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
For example, why not get one or more of the Animal Crossing articles to featured status? These are clearly more important to humanity (after all, a pro-early-20th-century-battleship bias is obviously an anti-late-20th-century-Nintendo-video-game bias in disguise). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead. When should we expect the Animal Crossing articles to appear in Special:Contributions/168.9.120.8 or Special:Contributions/DMeyering? --74.13.125.46 (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There are reasons for this. A) WP:TFA, WP:DYK and WP:ITN are all separate entities. B) The 22nd was the anniversary of the return of the Great White Fleet, of which Connecticut was the flagship. C) Minas Gerais was nominated at DYK eight days ago; blame coincidence. Same with Haruna. D) A wreck of a somewhat important ship was found; blame the discoverers, not ITN. :) Last reason: E) above all, blame pure coincidence. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictured Item Indicator for ITN, OTD, DYK

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

as per Talk:Main_Page/Archive_132#More_ITN_picture_silliness

are we implementing an indicator ? if so which one ? i think (P) or something similar

Machete97 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK would not need it because the top item is always pictured. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
no one from the previous discussion ? come on we basically had consensus Machete97 (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The consensus? That would be maintaining status quo with "(pictured)". Bolding would be too distracting. --74.13.130.165 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN HELP SOUGHT ASAP

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Assistance requested at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. A President just has been assassinated and there is an ongoing coup d'etat... --Candlewicke ST # :) 10:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

More pictures

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Put more pictures on the first page please. -Jeremy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.144.167 (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How many would you like to see? --Candlewicke ST # :) 11:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
15 isn't enough? §hepTalk 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We're thinking of a tabloid version. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you like a Page Three as well? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please, thank you. Give me something to compensate for my ADHD. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Simple English on the Top?

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why, on main page's language list, the Simple English Wikipedia is on the top? --FixmanPraise me 00:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

See Template talk:MainPageInterwikis#Why is Simple English first? - BanyanTree 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
My guess would be, "for simplicity."173.49.91.134 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel ashamed I found that so funny. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"more" link for FA links to DAB page not article

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{editprotected}}

Per headline; "more..." at the bottom of the FA should link to Hurricane Linda (1997) not Hurricane Linda.

substitute:

'''[[Hurricane Linda (1997)|Hurricane Linda]]''' was the strongest [[Pacific hurricane]] on record. Forming from a [[tropical wave]] on September 9, 1997, Linda steadily intensified and reached hurricane status within 36 hours of developing. Subsequently, it [[rapid deepening|rapidly intensified]], reaching winds of 185 [[miles per hour|mph]] (295 [[kilometres per hour|km/h]]) and an estimated central pressure of 902 [[bar (unit)|millibars]] (26.65 [[Inch of mercury|inches of mercury]]). The hurricane was briefly forecast to move toward southern California, but instead, it turned out to sea and dissipated on September 17. It was the fifteenth [[tropical cyclone]], thirteenth named storm, seventh hurricane, and fifth [[tropical cyclone scales|major hurricane]] of the [[1997 Pacific hurricane season]]. While near peak intensity, Hurricane Linda passed near [[Socorro Island]], where it damaged meteorological instruments. The hurricane produced high waves along the southwestern Mexican coastline, forcing the closure of five ports. When Linda was predicted to make [[landfall (meteorology)|landfall]] on California, it would have been the first to do so since a [[1939 California tropical storm|storm in 1939]]. Although it did not hit the state, the hurricane produced light to moderate rainfall across the region, causing mudslides and flooding in the [[San Gorgonio Wilderness]]; two houses were destroyed and 77 others were damaged, and damage totaled $3.2 million (1997 [[United States Dollar|USD]], $4.3 million 2008 USD). Despite the intensity, the name was not [[list of retired Pacific hurricane names|retired]]. ('''[[Hurricane Linda|more...]]''')

with

'''[[Hurricane Linda (1997)|Hurricane Linda]]''' was the strongest [[Pacific hurricane]] on record. Forming from a [[tropical wave]] on September 9, 1997, Linda steadily intensified and reached hurricane status within 36 hours of developing. Subsequently, it [[rapid deepening|rapidly intensified]], reaching winds of 185 [[miles per hour|mph]] (295 [[kilometres per hour|km/h]]) and an estimated central pressure of 902 [[bar (unit)|millibars]] (26.65 [[Inch of mercury|inches of mercury]]). The hurricane was briefly forecast to move toward southern California, but instead, it turned out to sea and dissipated on September 17. It was the fifteenth [[tropical cyclone]], thirteenth named storm, seventh hurricane, and fifth [[tropical cyclone scales|major hurricane]] of the [[1997 Pacific hurricane season]]. While near peak intensity, Hurricane Linda passed near [[Socorro Island]], where it damaged meteorological instruments. The hurricane produced high waves along the southwestern Mexican coastline, forcing the closure of five ports. When Linda was predicted to make [[landfall (meteorology)|landfall]] on California, it would have been the first to do so since a [[1939 California tropical storm|storm in 1939]]. Although it did not hit the state, the hurricane produced light to moderate rainfall across the region, causing mudslides and flooding in the [[San Gorgonio Wilderness]]; two houses were destroyed and 77 others were damaged, and damage totaled $3.2 million (1997 [[United States Dollar|USD]], $4.3 million 2008 USD). Despite the intensity, the name was not [[list of retired Pacific hurricane names|retired]]. ('''[[Hurricane Linda (1997)|more...]]''')

--Rogerb67 (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Well spotted. Martinmsgj 13:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Next time, pls use WP:ERRORS. Thx. --74.13.128.21 (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deposit Pricing

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Suppose a bank expects to raise ￥250 million in new deposits by offering it depositors an interest rate of 7% (including demand deposits from firms total 75%, and demand deposits from individuals total 25%, and the following estimates have the same proportions). Management estimates that if the bank offers a 7.5% interest rate, it can raise ￥500 million in new deposit money. At 8%, ￥750 million is expected to flow in, while a posted deposit rate of 8.5 percent will bring in a projected ￥1 billion. Finally, if the bank promises an estimated 9%, management projects that ￥1.25 billion in new funds will appear. Meanwhile, assume that new deposit money will bring a yield of 10%. Suppose that interest and non-interest costs spent to attract the demand deposits from firms total 5% of the amount of these deposits, while demand deposits from individuals cost the bank 10% of funds raised in interest and non-interest expenses. Suppose reserve requirements and uncollected balances reduce the amount of money actually available to the bank for investing in interest-bearing assets by 30% for demand deposits from firms, 20% for demand deposit from individuals. Given these facts, what deposit interest rate should the bank offer its customers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.166.50.40 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you'd like us to do your homework for you, please visit our reference desks, where you can ask your question in a more appropriate forum. Although they'll tell you that they don't do homework for you, they may be kind and point you to resources that will help you work out the answer for yourself. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

I had no idea, until I looked at In the News Feb. 25, that Emporer Hadrian wore glasses! Sca (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the mistake be to think it is Antoninus Pius not Emperor Hadrian? Anyway: Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? 128.227.195.114 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Either way, it's pretty stupid. Anyone with an IQ less than that required to look down to see (pictured) shouldn't be on Wikipedia. It's damn obvious that the woman pictured isn't either of the above. 79.71.95.209 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised the above comment is not from a registered user? Sca (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Because you are biased against anons? I hope not. But I must say I suspect some users would log off before posting comments less polite than what they usually post. Maybe I am biased too. --74.13.130.165 (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In my view, anonymity reflects irresponsibility, or perhaps shame. Newspapers do not print anonymous letters. If you have a view, fine, say so, but have the courage to take responsibility for it — and for the manner in which you express it.
In this case, although my comment was sardonic, the issue is a serious one, and one that has been raised by various Wikipedians over the past few years. By posting a humorous comment, I sought to reiterate in a light-hearted way that faulty juxtapositioning of a photo and text looks silly. I've made this point in straightforward terms before, and in a humorous comment before.
All my comments on Wikipedia are signed with my user name, and my email address is available on my user page. I stand by what I write.
Sca (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I stand by what I write as well, but who I am in the real world is not really of any importance. --74.13.130.165 (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, Sca, but having an account doesn't necessarily mean the person is somehow more responsible, does it? You can create a bogus account anytime. On the other hand, those who do not have accounts expose their IP addresses (well, usually). --BorgQueen (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily -- anyone can be irresponsible. But at least if you have a user page there's a place for others to dialogue with you, and to know a little about your background. I enjoy reading about the lives of other Wikipedians -- it's interesting.
Sca (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You believe everything you read in the internet? --74.13.128.166 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised the above comment is not from a registered user? Sca (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised the above comment comes from a registered user? Seriously, leave anonymous users alone. People can tell us as much or as little as they like. I'll tell you all you want to know about myself, but it's your choice as to whether you believe it. At least the anonymous users aren't lying. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the diff? Would Sca answer the question "You believe everything you read in the internet?" if I create an account just to pose this question? I doubt it. --74.13.128.21 (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My point is, it was a snide comment. I see there's a discussion of civility on your talk page. I am objecting to lack of civility.Sca (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First video on Main Page?

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

I wonder - is the video of the Gold-whiskered Barbet (today in DYK) the first one we've ever featured on the Main Page (outside the featured media section)?--Eloquence* 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that it's not. I'm sure the DYK regulars know, though, and I think you'd have better luck at WT:DYK. 68.76.159.202 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
We had a video of a bird a few days ago. And, as you said, we've had videos in the TFP section. I'll see if I can find a link... J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I see we are talking about the same video. I'm not personally aware of any others, but there may well have been. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't found other videos by prefix-searching .ogg in Wikipedia:Recent additions, [3] (just three songs). Though searches through page history, for other MP sections or other file types may give more results. Cenarium (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
.ogg is the only video/sound filetype that can be uploaded, unless you count .gifs. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There was a video of a flight of warplanes some months ago. And I think we've had the video of the Spruce Goose as well. Modest Genius talk 19:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(←) Nope. We also have .ogv §hepTalk 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

.ogg and .ogv are the same format just different extentsions. Oh and for previous videos see Template:POTD protected/2008-03-07.Geni 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
So we had at least 12 videos as POTD. Cenarium (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The picture of the day is stunning, but the article itself has in no way been developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That is true. The picture of the day was chosen because it was stunning. The article(s) in which the PotD appears do not influence that choice. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Omar al-Bashir

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Props to whoever chose and thumbnailed the photo of Omar al-Bashir in the ITN section. The tiny thumbnail makes him look like he has glowing devil eyes. This made my day! 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

...Er, thanks? SpencerT♦C 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are we giving credence to North Korean "democracy"?

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I am a bit disturbed by having that item about North Korea's so-called elections on the Main Page in ITN. It is well and good that that section should have news about elections in various countries in the world besides the major English-speaking nations and Russia, France, Germany etc.; however in most of those cases there was some real difference of opinion being contested, even if there were questions about vote-rigging and political intimidation like in Zimbabwe. Those are newsworthy regardless of outcome.

However, when the entire population of a totalitarian state with one-party rule is dragooned to the polls to give a veneer of popular legitimacy to 687 uncontested names, who then join a body whose role is to rubber stamp decisions taken a long time ago, Wikipedia should not dignify it with the term "election". It was newsworthy for being postponed; nothing more. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I also notice that most major news outlets explicitly call it a rubber stamp parliament to avoid exactly what Daniel is concerned about. Raul654 (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The place for discussion about ITN is WP:ITN/C. The rationale of inclusion was that we generally include every top-level election regardless of the country or political system. --Tone 10:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I would however note the very article you link to doesn't call it a rubber stamp parliament in the headline and although a number do, a number don't, e.g. [4] [5] [6]. While a news headline is a bad analogy to an ITN entry, it does illustrate it's not necessary to go in to excessive detail. Problems with the article are of course best addressed in the article talk page. Also reading a number of articles, it appears to me the election and the people elected is generally consideredd significant, even if the parliament itself simply rubber stamps decisions. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic themes

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Has anyone thought of having at the bottom of the link to the featured article a link to the category saying something like "Other topics in this field include XYZ" etc. Just a thought. Maybe we could try it. --84.45.219.185 (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words, a see-also on the main page? Yuck. See-also's are supposed to be avoided in articles (if something is important enough to link, it should be linked from the body of the article). Why would we put one on the main page? Raul654 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. More like a topic tree. --84.45.219.185 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a distinction without a difference. Raul654 (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

On this day...

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The part on "on this day" about a battle between the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian Empire there is a wikilink to Carthage, which is the city. you want to link to the Carthaginian Empire for the country.--SelfQ (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, fixing now. In future, you may want to make reports like this to WP:ERRORS. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ITN picture

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone delete the white background for file:Kepler Space Telescope.jpg ? --DFS454 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it now, if someone wants to add it then go right ahead. — neuro(talk) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. — neuro(talk) 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, sorted, ugly jpeg replaced. — neuro(talk) 20:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers --DFS454 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

TFP

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I know it's only going to be up for another hour, but can I say - mainly for future reference - that the layout of today's TFP section is horrible. The big bold link at the top gives undue precedence to itself, and the blue link in the corner of the picture is distracting (and not overly visually attractive). I would rathe ruse the {{Panorama}} template, thumbnail the image to a small size, or simply show the detail with an attractive link to the main panorama. Just my 2p. Dendodge TalkContribs 22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tend to concur, needs to be better done next time. — neuro(talk) 23:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you didn't like the layout, but that layout's not going away as it's the standard course of action for animated GIFs (their size being problematic for users with slow connections). This POTD was an unusual situation; it was too wide to do as a standard panorama. I suppose {{panorama simple}} would have worked, but I didn't know we had that. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Shoot, shot, shooting, etc.

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

Why are the top four stories about shootings, see [7]? Is this just a reflection of the times, that we highlight violence that exists, or are we downplaying financial, entertainment, and political news?

It has something to do with ITN policies, that require an updated article. For economic stories, it is hard to pinpoint the event since it is all in progress. Personally, I would prefer much more science stories but can't help with that... --Tone 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it is just the timing of the events. I'm surprised the other shooting in the news today isn't also up: "Gunman kills 9 in Alabam rampage" on Yahoo UK. Dark verdant (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It is... as a secondary mention in the Irish German shooting hook. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ahh didn't notice that, thanks! Dark verdant (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Shootings

Why are Winnenden school shooting and 2009 Alabama spree killing listed under the same bullet in the news section of the Main Page? There doesn't appear to be any relation between the two incidents. --64.180.12.97 (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Matty (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
If it was, it wasn't funny. --74.13.127.174 (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it 79.79.41.142 (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a fair point. If, say, we have two elections on the same day they're put into separate news items, despite being the same "class" of news. It almost seems like combining the shootings into one just due to, erm, thematic similarities implies that they're not "important enough" for their own bullet points (...no pun intended, seriously) -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunblane Massacre

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why is there no direct link to the Dunblane Massacre wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is, the link is in the word killed (also bold for this purpose). --Tone 13:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
That is a bit obscure! Surely, it would have been far more logical, and consistent with the other On this day events chosen to be listed, to start with "The Dunblane Massacre:" and then link that to the relevant wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
For a visitor reading the entire "On This Day" section, the bold links are visual indicators of where the main article resides. For someone scanning the page specifically to find information about the Dunblane Massacre, they might miss it, but they will probably go ahead and do a search for the topic anyway... leading them to the article.
Prefacing each entry in OTD with the topic name (as you suggest) could be impractical for a few reasons (requires additional space on the page, could spark controversy when a particular event is known by multiple names, etc). I'm not saying the system is perfect; if you have a good case for an alternate format, bring it to someone's attention. I'm no expert, but I'd probably start at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Video on Main Page

Latest comment: 15 years ago25 comments13 people in discussion

DUCK AND COVER - of people can't access this movie, without downloading something first. I thought it was just me, but from talking to my colleagues it's clear that none of us can run these movies on Wikipedia - although we use Wikipedia every day. Most of us access Wikipedia from work, where we are barred from downloading new applications onto our PCs. You are only annoying us by including video pieces that we can't run.Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC) comments moved from Errors page --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dweller - to avoid timewasting dispute, I will accept your edit in moving my comment down here. However, with respect, I was drawing attention to a fundamental error in the mode of production of the picture, not commenting on its content. In effect, you have applied subjective judgment to what I said by denying that it is an error.Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues you raise are worthy of more general discussion, not just pertaining to that particular video. So this is the more appropriate venue. Furthermore, it's not a correctable "error", making placing it there less relevant as well. I accept I made a judgement call, but I stand by it. Meanwhile, let's see what people think of the issues you raise. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Michael of Lucan, Wikipedia never makes the guarantee that all people will be able to access all of its knowledge and resources from all Internet-capable devices. For example, for containing information about China that may be seen as detrimental to that nation's reputation, most users in China cannot access certain portions of the encyclopedia.
Wikipedia does make the guarantee that its knowledge and resources will, where possible, remain free to use for any purpose by anyone who can access it. The non-proprietary file format being used for our videos helps to preserve that guarantee. A universally-accessible encyclopedia is a fine ideal, but Wikipedia has placed its priorities on near-universal utility.
Now for a useful answer... try YouTube, it has the video in its entirety (and it can easily be resized to full-screen, which is nice). Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand your points, but let me give you an analogy. Suppose I create an article in the English language part of Wikipedia, but I write a large chunk of it in Russian, without translation. Suppose that I refer to the Russian part frequently, and the information in it is key to understanding the article. In theory, that information is freely available to any English language speaker who wants it - by getting a translation. In reality, the article becomes frustrating and loses value for most readers. It would be promptly edited to remove the Russian text, and make its information available in some other way.
That is parallel with the video format used by Wikipedia. It would be better not to use these items on the Main page, and no article should assume the video is seen by the reader. I believe it's not seen by most readers.Michael of Lucan (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If I could download a Firefox plugin that would allow me to read Russian flawlessly, then your analogy would work. (That would be a pretty cool plug-in.) However, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the current solution is ideal.
Since embedded off-site links are obviously unacceptable, perhaps you could find us, or help the developers to create, a free way of embedding OGM files that is more universal?
Then you would have a proposal for change that could be acted on instead of just a complaint. APL (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
The comparison doesn't hold up. You are unable to unable to view the video format due to the technical restrictions of the machine you are using... not because you lack the education or cultural background to understand it.
Any format chosen would present software compatibility issues. QuickTime? Can't view it without software support. Windows Media? Can't view it without software support. FLV? Your browser must support Flash video. (Insert file format here)? You still need software support.
To quote from WP:Creation and usage of media files, "Wikipedia uses Ogg Theora for video because it is open and royalty-free." Most of the formats supported by your machine probably do not offer these advantages. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 15:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Get your IT department to install a codec on your machines that supports playing OGGs. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Firefox 3.1 will have Ogg Theora support built in. (Signpost article) At that point, the other browsers will have to decide whether they need to jump on board or if they can continue to marginalize Ogg Theora in favor of their proprietary formats. Wikipedia has never allowed those proprietary formats, so the ball has been in Internet Explorer et al's court for years. - BanyanTree 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
For my part, I enjoyed seeing Duck and Cover, I remember those drills in grade school, at 1 p.m. on the first Wednesday of every month, when the air-raied sirens would wail.
Years later I heard a different version of the instructions: "...go to the basement, kneel against an outside wall, place your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye." Sca (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Michael of Lucan's point isn't that everybody should be able to see the video, but rather that it shouldn't be showcased on the main page because many can not see it. I think the solution is to get your own computer that you can configure how you choose. People with slow connections sometimes set their browser to not show images, but they wouldn't complain to everybody to stop refering to images in the articles.
173.49.91.134 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you can argue IE is marginalising Ogg Theora in favour of proprietary formats. IE doesn't support any video format by default. Also there is no video format that is a required part of the web standards. P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not supporting Michael Lucas or arguing we should use proprietary formats, just pointing out there's not specific reason why you can argue IE, or for that matter Safari, Chrome etc are at fault for not supporting something which isn't a part of any web standard anyway and was only 1.0 in November 2008 and let's face is barely used by anyone. Now if Theora was part of HTML 5 you might have a point but it's not. P.P.S. This may change if Silverlight is made a default part of IE8 Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
In jumping on the technical bandwagon, many of the purist commentators above have missed the point being made: the videos can't been seen by most people because most people do not have the software to view them. Moreover, most people would not know how to get the software, let alone install it confidently; most people will balk at the Wikipedia instructions about what to do to get the software. Note that the above includes almost all schools and libraries in the UK (and probably other countries as well) which, like it or not, remain glued to Windows and its accompanying software because they are told to, and it works. The remaining minority - technicians like me - either are not allowed to install the software (like me) or have done so and are happy. To summarise: including videos on the main page is, for most people, a waste of screen space. Bazza (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Privyet, Russian speakers. I dropped out of this discussion because I felt it had become a discussion between people reinforcing each other's prejudices. To follow my earlier analogy, a group of Russian speakers were reassuring each other that the Russian text was perfectly clear to anyone who took time to learn Russian or just get a translation. Nekulturny, I'm afraid.

Bazza and an earlier anonymous writer understand the real issue. The issue is NOT about whether there is a technical solution to see the videos. The issue is NOT how to teach people to get that technical solution. The issue is certainly NOT about blaming users who fail to get that solution.

The issue IS reality. The reality is that the majority of Wikipedia users do not have that technical solution available to them. The Duck and Cover piece on the Main Page was irritating to them, since it made no sense without seeing the video. They did not see the Picture of the Day. They did not even see a picture - only a meaningless gray blur.

There is little point in continuing a discussion about how and why they can't see the video. If the vast majority of people can't see a video, it is pointless to refer to it on the Main Page of Wikipedia. As Bazza says, including videos on the main page is, for most people, a waste of screen space.Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority can't see it? Really? Do you have evidence to support this assertion? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that they can? I've made the (reasonable, in my view) assertion that most people in the world use Windows PCs to view web sites; and that means that, unless they are able to install the required software, they are not able to view .ogg media. If you have evidence to contradict this, then enlighten me please. Bazza (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Bazza. Many users are forbidden to download onto their PCs. Even if not blocked, why would they download what is (for them) an obscure application of marginal value on a single site that they use? Many can barely use the package pre-loaded on their Windows PC, let alone taking the strain of downloading something new. These are the real users of Wikipedia, not the trained minority in its talk pages. As a test of my sanity, I spoke to twelve people about this in the past couple of days. Nine of them use Wikipedia, and zero can play videos on Wikipedia. STOP! Of course, such a small survey has little scientific value, so don't flame me or produce your survey from your Systems department. This is just a picture of life among real wiki-users. Michael of Lucan (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I am using a Windows PC to view this website, and although I have downloaded no special software to enable this, I am able to view the .ogg file with no problem. It may be that I am in the minority, or it may be that I am not. I have no real evidence either way. Do you? I sometimes visit websites where I am unable to view the content without downloading software support (or upgrading that support) for a font, Flash animation, or proprietary media format (QuickTime, RealAudio, etc.) I would assume that most veteran users of the Internet are accustomed to this aspect of the online world. Am I mistaken? I don't know, since I have no statistics on how many computers come pre-installed with support for non-native formats.
The tone of much of this discussion seems to be that downloading a plugin or codec from a trusted source is the end of the Internet as we know it. In fact, it is quite ordinary, and if a particular machine does not allow its users to do so, how is that a problem with the website? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You have identified the problem, now. Having to confirm that's it's OK to download a "plug-in" or "codec" is the end of the Internet as we know it. "Plugin"? "Codec"? "Trusted source"? Technobabble to most people. It is not quite ordinary: quite ordinary is clicking on something which says "view video" and being able to view a video. The nearest a lot of people have come to this sort of thing in the past is clicking "OK" in response to "You have a virus: do you want to remove it"? and finding their PC unusable and expensive to fix. You still have not got the point that if content is not available, then it is a website's problem: why publish if it can't be viewed? Bazza (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? My gosh... I have never had access to a new, Internet-capable computer that didn't require installing at least a dozen codecs and plugins in order to view the content on major websites. This page requires a particular non-Roman font, that page requires QuickTime, another page requires Flash, and those other pages require Java, RealPlayer, Adobe Reader, Excel Viewer, and a number of other things to function correctly. This has held true from Windows 95 all the way up through Win2000, WinME, WinXP, and Vista, using Internet Explorer versions 4 through 7. Firefox likewise tends to require downloads from time to time in order to stay up-to-date. I'm not sure that you're really talking about the majority of users, here. Anyway, one could argue (and I will, if requested to do so) that surfing the Internet without understanding minimal "technobabble," as you term it, might lead to a number of problems... including ever-increasing familiarity with those virus warnings you mention. Again, not Wikipedia's fault if you attempt to use a tool without understanding it first. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


To more directly answer your last sentence, by the way, the Duck and Cover video is accessible and viewable under the same conditions as any other video in any format on any website: the conditions that software support has been added by you, your system administrator, a previous owner, or the factory worker who installed your operating system and other software. To apply the rule that "a large percentage of computers lack the software to view this file, so it shouldn't be on a particular website" would result, eventually, in the removal of all videos (and most other file types) from all websites. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Outdent & Rant-- Feel free to use an Operating System that includes players that can handle freely available video formats, or download a video player that supports more encoder-decoders (codecs) than just the ones developed and patented by the parent company. I can't see how wikipedia can use patented technology and still remain the free encyclopaedia. Its what's available, whats free and is available in many browsers. If you use a system that is fundamentally broken and doesn't control what goes into it, don't be surprised if it doesn't work with other group's systems. If you get lucky and the push for it to be in HTML 5, and by chance your chosen vendor actually decide to support standards (which by past example is not that great a chance), then your problems may disappear anyway. The only valid comment is the availability of sufficient, or consumption of excess , bandwidth. 129.78.64.102 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be an extreme solution, but a solution nonetheless. I'm thinking that if downloading a simple plugin is a problem (although it shouldn't be seen as unreasonable), switching to a whole new operating system is most likely not a realistic option. 129, I took the liberty of altering one of your wikilinks... I suspect you wanted the visible word "available" to link to "Firefox," rather than the vice-versa. Unless I'm being unusually dense this morning, it's far more readable after my minor edit. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually quite a number of codecs include by default in Windows were not originally developed nor are primarily patented by Microsoft. And this seems to be extending (Windows 7 for example will include H264 support in the Ultimate edition). Also Firefox does not support Ogg Theora or Vorbis by default. Firefox 3.1 will but that hasn't even been released. And actually, the only other browser which has current plans to include Ogg Theora and Vorbis support is Opera. Google stance is unclear but Apple (along with Nokia) was one of the key companies opposed to the inclusion of Ogg in HTML5 so it seems unlikely Ogg will be supported in Safari any time soon. So your comment that Ogg is available in many browsers is highly misleading. Also it's questionable IMHO if DLL hell is still much of a problem in modern versions of Windows (16 bit programs are not even supported in x64 versions) and while I'm not an expert while NTFS's ACL system may be different from traditonal Unix file permissions I think it's highly questionable if you can say Windows is fundamentally broken because it uses ACL (which most OSes nowadays are using to some extent anyway) instead of Unix file permissions. Also I think it's questionable if you can say Vista doesn't have control over what goes in to it. So in conclusion, while I'm fully supporting the use of (believed to be) patent free codecs in wikipedia, most of your rant was extremely misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
168, Thanks. Nil: The rant is not misleading, it is quite correct, but is certainly a rant. Read Dll hell sections entitled "static linking" and "Incompatible versions"; this is and will always be a problem when you have third parties contributing binaries -- there isn't much you can do about it if the ABI changes, without recompiling and re-linking; not readily possible without source. I don't think microsoft has control over symantec cisco, ea games, nokia, apple or other third party vendors application contribution. Secondly Firefox does support ogg in 3.1 as you say, and is available. Thirdly, H264 is patented as are many of these. Finally we will have to wait to see what is in HTML5, and what vendors do ;). Anyway, I am not going to post again, as we really aren't going to achieve much; I leave you the last word. User A1 (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

It should say Nicolas Sarkozy in the text, not Nicholas Sarkozy. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, it would seem. — neuro(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has a much better top image now (File:Lazare.JPG), with him and his medals. Would look much better on the main page. I would do it but I am not clear on the temporary uploading and protecting of the local copy of the image, it's normally done by a bot, presume I just manually do it, tag it with {{C-uploaded}} and protect it? Mfield (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I went through it and am confident I got the process right so i was bold and went ahead did it. Mfield (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What just happened to the picture? It had been this: (File:Lazare.JPG), now it's this: (File:LazarePonticelli.jpg). The new one looks terrible, it's low res, and it doesn't have the medals. Worse, it looks like the old one has been deleted even. What's the justification? Licensedlunacy (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC) GAH! the actual page we're linking to used the (File:Lazare.JPG), and so it's broken too. It doesn't look good in the slightest to have the featured article start with a big broken link to a picture.Licensedlunacy (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted for copyright reasons. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The reasoning is here - apparently it's a copyvio from here. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Shame- I thought it looked a little "too good to be true", but assumed it had been thoroughly checked before being put on the main page. Not the kind of article it's easy to illustrate. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If someone here is looking to do their wiki good-deed for the day, track down Fréderic Coune and get his permission to use the pic. Raul654 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like he's a professional photographer. Raul654 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The uploader claims to be the photographer. I have my doubts but I would suggest people wait before trying to get permission. Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I did run a tineye check on it before I switched it in which came back empty. But I should also have looked at and been suspicious of the uploader's lack of contributions. Mfield (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured pic- no way to treat the artist

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp" is (first and foremost) a painting by Rembrandt, please!

The artist is mentioned but only in small sized letters like an after-thought.

This is an inappropriate way to cite the author of the work which you at Wiki regard as one of the finest images on Wikipedia. The right way to describe this image is to state its name, then its author, then its date (if known), before any detailed discussion of its subject.

Amandajm (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Check it. They're all like that, nothing different about today. –  LATICS  talk  08:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well it's changed now anyway [8] Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Lactics, the difference is that that image is significant because of the author, rather than because of the subject. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory misalignment complaint

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Bernard Madoff was taken away by aliens in a space ship after pleading guilty? Sorry I just had to... Normally the misalignment complaints are so boring but this one was actually funny (at least to me). And incidentally in case it isn't obvious I'm not actually complaining since if anything it's a good thing :-) Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He was sentenced to search for extrasolar planets, apparently... --Tone 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The scam involves a spacecraft? Now I understand why all NASA projects have such big budgets.... They are scams?!?! --74.14.16.147 (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
...What? Macarion (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are we suggesting that swallows migrate? Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture's a sparrow, not a swallow --JustWong 17:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustWong (talk • contribs)

Two Column format

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I have a widescreen monitor. It is difficult to read text when the sentences are spread so wide. Is it possible for Wikipedia to have a two-column (or multicolumn) text for better readability? 117.199.18.225 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On the main page or in general? Can you elaborate?  GARDEN  10:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As a rough workaround, don't maximise your browser Modest Genius talk 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that. And if it was split two columns, it be weird for people with smaller monitors, so there's not a good solution either way. –  LATICS  talk  22:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, you could register an account and have one of the resident CSS geniuses make you a stylesheet... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_133&oldid=1136981034"