Talk:Main Page/Archive 139

Archive 135

←

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

→

Archive 145

Lebanon

I believe the recently held Lebanese elections should be mentioned on ITN, no? --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please nominate/support ITN candidates at WP:ITN/C, not here. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Main Page script

What and where is the script that makes the tab at the top of the Main Page say "main page" rather than "article", and that hides "Main Page" from being displayed as a header at the top of the page? --AdamSommerton (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On MediaWiki:Common.js, search or scroll down to "Main Page layout fixes". iirc, it is the last three lines in the addOnloadHook function. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe this deals with the tab but not the header. Does anyone know what makes the header disappear? --AdamSommerton (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On MediaWiki:Monobook.css, search or scroll down to "Don't display some stuff on the main page". The "display" CSS attribute of the body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading element is set to "none". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --AdamSommerton (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sections

Is there any page/study/etc that shows wich section on the main page gives more visitors? Thanks in advance. lijealso (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a tough one to give numbers to, really. TFA is fairly straightforward, and gives by far the largest boost (check out the traffic spikes for Astrophysica Data System and West Bengal.) TFP doesn't really have an article, though the bolded item of text does generally get a smaller boost (see Woody Guthrie, for example.) ITN by its nature features articles of topical interest, which means that either the articles linked are newly-created, or people are likely to be searching for information on the topic of their own accord. Likewise, DYK showcases new articles, so there's a limited data set with which to work for the purposes of determining the boost gained by main page exposure. a check of the figures for Whit Monday, featured in OTD on June 1, shows that it has a smaller, but still significant, effect. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember reading somewere about visitors distribution for each section. I've been searching without success. lijealso (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of months back there was an experiment whereby every link from the main page went via its own redirect so the traffic could be monitored. I think it was part of the redesign proposal. Should be in the archives somewhere... Modest Genius ^talk 23:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha, here it is: Talk:Main_Page/Archive_125#Results_of_main_page_traffic_experiment. unfortunately it only counted the 'permanent' links, rather than those from the content sections. Modest Genius ^talk 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I've just proposed a similar experiment on pt.wikipedia. I'm still searching for the information I really want. All this came from a discussion on pt.wikipedia about whether or not the main page should have certain sections (assuming that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an internet portal or news portal, etc). lijealso (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai pride

The information is not even significant enough to be In the News section, not the top news story of the day, see BBC, CBC, CNN, biased news in favour of homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.182.34 (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. ITN is "not the top news story of the day", you've just said it. It is for events of some significance which have occurred, it doesn't matter how far down the headlines they are as this can vary throughout the world. Shanghai "is the largest city in China in terms of population and one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world". So an event of this type being held there for the first time and indeed for the first time in that country is significant. I can't see any other similar topics on the Main Page so I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it is biased. --candle•wicke 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

wait what do u mean "biased in favor of homosexuals"... every news item technically refers to some group of people, may it be americans or ppl from europe. just because the news isnt for heterosexuals its suddenly biased towards homosexuals? the point is its a first event of type to happen in Shanghai so the news got posted. Ashishg55 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ironically someone who is biased against one thing complaining about being biased in favour of it...? --candle•wicke 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to add the anon user 90.209.182.34 is the one who Vandalised the Shanghai Pride page with obscene remarks. so there is no point arguing about this anymore lol. Ashishg55 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, (one more point), the BBC? --candle•wicke 15:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In case of a need for future reference... --candle•wicke 16:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's accurate to call that vandalism. More of a case of extreme POV pushing Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a hate comment though. It would not be acceptable in a biography... --candle•wicke 17:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the article wasn't a biography although I agree it's not any more acceptable in the article as I thought was clear. However it remains my opinion that it was probably not vandalism. And per our policies such as WP:Vandalism calling something when it's not is discouraged. While I'm sure I've identified something as vandalism before when it clear isn't as have many users, it is important editors appreciate what vandalism is and isn't since because amongst other things, calling something vandalism when it isn't can cause needless ill feelings and disputes and also makes it difficult for an editor to learn (since if you are aware of the policy and are sure it doesn't apply to you then when someone accuses you of vandalism, you may legitimately feel the editor is wrong and therefore will not be any the wiser as to why your edit was not acceptable). Also it distracts from true vandalism and does not WP:AGF since vandalism is inherently bad faith editing whereas POV pushing, even highly inflammatory, is not inherently bad faith but more the case of a person letting their personal opinions and beliefs get in the way of their editing. Such an editor may otherwise make constructive edits and from a look at this editors history, some of their edits have been. If they can be convinced to either put aside their beliefs, or perhaps just stay away from areas where they can't control their POV, then such editors can often make good editors. (If they can't they may be blocked but probably not as vandals.) This is as opposed to vandals who are inherently here to harm and need to be convinced to either go away or start to help. Of particular relevance, it is not generally appropriate to automatically dismiss someone because of their strong POV in discussions (although I agree this particular complaint was probably not worth much discussion) however it is usually acceptable to dismiss vandals. Of course the line is not always clear cut, a user who repeatedly inserts the same inflammatory POV pushing into an article when it's been made abundantly clear it it's not welcome could usually legitimately be called vandalism but that was not the case here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. :-) --candle•wicke 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to inquire how this made the ITN section. ITN usually has worldwide important news like disasters, political happenings (elections, assassinations), major sports wins (I see the French Open there) and major conflicts. Compared to these, a pride event in China seems, well, not notable. At least 2 more notable European events come to mind (the ongoing elections and the continuing scandal affecting the government in the UK), and there's also the recovery of bodies for the Air France flight in the Atlantic. It just seems a little bit of an odd choice for a section that is suppose to be (in my opinion) a place for worldwide important headlines (yes, I am insinuating that it is not a worldwide important headline). -Royalguard11(T) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is mainly supposed to promote new articles on current events that are of sufficient quality and currentness, not how important the story is. If you want a news source, use Wikinews or another news-devoted service - this is an encyclopedia, not a news source. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes I already know the boilerplate response. As a sysop at this wiki and as someone who's written for WN, I know all that. What I wanted was for someone to explain why this was so noteworthy that it deserved front page recognition. I'll pick a random day and we'll look what usually makes ITN: major political stories, major conflicts, and a suspected Nazi who's been all over the news for the past couple months. Again, compared to the usual, his seems not very notable. -Royalguard11(T) 01:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see why it has any purpose as a news item. It's not really that newsworthy. It's like having a headline "First Redhead Rights March in Rio de Janeiro". I would understand if it was something like "Gay rights supporters stage mass protests worldwide", but this is a clear bias and not notable enough to be on the front page. I mean talk about another excuse to push people to Conservapedia. --Metallurgist (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure anyone that would be pushed to Conservapedia by this ITN is already there. --Maxamegalon2000 01:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone who has a problem with it whose problem isn't because of the nature of the event? This doesn't happen in China everyday. China = big population + big country. Shanghai = big city. This is something new to a lot of people. --candle•wicke 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not in any way comparable to redheads marching in Rio de Janeiro or anywhere in the world where they are a rare breed. --candle•wicke 01:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A "Red Head Rights" march might be interesting to read about. APL (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I was simply using a large city that (incidentally) isn't a capital and a comparable minority. I don't have a problem with news related to homosexuals, but this just seemed of minimal notability. I cited an example of news related to homosexuals that I think would be notable. --Metallurgist (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In order to prevent items such as this, please join the discussion at WP:ITN/C to screen thoroughly items before they are put up. In most cases, the discussion is limited to two people and one support is enough for it to be added. –Howard the Duck 11:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I will do that if I remember. --Metallurgist (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

However, BorgQueen regularly waits for comments from others but sometimes they have to be posted unless ITN is to grind to a halt completely. --candle•wicke 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No reason for that since ITN is not news. ITN can be stale for days if circumstances warrant it. –Howard the Duck 03:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we abolish the ITN timer then? And perhaps delete the whole Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page#Timer section? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There's history anyway to determine when was the last time of edit. ITN is not a "timed" template like DYK for example. –Howard the Duck 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not going to happen. ITN has been subjected to massive criticism in the past for its tendency to stagnate. The timer was created out of necessity, not of some fancy imagination. It will take way more than just one voice to get rid of it. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So much for ITN not being news, eh? –Howard the Duck 04:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't news... would you rather we posted all the sports results two weeks after they happen? --candle•wicke 14:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You can try that for the 2009 Super 14 season article... –Howard the Duck 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you mean? --candle•wicke 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been a prose update for it and it hasn't been added at ITN as a result despite being at WP:ITNR. –Howard the Duck 02:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a shame. I suppose it is a good thing that ITNR doesn't recommend they be posted without updates - although I believe this has happened in the recent past too... --candle•wicke 21:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Year!

The June 10th "Today in History" includes a notation on the Battle of Dong Xai (sp?); this battle was (according to the linked article) fought 10-11 June 1965 but the Main Page lists this as 1964 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavisGL (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please file a report at WP:ERRORS. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okami Picture

Is there no picture in the Okami page? Why is there not one for the featured article? Fruckert (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No picture on the article itself is free to use on the main page. –  LATICS  talk  17:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why is a Main Page section missing an illustrative image? - BanyanTree 08:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm June 6th, Today in History...Doesn't mention D-Day on the front page

Are you serious. There is no mention of D-day in this section, you have to click on the link, but there IS a mention of the first Drive in theater where you don't have to? Get serious, Lame Wikipedia...really Lame 173.79.159.170 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what is that about? Sure a drive in is great, but a drive in did not free millions of people from Nazi oppression. This is poor. Murgon (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Normandy landings are featured as today's featured image. It was noted above that when an item is shown in one portal on the main page, it does not usually appear on any others (so something ITN wouldn't be a DYK or today's FA, etc.) MelicansMatkin (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...not sure about this... Dotty••|☎ 14:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is too late to put it anywhere else now. Try again next time. Murgon (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It probably is; the 65th anniversary doesn't come around very often! Dotty••|☎ 15:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally a good point Melican. I mean, Heaven forbid Wikipedia make an exception for an event that made sure Mr. Wales didn't grow up speaking German. Bureaucratic red tape.....173.79.159.170 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think growing up speaking german is a problem. There is a german wikipedia and its one of the strongest wikipedia communities I believe! Suppose D-Day was nice for most germans too! Anyways the day is over now, wait for 5 years :-) Jeromeplacec (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You should have seen the Main Page on September 11, 2008. Both the featured article and the featured picture were related to the September 11 attacks. And thus there were complaints on both sides of the issue on whether to also mention it also on the OTD section (see the archived discussions here and here).

The main arguments against repeating an anniversary on two or more sections on the Main Page is that it puts too much emphasis on that particular event, no matter how much that historical event is notable or significant, and that just mentioning it in one section is sufficient coverage. The main arguments for repeating it on OTD include the fact that some readers will immediately specifically look for it on OTD without looking at the other sections, will be puzzled by the omission, and then post here on this talk page, like you did, requesting an explanation.

My preference in general is to not repeat the same information on the Main Page. Only 5-6 events are posting on OTD at a time. There are many articles and topics here on Wikipedia that can qualify for the OTD section, and I would rather not repeat the same 5-6 articles every June 6. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would rather not repeat the same 5-6 articles every September 11. Murgon (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

...or repeat the same sets of 5-6 articles every year on all the other 365 OTD templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

...D-day is an event which changed the course of history, had it failed, the world would be completely different, such an event is important enough to be featured every year. A Drive in movie theatre is not. When a drive in theatre hands a fatal blow to a facist reigeme, then it can be placed in preference to D-Day. Murgon (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall much in the way of complaints on the 19th of november about the lack of coverage of the Battle of Stalingrad.Geni 09:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ye but not so many Russians on the English language Wikipedia though.Willski72 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I like you Jerome, to deal with such an event so flippantly means you def have to have something else to offer the world than such disregard for such an important event. What a surprise you're french and only 15 years old. I'll cut you a break seeing that you really have no idea what you're talking about. 173.79.159.170 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more insulting than that, we rescued Jerome's people, saved them from being shot by nazi's. And he doesn't want to recognize that. I suppose the old saying has proven itself to be true. "Never trust the french." Backstabbers. Murgon (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

D-day

I'm just wondering why D-day is not in the "On this day..." section. It was certainly more important to most Americans than the opening of the first drive-in theatre?

Thanks,

Falconus^{p t c} 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I should have looked at the above posting. Anyway, it is my personal thought that events so important as this should be put two or three times. --Falconus^{p t c} 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the liberation of Europe just isn't important to many people anymore. I swear, Churchill's rolling in his grave right now.Prussian725 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Along side the hundreds of thousands of people who died for the cause. Murgon (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what the big deal is. It is just one, short single sentence that is basically going to redundantly repeat most of the gist of the caption on Today's featured picture. I am probably just coming more from a non-partial, copywriting, copy editing, publishing point-of-view. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The featured picture is the least visible element of the Main Page. The majority of readers see only TFA and ITN, some of them scroll down for OTD or DYK, and a few down to the TFP. Clearly, many readers will be upset by not founding straightforward mention of it. I think it should be mentioned in OTD, it's a list after all, it doesn't highlight the event especially like TFA would. So the 'rule' that a same event should not be mentioned twice on the Main Page has not so much weight here and could be ignored in this case. If we had an article on the 65th D-Day celebrations (which I'm sure we could have managed), we could even maybe had mentioned it in ITN (then, we could have not mentioned it in OTD). Let's try to do this for the 70th. And before that, an article on D-Day celebrations in general could be valuable too. Cenarium (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. Truthfully, I'd never even known there was a "Pic of the Day" because I've never even scrolled down on the main page until today. But even saying that, D-Day get's "just" a pic? Granted it's at least something, but that's like putting Obama's pic up there and expecting the gravity of the situation to be explained by a simple picture. 173.79.159.170 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia stupidity. You guys wonder WHY no serious academic takes it seriously?67.76.14.193 (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate your Floridian view, but seriously, academics don't take wikipedia seriously bc it's not peer reviewed, not because of questioning by editors. 173.79.159.170 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Careful or it'll get nasty! There's a lot of resentment in France that the Anglo-Saxon world had to save them, just look at the farce over the Queen not being invited. Of course we had to bail them out in the first world war as well, if it hadnt been for the British Expeditionary force Paris would of been taken within 6 weeks of the war beginning and that would of been the end of that!Willski72 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a lot deeper than that. But I am not at all surprised. Murgon (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the whole idea of being redundant but this event is only going to be posted once a year just like all the other events so is it really that bad to have it included in the main page? (209.6.17.76 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

It is included in the main page. It has an entire section dedicated to it this year! —David Levy 18:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the featured image correct? I meant including it in "On this day..." I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer. 209.6.17.76 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Several users appear to be under the impression that the event's omission from OTD stems from the bureaucratic enforcement of a rule that we'd like to ignore but have instead allowed to tie our hands. This is not so. If there were consensus to include a redundant mention there, we could easily replace the "drive-in theater" item at a moment's notice. But many of us don't want the duplication. This year, the event has been assigned an entire section (complete with the largest image currently appearing on the main page). Aside from some people's unwillingness to scroll, I don't see what the problem is. —David Levy 18:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is its location. I'm sure you've heard the term "Under the Fold" as referring to a story's position on the front page of a newspaper. It's the same thing here. The point is that such an event deserves a much more prominent position than under the fold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.159.170 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid opinion. My point is that there is actual disagreement with it, not an attitude that we cannot include the entry because the rules don't allow us to. —David Levy 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest though, even OTD/SA is 'under the fold'. The only way we can avoid the item being under the fold is to have a FA or to put an item up in ITN Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the only reason that some users are making a fuss about this is the comparison between the amount of significance of the Normandy Landings to that of the first drive-in theater. However, the practice of hiding a redundant mention has been done several times this year alone without any complaint. When the Empire State Building was featured on the 1 May POTD, nobody seemed to question why its opening was not on OTD. The next time this is going to happen is when Stand in the Schoolhouse Door will be the 11 June POTD, but it will be harder to make such a relative significance comparison when Thích Quảng Đức's self-immolation also occurred on 11 June, 1963 – which also means there will be additional competition with those users who hate having OTD be frequently dominated by 20th Century or U.S.-centric events. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your points, while well written, don't really factor into the discussion here. First, the references you gave to upcoming important events fail to even come close the WORLD changing event known as D-Day. Second, "U.S. centric view"? I understand this has become somewhat of a battle cry recently on wikipedia (eg. minimilizing US contributions), but D-Day IS NOT U.S. centric. If anything it is World centric. 151.207.240.4 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You probably misunderstood my point about "U.S.-centric". I was referring to the scenario that if there were the same amount of users complaining about Stand in the Schoolhouse Door NOT being on OTD as there is about D-Day, then there might be more users out of the blue who would say it is no big deal because they feel that there is already too much "U.S.-centric" events like Stand in the Schoolhouse Door on OTD. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are complaining. Presumably they knew that day was the d-day invasion, so why not fill OTD with something they didn't know, but might learn? Doesn't that make sense? APL (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While people might be able to learn, it is also an honor issue. Just my opinion, I think that at the very least some slight honor should be shown to the thousands upon thousands of men who spilled their blood (most of them in a country not their own) for the freedom that everyone here now enjoys.Prussian725 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But then I could argue that the thousands upon thousands of men who spilled their blood essentially got more honor by having an entire section, a paragraph and a related image, on the Main Page, right? Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting issue

Stand in the Schoolhouse Door is currently number 19 in Template:Popular articles. The highest for a main page linked article (not count more generic stuff like deaths in 2009 and June 11) that I noticed. While it's a relevant date (so is Cherry Springs State Park but in a more roundabout fashion), and it's difficult to know how many people are coming from the main page as opposed to other places either on wikipedia or the internet what does this mean re: the idea that feature pictured is below the fold and so hardly noticed? Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. People are clicking on the article because they want to know whether the thug on George Wallace's right has a gun in his pocket or whether he's really pleased to see Nicholas Katzenbach.

Sadly the article pays only a couple of paragraphs' lip service to historical significance before it moves on to the important stuff (References in popular Tom Hanks culture) so the readers go disappointed. --86.169.77.136 (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But the fact remains, if people are clicking on the article from the main page, they must be seeing it. Their reasons for being interested in it are irrelevant since that wasn't the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's always fun to push random article--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Protection

Hi there! Always, the image used for ITN is protected, so nobody can edit it or upload a new one. But all others are not. If I wanted to upload a new version of a file (I am not saying I would), items such as spam or porn could appear on the Main Page. Thanks, CargoK ^{user talk} 21:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the other Main Page images or all images in general? --candle•wicke 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Any image that appears on the main page. CargoK ^{user talk}

They are all protected by cascading protection, even if not by direct protection for locally-hosted images, so no such images can be uploaded over them. Bencherlite^Talk 10:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture in the featured article. This link will replace the image.. won't it?  Cargoking  talk  13:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean when an image is actually stored on the Wikimedia Commons? It depends on if an admin there has also protected or cascade protected it there too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Which someone is always doing: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zzyzx11/En_main_page&action=history ffm 16:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not always, I had to upload and protect one locally the other day. There used to be a bot for it, but it seems there isn't now. Unprotected images are usually to blame for the kind of main page vandalism we've seen in the past. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to get to it every day, but sometimes I forget (tired, busy, what-have-you). howcheng {chat} 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah, it's reassuring to know the stability of the main page rests entirely in your hands. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Language

Please add the "Azerbaijani" (language) to "More than 20,000 articles".--94.20.25.95 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't. Sorry. :) --candle•wicke 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 23:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dublin Literary Award

Is this award so important that it has to be at the top of the important news articles section? Seriously, how many people are actually interested in this, compared to a real news story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.164.9 (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The news is ordered based upon how recent it is and not how important. The award itself is the most valuable and widely accesible literary award and is notable in the writing community (and to a lesser extent to those who read books on a regular basis). Its is one of the few awards that is open to books written in all languages --Daviessimo (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"comprised" in TFA lede

Given that this is well known as one of the worst ongoing mistakes in English usage here, why did it fall to me to put it in the passive voice, hours after it went on the Main Page. And in an article where our English should be close to perfect, to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the well-known mistake is in your version, rather than the version you changed. See wikt:comprise. Algebraist 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is going to be contentious, can we just have it changed to "was composed of" to head off the dueling pedantry that's likely to spring up here? — Gavia immer (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted. This shouldn't be contentious, as the correct usage is widely documented. Daniel would have known this if he'd bothered to consult a dictionary instead of scolding the community. —David Levy 16:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, I agree that your present version represents correct usage. However, that has no particular bearing on whether or not it will be contentious, which is why I made the suggestion above. The issue seems to have gone away, however, so keeping your version is best. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As the error report section says, and should also be obvious to anyone with experience in wikipedia, the main page always defers to articles. Indeed most admins will not correct an 'error' if the article has not been corrected (they will either change the article, or mention that the article still says the other thing). Is there any reason then why you did not modify the article, so the actual article contains your 'fix', and the discussion can be held in the proper place, i.e. the article talk page where people with experience with the article will actually notice it? As it stands now, the article still contains the allegedly wrong old version (since I have no idea which one is right, I'm not going to change the article myself) and it looks like we're going to have a long discussion about which one is correct which will be archived in several days and no one with experience with the article will ever notice and someone looking thorough the archives of the article to find out why the article was changed (if it is ever changed) will not find Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I looked more closely at the dicdef and I was wrong. Sorry (although I still prefer it to be used in the passive only and not as a synonym for "include" when you're giving the entire list of what it includes, or in this case included). Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? —David Levy 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page, where this discussion would belong if it were to be continued. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's good this discussion is moved off here but unfortunately if the editors of the article could have learnt anything from this discussion or contributed anything, that opportunity is lost because it was held here Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Tritter and D-day

So today's featured article is about a fictional guest character in an American TV-series? Do you actually think this is adequate for the reach of the English-language Wikipedia? Hint: the majority of the en.wiki.x.io readers are not American couch potatos. After not including D-day on the "on this date..." section allegedly because the event already had a picture, I'd say the editorial team of the main page needs to rethink it's priorities. --Ramalho (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The current consensus of the Wikipedia community is that the articles on the Main Page – especially the featured articles – are chosen based more on their quality, not based on how much their subjects are important or significant. Hint: a majority of users on the en.wiki.x.io also write, edit, and contribute to articles, and thus, as a reward for their hard work, they want to see their well-written articles featured prominently on the highly visible Main Page regardless of whatever subject they write about. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification of the current consensus. I can see how such a policy encourages quality contributions, and I understand that Wikipedia is a community-driven effort. But the main goal must be to serve the users, and not cajoling the contributors. In my opinion, wasting the best spot on the main page with such trivia is a disservice to the users. BTW, your assertion that "a majority of users on the en.wiki.x.io also write, edit, and contribute to articles" is not based on real stats, is it? --Ramalho (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit it is a very, very rough estimation based on edits/min updated here versus hits per day updated here, so I should have used "a significant percentage" instead of "a majority". But still, Wikipedia is also driven by editors and contributors as well as readers, and therefore that is one reason why there is more of a desire to have the Main Page feature a wide variety of topics rather than have it be dominated by "the most important and significant event of the day". Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

hmm, can u please explain the initial complain a little better? Is the featured article not good enough? not important enough? how does the TFA have to do with the OTD situation with D-day? There is a list of featured articles and although its not random but TFA still gets picked from that list. Which is limited. Not all articles are of "high importance" so i dont if u want the articles to just continously repeat or rather have new articles that showcase the different featured articles that are on wikipedia Ashishg55 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The complaint is basically a common misconception about the purpose of Today's Featured Article on Main Page, or any other article featured on the Main Page. The Main Page's primary purpose is to feature a wide range of various well-written articles on different topics. But some users like our complainer here come to Wikipedia with the assumption that the Main Page should only primary focus on articles about important, significant or core topics. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll bet Tritter never fought on D-Day and has never been in any war. A disgrace! Rar rar rar! Bradley0110 (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I find the TV series House highly intelligent and well-made. (I am neither American nor a huge fan of television shows... and I have to admit that those episodes revolving around Tritter's bullying were not exactly the best House episodes.) I am just glad that today's FA is not something about American Idol or some silly reality show. Makes me shudder to even imagine. :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In essence, this discussion is about the nature and value of knowledge. Unconsciously, many educated people feel that only some knowledge is "good". So, they feel it's good to know the history of Ancient Greece, but not good to know the history of a television show - even if the television show is relevant to more people. We are meant to admire a person who knows the scientific names of ten thousand plants, but not the man who knows ten thousand sports results - even if both are equally boring geeks.

As a hyper-educated person, my instinct was to reward the historian and the scientist, but not the sports and media fans. Now, I see that an encyclopedia is a store of knowledge, not a store of socially-approved knowledge. Many people want to know about sports or US TV shows - no matter how I deplore their taste. They are entitled to find the information, and the author of that information is entitled to be rewarded for a good article. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the influence and subsequent relevance of ancient Greece on modern society, but your point is otherwise well presented. Also, there may be health risks associated with knowing too much about the history of a tv show, but I suppose one could encounter the same problems (couch potatoism) if reading up on historical subjects as well.

As someone with a thirst for knowledge and very little of it when it comes to "House," I found it interesting to read the TFA today. Admins, please continue to present articles in this fashion. 04redsox07 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys better be ready once I get the Georgina Sparks up to FA standard... There'll be revolution and chaos. –Howard the Duck 13:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RedSox - you may have misunderstood me. Inter alia, I studied ancient Greek and Latin, and the associated history of those cultures. So, I do not need persuasion to understand the past. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it - even if it is as comedy rather than tragedy.

I'd prefer any article on Ancient Greece, to almost any article on modern culture, most of which creates Warhol's 15 minutes of fame. However, an encyclopedia is about knowledge, even knowledge that I will never desire. Michael of Lucan (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I would be more inclined to click on an article and read in depth about ancient Greece than one about modern culture, so I can sympathize. I think we agree. Articles while not of interest to everyone, will still have value and a place on the main page. 04redsox07 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Listen, this is a very nice conversation on the merits of unbiased editorial. But there is a problem with this argument. it follows as editors of an encyclopedia;
1) lets inform people about the esoteric
2) lets inform people about popular culture too.

the fact of the matter is that point no. 1 will always be a more valid because we/users already know about popular culture. That's why it is called "Popular". we see this stuff in magazines in every checkout counter not to mention cable television. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not dredge up information that is not already in the puplic consciousness then it will only inform while failing to enlighten. Some thing (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume you have access to some sort of study that shows what our readers do and do not know that was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Because otherwise (and I'm not trying to be flippant here), that's just speculation (or what we like to call original research here). howcheng {chat} 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that the fictional character Michael Tritter existed. Now i do. My life has been enlightened.Willski72 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that the fictional character Michael Tritter existed. Now I do. My life has not been enlightened. Except by the reference to the rectal thermometer (see deep and principled discussion below). Most American TV shows are a pain in the butt, but this is taking the concept a lot further. Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes you squirm in your seat doesnt it!Willski72 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes your temperature rise doesnt it! Then they get a thermometer to check you out and... (faints) --candle•wicke 01:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When the Iranian Elections are over

How are we going ot handle that... I know this shoudl be in at ITN... but it'll spill over here so yah... Just wondering because theres going to be so much surrounding when that guy is announced the winner.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No massive arguments on here so far.....Willski72 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say "incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" rather than just "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"? -93.97.122.93 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We could always say it is not accepted... since thatas what it is--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to go into opinions and what who thinks what of what on the main page. It's a single title to announce the main update to the article- in this case, the fact that Ahmadinejad won the election. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So they say.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the Iranian election commission says that Ahmadinejad won and that is precisely what our tagline says as well - Dumelow (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Those rioters... a number of news outelts and many others disagree with the,--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do, but the point that I was trying to make was that we don't simply state that he won but it just says that the election commission says that he won. That way we avoid any possible POV statements, if it later turns out to be electoral fraud then the tagline can be changed (it would be much worse if we insinuated that it was not a legitimate election and it turned out that there was nothing wrong about it) - Dumelow (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We're already being a little suspicious of them. Normally, we would just state who won, not say who said who won. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Given how hotly contested things appear to be, perhaps it would be more NPOV not to have Wikipedia annonce that Ahmadinejad won, but rather simply state that the Islamic Republic News Agency has declared that Ahmadinejad won.

The current blurb mentions protests and allegations. I would say that is NPOV enough. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So Wikipedia knows that the results announce by Khamenei and the Islamic Republic News Agency are accurate, and the demonstrators are wrong and the allegations of fraud are false? Wikipedia has first hand knowledge of this? If not, Wikipedia should report that so and so announced such a thing, not that such a thing is the fact. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't declare the winners, the electoral commission does. What they say is as good as right until it is proven wrong. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, Wikipedia should say that the electoral commission has announced such and such a result. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Untastefull

I find the choice for today's featured article inappropriate. I personally do not want to read about thermometers in rectums. If I would want, I'd look up a page likely to contain these elements. But I disliked having it pushed into my face by putting it on the main page. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you really comparing David Morse to a rectal thermometer? howcheng {chat} 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CENSOR YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? I did not say these words should not be in an article (the subject of WP:CENSOR). I said that this article should perhaps not have been chosen for the main page. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit harsh on David Morse that isnt it? Comparing him to a rectal thermometer! He's not my favourite man either but still, steady on!Willski72 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

O, would you all please be serious! :) Debresser (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

putting him inside someone's rectum to take temperature... *shrugs* that is one disturbing image Ashishg55 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do hate to be pedantic (...nah who am I kidding!), but I think the correct word you were looking for, to describe the article in question, was distasteful --Daviessimo (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's right. That must have been because of those few percents I fell short of the full 100 on my final exams. :) Debresser (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please God tell me this is a joke... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, if it was a joke, it would go, "What's wrong with him, nurse?" "He's got a thermometer up his ass, doctor." "Eh, that's rectum, nurse." "Rectum? Damn near killed him." Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I'm going to give that 6/10. I had to deduct marks because is was quite obviously not original work --Daviessimo (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And please keep G-d out of any discussion involving thermometers, recta, and David Morse. :) Debresser (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

6/10! Thats a bit harsh isnt it? OK its not the best joke in the world but come on! A 7 perphaps? It might not seem very different but there is a definite phsycological effect. If you give him a 7 your encouraging him to try again, if you give him a 6 you're letting him down gently!Willski72 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A doctor is shopping. He's at the check-out, and needs to sign the check. He pulls his pen from his pocket, only to find it's a rectal thermometer. "That's just great" he says, "some asshole's got my pen." Contributions/82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Daviessimo, but on Wikipedia we must be consistent. No original research, remember? That goes for jokes too, surely? ;) Michael of Lucan (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well can you cite a reliable source for that joke? --Daviessimo (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am seriously considering to remove all jokes from this post. ;) You are clouding the subject. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the second one. Bravo 82.33.48.96. --candle•wicke 01:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the second one is better. I give that an 8 out of 10. I wasnt roaring with laughter but it was funny nevertheless!. Also who put "citation needed" at the end of Michael of Lucan's joke! I mean come on!Willski72 (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

He brought the issue to my attention. I'm afraid that per WP:OR it needs to be referenced or I will have to remove it. The key issue here is that he has to prove that this isn't a case of his own first hand experience with rectal thermometers :) --Daviessimo (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As the CEO of Rectum PLC I can confirm that this customer satisfaction story is published on our website. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Warning! Previous sentence may be untrue!

My deepest apologies, Daviessimo. Cite is http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rectum%2C%20damn%20near%20killed%20him! Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thats much better --Daviessimo (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do I get 7/10 now? Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you do --Daviessimo (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd give him both 8 and 2. 8 for the actual joke but 2 for the theft. --candle•wicke 17:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit harsh on him that isnt it? Im not a fan of people who steal jokes but still! 2 for crying out loud!Willski72 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The content of the joke is a serious matter however. Points must be deducted when the subject matter involves the insertion of long, cold, hard items of various misuse into the rectum. It may be the typical chatter of doctors over their elevenses but many talk page browsers might rather not be reminded. We must remember these when we talk among ourselves - look at them all, cowering in the corner, haunted by... oh, one of them has just fainted... --candle•wicke 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am never going to see a doctor again!!!Willski72 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That won't do! If it spreads you'll put them all out of business! I don't want to have to give my precious pennies and cents to homeless street doctors! --candle•wicke 22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When you get to be my age, [We who are old, O so old, Thousands of years, thousands of years if all were told] you will realise that jokes are like sex positions - there are no new ones. Only new people who have not yet experienced them ... and in each case a lot of groaning and some laughter. :0 Michael of Lucan (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the implication of that statement that doctors have been placing rectal thermometers in unsuspecting patient's 'nether regions' for thousands of years? --Daviessimo (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We of the Illuminati have been doing this for thousands of years. Recently, we have begun to use Illuminati-trained "doctors" and "nurses" to implement our plans. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, from habit I added the usual fnords to my previous message. Can you see it now? Michael of Lucan (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It was really tough back when all they had were Galileo thermometers. APL (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OMG I CAN SEE THE FNORDS!! howcheng {chat} 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And you remember that? --candle•wicke 19:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical Galileo, stealing everybody's ideas! That was mine! It should be the Willski thermometer! I remember people would complain quite a lot back in the day but i said to them, "If you think this is bad you should just wait until they get them rectal thermometers." At that point they would normally shudder and stop complaining....Willski72 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was worried reading up to this point that the Willski thermometer was used for testing rectal temperature, but thankfully, it does not appear so.04redsox07 (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No no, although i was asked to make a rectal thermometer i declined to be a part of such a horrific creation.Willski72 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Battle of Quatre Bras

I think the phrase "strategic victory" is wrong in describing the Battle of Quatre Bras. The battle was a tactical victory for the French forces, but had no strategic significance because it was simply a preparation for the Battle of Waterloo, which they lost. Quatre Bras did not succeed in splitting the British and Prussian forces in a way which would have allowed Napoleon to defeat the separately, since Prussian troops arrived at Waterloo in time to decide the outcome. 93.97.194.138 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an area in which I specialise, but I would question your view. On the face of it, it is correct to call it a strategic victory, not merely a local tactical affair. It had a positive impact on the progress of a wider campaign, as the French had intended. That wider campaign failed to carry through Bonaparte's strategic intent, as ultimately the opposing armies were not separated and destroyed as planned. However, it is reasonable to call Quatre Bras itself a strategic victory, since it achieved its strategic purpose. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In any case, this is irrelevant for the main page as Battle of Quatre Bras says it's a "French strategic victory". If you dispute this, you should take it to the article since the main page always defers to articles. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to make that point first, before commenting. Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't listen to him - (he steals jokes) Hush! --candle•wicke 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What you mean because I had the 'strategic victory' in this discussion? Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On This Day

How could we have left out the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972 — the beginning of the Watergate Scandal?

Sca (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the featured picture is somewhat related, and we love to trick users into asking exactly this question. Today though, it is especially silly. A picture of the president who pardoned the president who covered up watergate is obviously not the original break in. (also before anyone points out US bias or something, i'd like to call into question the bridges of london theme the main page has today)147.72.72.2 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The image was clearly connected to Watergate, was almost definitely specifically chosen to appear yesterday for that reason and had ample links to learn more, including specific mention of the date "June 17, 1972". So, no it's not silly to exclude Watergate from SA/OTD for that reason. And this has absolutely nothing to do with any bias but simply common sense. Besides that, your answer actually highlights how silly this discussion is. There are lots of days which have some connection to Watergate. The most important is probably the resignation of Nixon. There is no need to mention every single one on the main page every year. This discussion is even sillier then the previous one regarding D-day because there's no way Watergate is even close in importance to D-day. I don't know what 'bridges of London theme' your referring to yesterday, while I haven't looked into the history of DYK or ITN I only see evidence for one mention of bridges of London specifically in the TFA. If you are saying one mention is a 'theme', well I have nothing more to say Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, Nixon's resignation will make its appearance on August 9, 2009. Watergate gets two major placements on the Main Page this year. howcheng {chat} 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean for the theme thing to be taken seriously (the second mention was that banker who got hung off the blackfriars bridge). I also agree that since Watergate was the bolded link in the featured picture it should not have been included in OTD, I just meant that it took a couple steps to get from a picture of Ford to the actual break in, so I could see people being confused. Sorry again, 147.72.72.2 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, it was a bit convoluted, but September 8, 2009's POTD (the anniversary of the pardon) was already reserved for another anniversary. howcheng {chat} 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On this day items are not chosen strictly based on their importance. Like Today's Featured Articles they are chosen more for variety. APL (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Sca (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Euclidean algorithm on todays main page

I saw POV in the first line "is an efficient way" that shouldnt be on the main page surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.184.222 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not, it is an efficient way, this is something people have been learning for ages. No POV here. --Tone 11:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The efficiency of an algorithm is demonstrable, not a matter of opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know...

... that there is no mention in the Mexico article of the current lead regarding "Charlotte of Belgium (pictured) reigned as Empress of Mexico starting in 1864"? Kilmer-san (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an issue for WP:ERRORS --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Ah, no it doesn't

(edit conflict) So what? It mentions Maximilian I of Mexico; why should it mention his wife? Algebraist 15:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The bolded article is Belgium–Mexico relations, not Mexico. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If that had been an error, it would have been an issue for WP:ERRORS. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can edit

There are two pages that I believe should never be protected. This one, and Wikipedia. Why? To encourage participation. What fun is it to have the two pages everyone looks at first be protected? How about utilizing the form of protection used on WP:Introduction, where the page can be edited but not the content, and use a bot to clear out all edits? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As the most visible and highly visited page on Wikipedia, the Main Page is permanently protected as a result of excessive repeated vandalism. The other reason is that it keeps our welcome mat clean so it gives new users a decent looking impression – free from any shock-value word, phrase or image that would offend almost every person in the English-speaking world. Without protection, it would be safe to say it would be vandalised at a high exponentially rate of speed that it would be realistically impossible for any bot to keep up.

As for the Wikipedia article, it is only semi-protected for reasons you should ask the protecting administrator or ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as outlined at Wikipedia:Protection policy. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 86,400 seconds in the day and on the 17th June the Wikipedia article was viewed 49,600 times, or once every 1.7 seconds. Which means that it is a high profile target for vandals, and although the slogan is "Anyone can edit" that comes with a few caveats, one of which is that if a page is being viewed every 1.7 seconds we would be fools to open that page up to vandals. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems like more and more pages are being protected. I'm sure we can all agree on the majority of these protections, but it seems like more pages are being protected than should be. Also it seems like some of these pages were discussed to be protected for a shirt period, yet end up protected for a much longer period.69.129.145.153 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If it seems like more pages are being protected it is because more people are vandalising pages and reverted vandalism all day stops editors from being able to make good contributions. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for a discussion of Wikipedia's protection policy. Try WP:VPP. Algebraist 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenland

"Greenland (flag pictured) becomes a self-ruling country, taking control of its judicial affairs, policing and natural resources, as approved by the 2008 referendum."

Yes, but its foreign affairs, etc are still handled by Denmark. Greenland is not (at this point) an independent country yet. --RobNS 08:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? A "self-ruling country" doesn't mean that it is an independent country. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but there's nothing wrong with the statement. It doesn't contradict what you say in anyw way. If you think there could be a better wording, try posting at WP:ERRORS 79.71.5.38 (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Hadn't realised there was a reply already. 79.71.5.38 (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If the term is good enough for the BBC, it is good enough for Wikipedia --Daviessimo (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Beeb article above does not use the word "country" to describe Greenland. It does mention being "treated as a separate people under international law," however. So, is "country" really appropriate here, given that Denmark still controls defense and foreign affairs? Why would the Beeb use such a roundabout construction when they could have just said "country" unless Greenland isn't one? And out of well- meaning curiosity, what BorgQueen said above about "independent" not equalling "self-ruling," can someone elaborate on that, because I don't get the distinction. Thanks! Vbdrummer0 (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, a region can be autonomous, but be legally part of another country. A good example would be the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which is autonomous from the mainland government, but is legally part of China, and thus not an independent country. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But is it self-ruling in that situation? I mean, Hong Kong is autonomous in most senses, but does it have control over its own defense or foreign affairs? I imagine that the label "country" isn't really appropriate unless it does (no one is arguing Hong Kong is a country; I'm just trying to bring this thread back on track a bit). Of course, the UK calls England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales "constituent countries," but that's a different animal.15:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit?

Why can't I edit the main page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazareee (talk • contribs) 17:33, June 17, 2009 (UTC)

The main page is edit-protected to prevent vandalism of such an important page. Only administrators my edit it. If you want to report an error or request a change that can be done on this page. APL (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think that you would easily be able to revert any vandalism. I'm sure there are thousands of users watchlisting this page (and even more would if the protection was removed). Doesn't it defeat the purpose of a wiki protecting nearly every page? I'm not saying the main page needs to be unprotected necessarily (perhaps semi-protection?), but it seems like a good quarter or so of the pages I view are protected. 75.90.144.239 (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors have better things to do than revert constant vandalism which is exactly what you'd expect on such a page. JIMp _talk·cont 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, absolutely not. Main Page receives, on average, 70 page-views per second. It is unacceptable if even one of those people sees a goatse, because that's what would be there. A lot. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, that better? Yeah, I guess that makes sense. But isn't there some kind of thing that could be done to get edits approved perhaps? Some kind of software update could make it possible to make edits but not have them appear until an administrator approves them.75.90.144.239 (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions which currently has approval for a trial, which is being worked on at the moment. I'm not sure if the main page is likely to be in the trial however. (Actually I'm not that sure what happened to the trial period, the whole situation has been somewhat diverse and looking at the talk pages, it looks ike the issue has been somewhat dead for a while unless there is discussion somewhere else). Bear in mind as well that the main page is compromised of several templates unless you actually have some experience with wikipedia it is unlikely you'd know how to edit it. Also other then for obvious errors, the vast majority of changes to the main page require some discussion or evidence of consensus first. In other words, it's not just vandals we have to worry about. Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I see [1] it's already been requested and developers will implement it when they get to it Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Until Vandalismopedia is created, to which all such idiots can be banished to operate on perpetual iterative loops, and the wiki that is described by Adam Smith's 'war of all against all, where life is nasty, brutish and short' (paraphrase) where there are constant edit wars, some pages will have to be protected at various levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a good reason why anyone without current access to edit it would, in fact, need to edit it. Matty (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there are various people with arguably sufficient experience with ITN (probably other areas too but I don't know) to be able to contribute constructively but who are not admins and there are definitely complaints of a lack of admin attention in some instances that I've seen Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of ITN - bit of help anyone? It's a bit dead over there for a weekend. --candle•wicke 04:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of ITN - that can mean a lot of things. Could you spell it out once? Better yet, if you use an internal link, we'll all be on the same page.--MahaPanta (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In the news template? - Matty (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we add "For technical reasons, # redirects here [...] see number sign"

Mabey we should add

For technical reasons, # redirects here. For the article on # see number sign

Adding that would let people who search for # get to the correct article. On the other hand we may want to keep the main page "clean". It will result in vandalism to "number sign" article, and likely protection. But by the same token, probably will result in major improvements to number sign, and thus, arguably, more then make up for vandalism/protection.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We didn't do it for %s, we shouldn't do it for #. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair though, %s is a lot more obscure then # Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Was there a discussion about %s? If so , please link to it. I did not find one.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

By "I did not find one" I ment I looked for a discussion about %s but did not find one.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See here: %s, Emmette. Are you having fun, yet? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack, you misunderstood. I ment a link to a discussion about %s, not a link to %s.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But it would be worth dropping the developers a note could they do something about the search box pointing to the Main Page if you enter "#". This is confusing. --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be possible/feasible. There's something similar on most websites. I don't know why. However, a hatnote on the main page would not be a good thing- it sounds like a parody. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're missing that Emmette *likes* parodies of debates. Think we should move Moon to The Moon? Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Jack. I've learned from my mistakes and won't take this discussion to far. I'm taking Franamax's advice, and, as Franamax put it, "just stating your [my] own idea and leaving it there". My idea here isn't even a suggestion, it's throwing an idea out there. Apart from my first post to this section, I have made no arguments, probably will make none, and those arguments in my first post are on both sides. And I assure you, this is not a parody.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No discussion I started was a parody. Sorry if I implied otherwise in my above post.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Per dab and JM, everything goes through index.php one way or the other, so checking for a plain "#" would be pretty easy. In the Wikipedia context, trying to link to the first anchor in the default site home page is rather absurd, as compared to the likelihood that a reader is looking for the article on octothorpe. It's probably worth a bugzilla request, although it might get prioritised just after "as soon as we're done all the other stuff".

• Having "%s" redirect here is truly intriguing, and I'd love to see the discussion on the mechanics which force it to happen. If anyone has a discussion link, please do provide it!
• Jack, can you please back off EHC? Do you regularly edit this talk page, or are you following the editor about? Franamax (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  I have taken an interest in main pages of projects recently that has nothing to do with Emmette; http://www.wiki.x.io/ for example; s:, too. It seems to me that Emmette *wants* my attention; he keeps that thread on his talk page rolling and has repeatedly pinged me on mine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

this could likely be solved by a single line in whatever code powers the searchbox. Just catch "#" the beginning of the search string and make it into a search of actual U+0023 in article text. Fixing wikilinks to # is another matter, here we would have to decide whether we want # to be an exception. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur heartily, my good sir! 24.80.126.107 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ITN order

Why is the Russian gov't appointed president of Ingushetia, Yunus-bek Yevkurov, topping the ITN for the second day? --Hapsala (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Because no free picture is available for the 2009 Washington Metro accident. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that pictured items had to be on the very top of ITN. Mr. Yevkurov is, after all, a light-weight government official, and - according to sources provided - his injuries seem to be based on speculations. I'd only support its inclusion if the assasination attempt was notable as such. --Hapsala (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When a better news comes along then it will go down. have some patience. Ashishg55 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-centrism alert! As you know, Ingushetia is in the troubled Caucasus area, like Chechnya. The rumbles in that area have been a source of instability for Russia and its neighbours for a couple of hundred years. [The alternative view, less popular in the Kremlin, is that Russia has been a source of instability in the area for the same amount of time. Same coin, other face.] The Caucasus area has huge strategic value for Russia, which has already lost control of much of its former domain on its southern and south eastern borders.

If they lose control of Ingushetia, Chechnya, etc., the barbarians come closer to Holy Mother Russia, and Russian paranoia gets worse. In Moscow, the evergreen "joke" is roughly, "NOVOSTI 2050 - there were further clashes today on the EU/Chinese border." And the Russians aren't really joking - they have been invaded every 100 years or so, and after a while it stops being a joke. Michael of Lucan (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Invaded every 100 years, and it was never successful either!Willski72 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And invade others every 10 years or so, usually with more success. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The order is supposed to be based on the time at which the event occurred, NOT which item is pictured Modest Genius ^talk 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the case for ITN, is it? --candle•wicke 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the case. ITNs are chronologically ordered. The picture is generally the topmost story for which there is a free image available. Sometimes this is the very last item on the list. APL (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah right, sorry. You'll have to ask BorgQueen about that as there's not really anybody else over there these days... --candle•wicke 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes....i wonder were they all went....Willski72 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you care to join the ranks of ITN comment giving people? I have made several nominations in the past few days which were completely overlooked and did not even receive the dignity of being opposed. It's a crying shame. ;( --candle•wicke 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You just cant get the staff these days!Willski72 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bloomin' financial recession thing which makes people lose their jobs makin' people who lose their jobs who would otherwise have jobs and would be people... grrr... --candle•wicke 23:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

NORWAY

Excellent piece about the Norwegian supergroup. Norway is sadly under-represented on the Main Page nowadays.

Many countries and substates are under-represented on the Main Page - perhaps there should be a "country/state-like eentity/substate of the day" calendar throughout the year. (Tongue in cheek)

Category

Main page without category? 189.7.215.226 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As archived on Talk:Main Page/Archive 111#Category, the objection of having a category was that it spoils the appearance of the main page and that no one needs help finding it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic expulsions

Wording suggests all diplomats expelled. Peter jackson (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It does....people automatically expect the worst....Willski72 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reworded. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yey!Willski72 (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Performance and accessibility

Hi!

What do you think about using a sprite for the Wikimedia project logos? Would this, together with adjustments in the css, improve performance on slow connections saving HTTP requests?

Also, W3C CSS Validation Service and eXaminator may suggests some other improvements in performance and accessibility (here and in other pages of the project).

Helder (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)