Talk:Main Page/Archive 151

Archive 145

←

Archive 149

Archive 150

Archive 151

Archive 152

Archive 153

→

Archive 155

Animal cruelty

Now I know Wikipeida is not censored, but do we have to feature Goose pulling in DYK thereby giving it publicity? This isn't a simple case of 'I don't like it' - there are serious animal welfare issues here: the RSPCA here in the UK has shown that many animal cruelty attacks are a direct result of 'copycatting' where the perpetrator has seen animal cruelty on the internet and decided to copy it. Please, can we just quietly drop Goose pulling from the front page and leave it as a backwater article where it will get little notice? 81.156.124.135 (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As this was a widespread practice at least two centuries ago (note, dead geese are used the few places it's still practiced), I fail to see the issue. If somebody's really going to be motivated to go catch a goose, acquire a horse, set up the apparatus, et-cetera... Also, as noted, Wikipedia is not censored. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That, and there've been many issues on DYK which, if copied, could result in more consequence than a few geese dying.  f o x  18:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Did you know "that when the Byzantine usurper John Komnenos the Fat tried to sit on the imperial throne, it broke under his weight?" (from May 6) I bet more than a few geese were harmed in the making of that man's epithet... clearly DYK should only feature vegans. ;) Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Horrible plant-killer! :P - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a case of you-don't-like-it. You don't like animal cruelty - some of us don't have a problem with it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh... ignoring the rather odd comment/probable troll above me, I think it is highly unlikely that anyone will read about this and then be inspired to go and find a geese and a horse to try it at home. Also wikipedia is not censored, etc. --Laryaghat (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd assumed the editor meant "...[I] don't have a problem with [animal cruelty on Wikipedia]. But aye, it's not censored. And anyway- where would the line get drawn? Fox hunting was legal in Britain until very recently, and may yet be legalised again - I regard it as animal cruelty, but I acknowledge that Wikipedia should have an article about it... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone had confused English wikipedia with England wikipedia

That explains how the Front Page has 'Harrods' as a 'big news'. --195.74.250.52 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A Qatari-owned business? Recently sold by an Egyptian? I'd say it's international news, and that's before the consideration as to whether Harrods is itself internationally known... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Love it, people from the UK complain of US bias and it works out the other way around. We're all patriotic twats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.202.155 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Promoting being a Patriot Twat is normal and good is very nasty. You are a human; you have the capacity to stop yourself acting like an animal. --Leladax (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cultural identity is pretty much the most human thing there is. I'd go so far as to say it's what makes us human rather than the same as any other animal. --Laryaghat (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly an Australian insect bias. Too many Australian flies are contributors. User A1 (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

People are biased. Wikipedia is not Antimatter--talk-- 21:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally saw "Wikipedia is not antimatter".  f o x  22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how I read it! Lol! Punctuation is your friend! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A very small percentage of our articles bother to mention antimatter at all, and when they do, it's often in passing. This systematic bias in favor of "regular" matter needs to be addressed. Perhaps if some of our editors had direct experience with antimatter, things would improve. Jonathunder (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, you're going to make be serious on Talk:Main Page... people (us) make Wikipedia biased. If we're aware of that we can deal with bias more effectively. Apologies, I'm Cap'n Bringdown right now! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm really starting to wonder if the daily claims of bias are merely facetious.--WaltCip (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rule of thumb: If everyone thinks you are biased, you probably aren't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Saying that just proves how biased you are :P Rd232 ^talk 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If you really feel the need to point that out, you just might be biased yourself.--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • At least I know I'm biased. "The wise man is he who knows that he knows nothing", and things like that. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Please don't call yourself "biased" ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

== Animal cruelty ==1324?call

Now I know Wikipeida is not censored, but do we have to feature Goose pulling in DYK thereby giving it publicity? This isn't a simple case of 'I don't like it' - there are serious animal welfare issues here: the RSPCA here in the UK has shown that many animal cruelty attacks are a direct result of 'copycatting' where the perpetrator has seen animal cruelty on the internet and decided to copy it. Please, can we just quietly drop Goose pulling from the front page and leave it as a backwater article where it will get little notice? 81.156.124.135 (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As this was a widespread practice at least two centuries ago (note, dead geese are used the few places it's still practiced), I fail to see the issue. If somebody's really going to be motivated to go catch a goose, acquire a horse, set up the apparatus, et-cetera... Also, as noted, Wikipedia is not censored. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That, and there've been many issues on DYK which, if copied, could result in more consequence than a few geese dying.  f o x  18:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Did you know "that when the Byzantine usurper John Komnenos the Fat tried to sit on the imperial throne, it broke under his weight?" (from May 6) I bet more than a few geese were harmed in the making of that man's epithet... clearly DYK should only feature vegans. ;) Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Horrible plant-killer! :P - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a case of you-don't-like-it. You don't like animal cruelty - some of us don't have a problem with it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh... ignoring the rather odd comment/probable troll above me, I think it is highly unlikely that anyone will read about this and then be inspired to go and find a geese and a horse to try it at home. Also wikipedia is not censored, etc. --Laryaghat (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd assumed the editor meant "...[I] don't have a problem with [animal cruelty on Wikipedia]. But aye, it's not censored. And anyway- where would the line get drawn? Fox hunting was legal in Britain until very recently, and may yet be legalised again - I regard it as animal cruelty, but I acknowledge that Wikipedia should have an article about it... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone had confused English wikipedia with England wikipedia

That explains how the Front Page has 'Harrods' as a 'big news'. --195.74.250.52 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A Qatari-owned business? Recently sold by an Egyptian? I'd say it's international news, and that's before the consideration as to whether Harrods is itself internationally known... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Love it, people from the UK complain of US bias and it works out the other way around. We're all patriotic twats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.202.155 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Promoting being a Patriot Twat is normal and good is very nasty. You are a human; you have the capacity to stop yourself acting like an animal. --Leladax (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cultural identity is pretty much the most human thing there is. I'd go so far as to say it's what makes us human rather than the same as any other animal. --Laryaghat (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly an Australian insect bias. Too many Australian flies are contributors. User A1 (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

People are biased. Wikipedia is not Antimatter--talk-- 21:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally saw "Wikipedia is not antimatter".  f o x  22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how I read it! Lol! Punctuation is your friend! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A very small percentage of our articles bother to mention antimatter at all, and when they do, it's often in passing. This systematic bias in favor of "regular" matter needs to be addressed. Perhaps if some of our editors had direct experience with antimatter, things would improve. Jonathunder (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, you're going to make be serious on Talk:Main Page... people (us) make Wikipedia biased. If we're aware of that we can deal with bias more effectively. Apologies, I'm Cap'n Bringdown right now! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm really starting to wonder if the daily claims of bias are merely facetious.--WaltCip (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rule of thumb: If everyone thinks you are biased, you probably aren't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Saying that just proves how biased you are :P Rd232 ^talk 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If you really feel the need to point that out, you just might be biased yourself.--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • At least I know I'm biased. "The wise man is he who knows that he knows nothing", and things like that. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Please don't call yourself "biased" ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tidy up the navigational links?

Hi all. There seems to be a lot of duplication between the links below the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bar and the left-hand navigational bar. Do we need the extra links, or could we remove the ones below the welcome bar? Going through them individually:

• Overview - we have "About Wikipedia" under 'interaction' on the sidebar (although About isn't really interaction...)
• Editing - "anyone can edit" in the welcome to wikipedia bar links to Wikipedia:Introduction, so although not direct duplication this is somewhat confusing
• Questions - if I have questions, I want help, so wouldn't I click on the next link?
• Help - we have help in the sidebar under interaction
• Contents - second link down in the sidebar
• Categories - aren't the categories given just above this link, in the welcome bar?
• Featured content - third link on the sidebar
• A–Z index - not duplicated, but is this really that useful/used?

IMO, the main page would be simpler to use and look better without these links. I would simply remove them, but I'm sure someone would object. So, comments? Mike Peel (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should remove redundant links, but remember what people see in the sidebar depends on which skin they are using. Modest Genius ^talk 13:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, but most of these links apply to new people, who will almost invariably be using Vector now, so I don't think that it's a major issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

New skin

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change. Please make no further comments here, since this is NOT an issue specific to the Main Page. Rd232 ^talk 15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind the new layout. What is this 'Association Football' of which you speak?

EOM. 90.199.112.178 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia term for what the rest of the world calls either football or soccer. Jonathunder (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a sport originally defined by The Football Association. Confusingly, it's nothing like God's own football. From "association" British private school boys coined the term "soccer", which is widely used in preference to "association football".

...oh, and I believe in Britain it now tends to be called "football" ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why, exactly, do we pay these cretins millions of pounds for wearing short shorts and kicking a ball from one end of a field to the other? Would it not be cheaper to get chimps to do it? They's probably be better at it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Orcs are better at it, or so I've read. Jonathunder (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For the horde! No, wait a second, WAAAGH! Buggie111 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Modest Genius ^talk 00:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand has a different approach: this guy is the highest-paid sportsman - but he has to rely on an American. The national sport pays its players well enough that, first chance they get, they leave the country. If British football would benefit from having chimps as players, New Zealand rugby would benefit from having chimps as administrators... TFOWR^propaganda 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all about Wiki-politics. The word football can refer to any of several sports. To the vast majority of native English speakers, the game is called soccer, a word that is unique and universally understood in the English-speaking world. However, the word "soccer" is abhored by many soccer fans on Wikipedia, who argue that their is the oldest and the truest version of "football" and that, after all, you play it with your feet. So we use the formal name of the sport, "association football," which is unclear to people in both the UK and America! Reminds me of an Aesop's fable about the man, his son and the donkey, whose moral is "Please all, and you will please none." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-compromise does have a role, but it's not the only factor. The majority of English speakers know the sport simply as "football"; "soccer" enjoys common usage in only a few places (see Names for association football). However, as "football" is ambiguous in some countries (e.g., Australia and the United States) and can refer to other sports (e.g., rugby and American football), "association football" reflects a compromise which is unambiguous and reflects the usage of the international governing body for the sport: the International Federation of Association Football, or FIFA. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, the oficial, original, real term is association football. Wikipedia shouldn't descend to using slang or informal terms. --Laryaghat (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only do you play it with your feet, you actually play it with a ball. The objects called balls in other versions are far too oval to be so described in normal usage. Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We should use football to mean association football and make the Americans and Australians call their version "handoval". I can forsee no problems with that - Dumelow (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll see riots rivaling the Vietnam war protests if we try to pull this off.--WaltCip (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Placement of Recent News picture

Was anyone else a bit concerned when, right next to the picture of the space shuttle, the first line (relating to the Thai protests) was "17 people are killed and at least 161 injured..." Bit distressing really, I thought the damn thing had blown up again, then noticed it was about the Thai protests. But the picture always being up top, even when it relates to a story farther down the list, it is a bit confusing after all. That old pic of David Cameron sat up there for nigh a week even though the news item about him was all the way at the bottom of the list. If we can't find a picture for the top news item, can we at least move the picture down the news column so it stays next to the news item it refers to? Thehappysmith (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been proposed numerous times, all of which ended without consensus; see the FAQs. 79.67.153.54 (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia languages" section unnecessary?

The section at the bottom of the main page seems completely unnecessary to me. It basically duplicates the functionality of the language section in the left-side menu. My tentative suggestion is that it should be removed. Effectively, this section is a couple thousand characters that are needlessly transmitted and rendered for every load of the main page. I largely suspect that those links are rarely used. Eliminate the section. This would make the front page look cleaner load faster. The language toolbar could be enhanced with some sort of star system (gold=1M+ articles, silver=500k+, bronze=100k+) that indicates the number of articles on that language's Wikipedia. A tooltip could be used upon a mouse hover that says something like "Euskara Wikipedia contains 25,000 articles and was started in 2005" (or whatever). Jason Quinn (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding a how-to-contribute box

I've been doing some initial mucking around with how a Main Page "how to contribute" box could work. See here: User:Rd232/sandbox. My main conclusion: adding the box is easy enough, but filling the box with good content is really quite hard (though very worthwhile). It's hard to present the different ways people can contribute, and lead complete newbies into them in an easy or at least non-scary way. It's hard even to choose between different tasks in terms what can be simplified appropriately. Possibly part of the solution will be creating specialised, simplified versions of relevant instructions, so we don't lob newcomers right into the full-and-complete instructions intended for experienced users.

This Main Page development is not going to be easy or quick, but is really worth doing I think, and I hope others will "get it" and collaborate in this effort. I certainly can't do it alone, and present a "so brilliant no-one could fail to see how worthwhile this is" version immediately. (What I've done is barely even a placeholder; but hopefully enough to give an impression of what might be.) Rd232 ^talk 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved separate proposal to MediaWiki talk:Viewsource to avoid confusing the issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PS In a somewhat similar vein, point 2 at Wikipedia:VPR#Alternatives_to_TFA_unprotection was (briefly) "change View Source to Edit This Page". I don't suppose anyone is willing to pick up the baton on that? It needs an RFC on that specific issue, probably, because it's such a visible change. (see VPR for the detailed motivation, which is essentially getting more people to edit) Not specific to the Main Page I know, but it would have a particular impact here. Rd232 talk 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC) If I understand the proposal correctly I think new users and existing editors alike are going to find it terribly confusing if there's nothing to differentiate between pages where they can only view the source and pages they can actually edit. And many, new users even more so, are likely to be rather annoyed if they click edit this page only to find out they can't. In fact, if anything I would say this would be far more oftputting to getting them to edit wikipedia then 'view source'. Let's not forget people usually won't need to view the source to propose changes to the page. If I see an article says "Bill Gates, the former CEO of Apple Computers" it's much easier for someone to just go to the discussion page and mention this rather then view the source and then be told they can't edit this page and be linked to the talk page. (In reality, such vandalism will be fixed so fast there's probably little point but I feel this example still illustrates the point). To put it a different way, if you feel new users are too stupid to realise they can propose changes on the "discussion" tab when they can't edit the page, you'll need to come up with an alternative to get users to the talk page rather then confusing the hell out of users by making them think they can edit the page when they can't and viewing the source for no apparent reason. If you do have a reason for wanting people who can't edit the page to view the source, I don't know what it is, but if it's something like you want to teach them they can edit articles, I'm not convinced misleading them into thinking they can and linking them to a page they can't actually edit to show them this is what it's like when you can edit, um except you can't; is a good idea. Even more so since they won't even see the proper edit window anyway. In other words, while you're free to try it, I'm resonably confident that any such RFC would be a waste of time. P.S. If you feel that an 'edit request' or some sort of explaination of why they can't edit is necessary then I suggest you look at ways that can either be implemented in the talk page, or maybe even add a new tab for something like that rather then misleading people into thinking they can edit, and directing them to the view source page for no reason. P.P.S. And without wanting to be too much of a downer, I don't see much point pushing the TFA protection change angle at the moment either given the fact flagged protection could only be a few months away as I mentioned in a new reply to the VPR discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Well thank you for your response, though I do think in general "so you think people are too stupid..." is in general a pretty unhelpful reaction to trying to make things easier and clearer. For instance, many people don't get at all (or don't really quite get) that "anyone can edit" means exactly what it says, and proposing things on the talk page may be easy, but it requires a "I can contribute" mindset which statistics tell us only 0.1% of visitors have. Foregrounding that is not in any way labelling people as stupid. Also, these ideas may have come out of the TFA protection discussion, but they are really not linked and mention of flagged protection whenever is irrelevant to them. Rather than reply in detail, I reiterate my idea in hopefully clearer form based on what you said. PS rereading what you wrote, you seem not to have clicked on a "View Source" tab (for a page you can't edit) for a long time. Rd232 talk 10:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Moved clarified version of proposal to MediaWiki talk:Viewsource. Better place for it, especially as I don't want to obscure the discussion about the Main Page "how to contribute" box, an issue you didn't address at all. Rd232 talk 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Just for clarification, my point about TFA protection related to the fact that while nothing here concerned TFA protection, this was still being pushed fairly recently (the TFA protection discussion was only about 1 week ago). I mentioned it here as I didn't know if you would check out the older discussion as it hadn't been edited in a while. P.S. I did check out the view source at the time I made my first reply by logging out, it was irrelevant to my answer. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just a thought, but, since the default skin is changing, we could do something very similar to the way they do over at |Wikinews, where they have a "newsroom" with collaboration requests and article under development. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(not sure how I missed this discussion) I'm uncomfortable at the idea of adding such a big, imposing, and generally confusing box of links to the Main Page. The policy has always been that the Main Page exists for readers, not editors. I think we're fine with the existing links to WP:Introduction, Help:About, WP:Tutorial etc, without adding more. Modest Genius ^talk 19:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well given that 99.9% of visitors don't contribute, and replacing editors leaving is a perennial concern, maybe we should reconsider this "policy" (if such it is). The box will be near the bottom of the page, and it should be designed not to be "big, imposing and generally confusing"!! It certainly needn't be any bigger than the Featured Picture box. Also, I do think that done right it should be illuminating for readers as well, to have a better idea of how the encyclopedia is written and maintained. Rd232 ^talk 08:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

'99.9% of visitors don't contribute' That's exactly my point. Devoting a large section of the Main Page to a subject which is only of interest to 0.1% of those visiting the page seems silly to me. It's not as if we have a shortage of editors. Modest Genius ^talk 13:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not as if we have a shortage of editors. ORLY? I don't know where you hang out, but the vast majority of our 3m+ articles are vastly under-referenced. Most WikiProjects have relatively little activity, even on apparently popular (in both senses) topics. Noticeboards (a few top activity ones aside) often get little or no response. The WP:SIGNPOST isn't what it used to be. A lot of key things that keep Wikipedia going (like WP:3RR enforcement at WP:AN3; certain key bots) are dependent on a shockingly small number of people. People are leaving all the time, and statistically it takes a lot of toe-in-the-water passing editors to produce one committed, experienced, knowledgeable Wikipedian. We absolutely need to do more to get more people in. Frankly you can have a preference for a reader-only Main Page if you want - no accounting for taste, makes no sense to me given the nature of Wikipedia - but claiming we don't need more editors is just shocking. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How to contribute to Wikipedia Edit Right Now! Keen to jump right in? Click here to try editing the sandbox. Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia ever written - and it is written and maintained by thousands of volunteers. Listed below are some ways you could contribute - there are a wide variety of tasks. If you've never edited before, you should check out the Tutorial, and if you sign up for an account, you'll get access to some helpful editing tools (under Preferences), and make communication with other editors easier. Basic tasks Wikifying articles from Category:All articles that need to be wikified. Before you start: Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, and look at other articles' formatting and linking. Revert (undo) Vandalism - from pages on your watchlist, or from Special:RecentChanges. When you get some experience, try Recent Changes Patrol for advanced tools and more complex issues around responding to Recent Changes. Learn how to cite information in an article, then head for Category:Articles lacking sources. Find an article of interest, and look for sources. Consider looking for WikiProjects on topics of interest, to find work that needs doing. More tasks Current open tasks | Wikipedia:Community portal | Wikipedia:Cleanup | Wikipedia:Maintenance | Wikipedia:Requests for comment

Initial very first draft/mockup. Edit the text at Wikipedia:Main Page/contribute. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. Support/Keep/Promote/Whatever applies. --candle•wicke 02:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Must we have so much Christian stuff on the main page?

It seems that every day there is something to do with Christianity on either the "did you know?" or "on this day" sections....and it's often to do with one creed, Catholicism. I could care less about what Pope Bulldust said or did on any day in history. Is this some kind of cabal of religious people putting that dross up? I never see much on Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim related articles (not that I want to, seeing I'm a rational person, i.e. an atheist). With the unending list of far more interesting articles to cite, why all this religion on a supposedly secular site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.105.174 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, Mr. "Rational," religion is irrelevant since you don't care for it?

Like it or not, the major religions have had a huge impact on the shaping of the world as we know it - history and religion are inextricably linked. Since Christianity has been the dominant religion in Western Civilization for centuries, and since English is a Western Language, it only stands to reason that many English Wikipedia readers and contributors will have a great deal of interest in the history of Christianity, and there will be many Christian-related articles on this Wiki. Furthermore, since Catholocism was the state religion and the law of Europe throughout the Middle Ages and beyond, Catholocism will have a disproportionate number of entries on Wikipedia when compared to other Christian and quasi-Christian sects.

Please attempt to think before you speak, Mr. "Rational."

-Eric Thrash —Preceding :unsigned comment added by 74.242.181.48 (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, up to a point. What is available for DYK depends on what articles have been created recently, and OTD likewise depends on what previous editors have though appropriate to include in our "by-date" articles. I've seen the Main page for nearly three years now, and although certain topics recur, I think we still have broad, culturally unbiased entries. Rodhullandemu 01:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for On This Date, but with Did You Know you might be noticing a transitory glut of articles on the 13 May relating to Ascension Day. DYK often recognises special dates in this way, including secular ones such as April Fools' Day, Halloween & International Women's Day, to name just a few. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

...and don't forget Mr. Rational doesn't have to look at the DYK page at all, if you don't like it, don't read it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.11.93.3 (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, as always, the best way to avoid having a Main Page full of stuff you don't want to read is to goo and write some quality content on something that does interest you and nominate that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at today's OTD, I note that the only thing remarkably religious in the clearest possible is the denotation of the Feast Days of Saint Matthias and Saint Mochuda. If there were any religious articles under the DYK section, I can't see them anymore, which should prove to Mr. Rational here about how quickly the section gets updated. Oh, and I got a chuckle out of "Did you know that Wooden Leg didn't have one?"--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

At least for the did you know section, there's a huge diversity of religious content represented. I looked at all the leading items from last month with pictures, and there were six articles related to Christianity, five articles related to Buddhism, two articles related to Hinduism, and one related to Judaism. I think that's doing pretty well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that the person who has been christened "Mr. Rational" is a man? --candle•wicke 05:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Because a woman calling herself "Mister" isn't rational? --Khajidha (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

58.178... never called himself/herself "Mister": he/she was dubbed "Mr. Rational" by 74.242... However, I think it is safe to say that a rational women is indeed a rarity (even rarer than a female Wikipedia editor), so it seems natural to assume that our rational 58 is indeed male. Buddy431 ducks to avoid indignant responses and hurled fruit. Buddy431 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism actually was always in western europeEugene-elgato (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by always? Since it began, yes it's been in Western Europe and that's arguably also where it has always had its great influence. However Western Europe was populated by humans long before Catholicism or Christianity existed. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese items in On This Day

Has anyone else noticed there's been quite a lot of Vietnamese items in On This Day recently? I wonder if someone with a particular interest in that country has done through the OTD calendar and inserted a whole bunch of stuff. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone recently did in fact go through and add a bunch of Vietnamese events to various OTD pages. At least it should quell down some of the frequent complaints about U.S.- and/or UK-bias on the Main Page, don't you think? Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an ITN item on the Thai government clampdown on the Red Shirt protests, too. Damn biased Wikipedia editors: try and remember that the US and the UK exist too, eh?! There's a whole world out there, beside Southeast Asia! TFOWR^propaganda 16:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he might be one of our admin. Haven't seen the contributions list yet.--yousaf465 17:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Zzyzx11? Aye, an admin! My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I suggested there might be pro-Southeast Asian bias ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 17:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Search box issue

I always manage to put comments on the wrong page, so please feel to relocate this if need be and let me know on my talk page. I just wanted to raise a debate about the new layout. I like the new layout very much - it's more up-to-date and cleaner. However, the new location of the search box is problematic. When you start typing, the search box gives suggestions based on the letters typed so far. The problem is, when the word you are looking for is longer than the search box, it goes off the side of the page, because the box is at the right side, and the text is left aligned against the left border of the box. Either we must make the text right align, or move the box. I don't have the authority or ability to do either of these, but hopefully someone does, or another solution can be found? --Tom dl (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem, I'm so use to having the box on the left, and typing thing is very annoying.
Thanks - George2001hi 18:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi (talk • contribs)

In your preferences, under "Gadgets", there is a "Widen the search box in the Vector skin." option. So somebody knows our pain! This helps us in the shortterm, and implies that someone knows a fix is needed in the longterm. (It's being discussed in a few places at WP:VPT. There are a lot of threads there about search problems, and about the new look.) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Big box at top of page, it say: "This is not the place to discuss the recent site changes." TFOWR^propaganda 18:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody reads that. --Nricardo (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to the top as I don't know how those it concerns are going to notice it half way down the page. --candle•wicke 01:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Now we are discussing a box designed to prevent a discussion. Who wants to start a discussion on the discussion to prevent a discussion? --candle•wicke 01:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File a memorandum with the Ministry of Simplifying Things, and we'll give it due consideration.--WaltCip (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

But in all seriousness, the box is in the best position it can possibly be in. The main page is simply notorious for being the Priority One page for any sort of grievances.--WaltCip (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

...and for those editors who don't read it, there's usually some helpful person who steers them in the right direction. TFOWR^propaganda 11:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is partially a matter of habit and I am not against change per se - but other wikis tend to have their search box in the left column and having it somewhare else causes stumbling. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Gentle nudge! TFOWR^propaganda 13:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In the news

It should be "England defeats Australia". --75.15.161.69 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not if you're English (see also WP:Errors above) - Dumelow (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The emphasis is on England and Australia (or rather, the English and Australian cricket teams) as a whole, rather than on their individual members, so it would still be "defeats", per the article you linked. --75.15.161.69 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "emphasis". If read your post correctly, what you are saying is incorrect as "defeat" is referring to the players on the English team and not the country itself. "England defeat" is correct and there is no reason to change it. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 00:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)00:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Defeat" is, of course, correct in British English (the appropriate variety for this item). But to prevent further confusion (which inevitably arises in these situations), I've switched both athletic tournament items to our standard "let's sidestep the issue entirely" wording. —David Levy 00:59/01:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the one place where centralized standardization does not result in undereducated children and a half-assed school system Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 01:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor does centralised standardisation.  ;-) —David Levy 01:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should all just revert back to Classical Latin, so none of this discussion ever needs to happen.--WaltCip (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Concino! 69.129.145.181 (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a Latin WP for those who want to contribute. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

By changing the original wording to (and sidestepping!!) '... with England defeating Australia to win THEIR first ever ...' have we not created another problem? Maybe it should read '... with England defeating Australia to win ITS first ever ...'? - referring to England as a team (singular). Or maybe not? Denisarona (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but even to my American ears, saying that England won their first etc. sounds acceptable. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 12:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The recasting did not introduce that issue.

While "its" would be more correct in American English, I agree with Aylad that "their" is far from jarring.

Regardless, British English is the appropriate variety for this item. I see from your user page that you're a European teacher whose native language is English. Is it your opinion that "its" would be correct in British English? That's inconsistent with my understanding that "England" is treated as a plural in this context. —David Levy 17:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was trying to make the point that the original text was quite correct and really didn't need changing (It was meant to be a little 'tongue in cheek'). While I prefer British English, I don't normally have a problem with the American version. Denisarona (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Note also that Great Britain won the cricket event in the 1900 Olympics. Peter jackson (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the ICC did not exist in 1900. Modest Genius ^talk 14:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"first ever" is a little clichéd? Why not just "first". What does the ever really contribute? Jolly Ω Janner 17:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ever" doesn't particularly bother me, but I agree that it probably doesn't add much to the item. —David Levy 17:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, 'ever' is pretty superfluous. Taking to WP:ERRORS. Modest Genius ^talk 18:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

advert on ITN?

Do we really have to mention the racing team's sponsor in the blurb? That clause is not that important in the blurb, is it? --74.14.23.76 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is, alas, the name of the team and I think the driver's team is an important part of the blurb, as unfortunate as it is to have it like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

can just make it Red Bull Racing since thats the full name to avoid making it look like an advert. -- Ashish-g55 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the two previous years, neither one talks about the team at all: [1] [2], so it must not be a critical part of the blurb. I noticed this too, and agree with the IP editor; this smells like an advert; even if it wasn't intended as such, it seems jarringly out of place. I'll give it a little time to hear from someone else, but I'm inclined to reword it again to remove the sponsor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome to do so :). I see where the concern is coming from and I'm not territorial over my admin actions, especially not Main Page fixes but I am going to bed, so I'll defer to your judgement and/or any consensus we get here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the car used is quite important for a motor racing item, unfortunate though the name is. Modest Genius ^talk 02:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Modest Genius. Some would say that the Constructors Championship is as important as the Drivers' one - Dumelow (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

While I wound agree with having the winner of constructors' championship, I don't consider this one quite so important. After all, on points terms this is just another F1 race, the primary reason we have this is because it's part of the triple crown where the constructor doesn't come in to it at all (at least I've never of someone call a constructor a triple crown winner) and the associated the prestige which generally largely goes with the driver. However I am not inherently opposed to it and can't help wondering if this would have received less complaints even if it's surely no less advertising and in fact I would argue much more so were it be say Ferrari or Renault who won. Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages

Hello from the Georgian Wikipedia. Can you add the GeoWiki to this section. We have +40 000 articles =))) I hope I'll add this language--თეკა (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

From a selection of a few dozen articles obtained by hitting the random article button, it would appear that the Georgian Wikipedia is mostly stubs. We don't include such Wikipedias in the list at the bottom of the page, as per previous discussions such as this one. --Lucas Brown 21:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is at Template talk:Wikipedialang Modest Genius ^talk 22:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

I have nominated this day for inclusion in the "On This Day" section for May 20. However, as the discussion page for that day is a page that probably only a few editors will be reading I am giving a heads-up here. Please see Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/May 20#Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. __meco (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Update:Rejected at OTD, now at WP:ITN/C. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiding the oil spill from the front page right after its announcement

It shows the bias of wikipedia english towards British and American interests. Whenever it makes someone else look bad, the news is there for weeks. If it makes the British or Americans look bad, it goes away in 2days.--195.74.250.81 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The stock response to allegations of bias is to encourage editors to create articles on topics they're interested in. In this case, I suppose, you'd need to encourage the World not to create news-worthy stories, in order to keep the spill on the main page... Hmmmm... TFOWR^propaganda 21:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The point of "In The News" is to reflect current events, which means things that are happening now. Once the leak has been reported, there seems little point in having a day-by-day account of events, because we are not a news service, and you might find Wikinews has more up to date coverage. Rodhullandemu 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure the allegation of bias is a tired cliche, and in this case unwarranted, but since the oil spill is still ongoing news, it may be a good idea to update a new blurb and put it back on the template. However, wp:ITN/c is the place for this, so let's all head over there. Random89 21:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was posted on 23 April, dropped off two days later, returned on 30 April, and dropped off again on 3 May. If you believe significant developments to the story mean it should be posted again, suggest it at WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 22:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just announced?! Have you been living under a rock for the past several weeks? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Whenever it makes someone else look bad, the news is there for weeks."--WaltCip (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Whenever it doesn't make someone else look bad, the news isn't there for weeks."--195.74.250.81 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an answer to Modest Genius' comment, above? (If you believe significant developments to the story mean it should be posted again, suggest it at WP:ITN/C) Or can we marked this as "resolved"? TFOWR^propaganda 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No one has claimed that except you, so why are you asking for a citation? Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

ok Britons, keep propagandizing, it's your wikipedia. --195.74.250.81 (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh come now, old chap. How about we take the aluminium lift over to the old lorry and head over to the pub and have ourselves a jolly good cuppa?_{Oh, and for your information, not all of us are Britons, guv'nor.}--WaltCip (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And not all of us Brits talk like Dick Van Dyke and Austin Powers put through a blender together. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, Brits don't talk like "dead meat in a blender." :-) --74.14.23.76 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware of that. I was just pointing out that, if 195.74 stereotypes us all to be Britons, we might as well make ourselves stereotypical Britons. :P No offense intended to any Brits out there.--WaltCip (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the country with the greatest percentage of wikipedia editors is almost definitely the US by far. Not even the majority of people in this discussion are British from what I can tell (if we count you the OP, me and the other IP plus Scalper & Random we have 5 people who are not British from what I can tell, I think MG, Rodhullandemu, TFOWR & Vanderdecken are, I'm not sure what Waltcip is but even if he or she is British 5/10 is not a majority) Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I'm an Englishman and I'm the one who nominated it for ITN the second time and the one who updated it so it could go on... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Kiwi, eh, bro'! (Though a fake one - my passport says "Kiwi", my accent says "lived in North Pomland too long"). TFOWR^propaganda 14:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, it's back again... There go the conspiracy theories. Indeed even before it was added back, it appears it was on ITN for longer then say the Greek protests which were on ITN for about 2 days and 2 hours [3] [4]. Why didn't anyone complain about us hiding them?

Also why didn't anyone think that if we were being evil and hiding things from people, perhaps we were trying to protect the Swiss headquartered (and resulted from mergers from so many different companies it's difficult to give a true national origin) Transocean? After all, many people who haven't been living under a rock have probably heard about the spill, they've probably heard BP associated with it too and know they're British, I suspect many haven't heard of Transocean nor know where they come from.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only person on the whole of Wikipedia to hold the following view? Italian Wikipedia tends to give more prominence to matters which are of interest to Italians. I can't read Punjabi, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Punjabi Wikipedia gives prominence to matters of interest to Punjabis. Because of the international use which is now made of the English language, English Wikipedia attracts a significant amount of attention from people who are not native speakers of English, and as a consequence it tends to have a more cosmopolitan coverage than most Wikipedias. This is absolutely fine, and enables English Wikipedia to serve an international audience. Nevertheless, it also serves as the native-language Wikipedia for those of us whose native language is English. There is no good reason why it should not give somewhat more prominence to things of interest among English speaking people. Italians have a Wikipedia which gives prominence to things of Italian speakers, and Punjabis presumably have theirs. Why should those of us who are native speakers of English be discriminated against by not having a Wikipedia which caters to our needs? It would not be acceptable for English Wikipedia to suppress points of view more common in parts of the world where English is not a native language, but to give more prominence to events of more relevance to those people for whom this is the native-language Wikipedia is not some wicked bias: it is natural and reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Natural, yes. Reasonable? I'm not so sure. Far from being discriminated against, I feel we (at en.wiki) benefit from the wider range of topics. It's good for me (I believe) to see articles about topics I wouldn't normally see. I love the featured articles for that reason, and its the featured articles on topics I wouldn't normally read about that I find the most fascinating. And if we were to go down the route of catering only to "our" needs - where would that end? I have no need for articles about cinema... In contrast, many US readers may very well be interested in Italian topics. A restaurateur in New Zealand may well be interested in Punjabi topics. Regardless, we give prominence to those articles which are being actively created and improved - the best way to get "your topics" front-and-centre is to create and improve articles in those areas you're interested in ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 14:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That appears to have been intended to oppose what I said, but I don't see that it does. I totally agree that we benefit from the wider range of topics, and I wouldn't dream of suggesting that we go down the route of catering only to "our" needs. I too find articles on topics I wouldn't normally read about fascinating, and wouldn't wish to lose them. I still don't see, though, that any of that means we can't give more prominence to those events which are of more interest to native English speakers. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm way too wishy-washy to oppose anyone ;-) Incidentally, I'd focussed on "topics"; I realise now you're talking about "events". I'm not a big OTD or ITN editor, so have no clue what I'm talking about when it comes to events. I'll bow out and let an OTD or ITN guru agree/disagree with you! Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 15:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to presume the Punjabi and Italian wikipedias have any unnecessary bias towards native speakers that some people seem to demand of the English wikipedia. Most likely, they're fully welcoming of non native speakers, unlike some people seem to think we should be to non native speakers on the English wikipedia. However there are likely far fewer and a far less diverse range of non native speakers. And non native speakers are probably significantly less active then native speakers in their wikipedias compared to the English wikipedia. So we can expect a far greater focus there, even if the native speaker would be happy and fully welcoming if they had our (unfortunate clearly in the eyes of some) situation that some English native speakers seem to be unable to accept.

There's of course no reason why someone who is not a native speaker of English should be forced to use other wikipedias simply because some people can't get over the fact that English is a global language, spoken by a large number of different people. In other word's what your suggesting is not natural or resonable, is divisive (making native speakers a special class of wikipedians with greater importance?) and reaks of WP:OWN, and to repeat what I said earlier most likely doesn't occur in other wikipedias intentionally (some of them may of course have problems with ethnic, social and political differences between between the contributors including between native and non native speakers, thinking randomly here, perhaps the Russian, Arab, Spanish or Chinese wikipedias but these most likely wouldn't be because of the native/non native issue). Of course WP:Systemic bias means we do have some unavoidable bias to things that are of interest to native speakers, it doesn't mean we should aim for it.

Incidentally, in terms of visitors, the English wikipedia appears to be the most popular wikipedia by far for people from India. I'm guessing the same for Pakistan and most other places where Punjabi is spoken. So you've got it, I'm guessing for most Punjabis currently on the internet and visiting some wikipedia, the English wikipedia is the one they're most likely to visit.

And yes, I have no problem opposing suggestions I strongly disagree with.

P.S. There is some suggestion we focus on who actually reads the English wikipedia. While I have some qualms with that particularly given the difficulty measuring it reliably (there were WMF statistics as I hinted at earlier but as I remarked in another discussion and aren't going to bother to repeat while these are better from nothing, they would very likely suffer from problems we would expect given the difficulty measuring), that's a far more resonable suggestion then being biased against non native speakers because of some silly idea that native speakers have a greater right to the English language or English wikipedia or that non native speakers should check out whatever wikipedia their native language is, even if it's crap, they're trying to learn English, they're used to reading English on the internet, they're in some ways more comfortable with English even if it arguably isn't their native language, they speak enough languages that they have no real preference and the English wikipedia is the best by far etc...

P.P.S. BTW this has nothing to do with the original topic which concerned someone complaining that we hide things which make English native speakers look bad (which of course are actually the things likely to be most of interest to native English speaker) but anything which make people who don't natively speak English (whether at all or not) we give undue prominence (and while some of these things may be of interest, generally much less so). In other words, the original complaint was that we are being more or less the opposite of what is proposed here. Of course the complaint was discredited, but I'm not sure why this discussion arose of that.

P.P.P.S. If you want a language of your own, try one of those constructed languages, with many thousands of bot created article but only about 100 speakers or whatever...

Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Text-Area Search Placement

Why has this been moved to the upper right of the page; not everyone's computer has the larger screen?

When one attempts to put in a couple of words, most of the selection(s) are truncated; and you can't see the scroll-bar to the right either, as it is completely cut off as well.

Can't we just leave the small "Text-Area Search" to the left? I thought the whole idea here at Wikipedia was to share knowledge, not boast of one's "abilities" to buy the lastest computers that those lowly peons can never seem to afford.

WB2 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

WB2 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change. --74.13.128.236 (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: go to "my preferences", then the "gadgets" tab. Check "Widen the search box in the Vector skin." at the bottom of the User interface gadgets heading, and save. This should help alleviate some of the problem with the smaller screen/rightside box. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

An even BETTER solution is to just to back to the Monobook skin in the first place.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what screen size has to do with anything. The box is the same distance from the edge of the window regardless of how large the screen/window is. --Maxamegalon2000 05:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Likely just a browser incompatibility, or the user is running at a ridiculously low resolution (<= 640x480) so the search box and tabs intersect with the Page/Talk tabs and Wiki logo. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No this problem occurs with most browsers and most resolutions. Trying typing something like 'september 11' into the box. There are likely various this could be resolved without moving the search box. Edit: In fact it appears a way to resolve this problem is already being tested on the prototype. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead "In the news" item - stolen paintings

This should probably read "worth up to $618 million" if we are to be impartial and more accurate.Paradise coyote (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the figure not be given in euro, rather than in US dollars? The theft did happen in Paris after all, not in the USA. Dennisc24 (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What do the sources say? If the sources all give $ amounts I don't think we should convert to euro and then pretend that the euro amount is the actual quoted amount. Also, if any of the paintings are insured then wouldn't it be best to give those values in the currency of the policy? --Khajidha (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for future reference, WP:ERRORS is a better venue for this. As it is, it's kind of a moot point- we ended up with euros and dollars and then it was removed altogether in order to squeeze in the name of one of the works and an image. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Syttende Mai

I am shocked, shocked, to find that nothing was said in On This Day about Norwegian Constitution Day, May 17 — Syttende Mai. Sca (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the first few words to the right of the date, Sca. --74.14.23.76 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, May 17 was yesterday (UTC). --74.14.23.76 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed since Norway is currently UTC+2 and we did have it on May 17th Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 17 ([5] [6]) I don't really understand this complaint at all (I could say I am shocked, shocked but sadly I have enough experience that I'm not). I live in NZ and even if I didn't recognise that wikipedia uses UTC, I wouldn't be complaining about the lack of Hari Merdeka at 03:59 31 August 2010 (NZST, UTC+12). May be on 04:00 31 August 2010 (NZST, UTC+12) i.e. 00:00 31 August 2010 (MYT, UTC+8)... Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's May 18 now where I live — did I miss something? Sca (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had actually thought that Norwegian Constitution Day was on May 18, then perhaps this complaint would make sense but you're the one who told me it was on May 17 above so I presume you know it is on May 17. So why were you shocked, shocked about the absence of Norwegian Constitution Day, May 17 on May 18th UTC and Norwegian time when it was mentioned on our May 17 version of SA/OTD which follows UTC (and the SA/OTD entry also clearly indicates what date we're referring to). Even if we didn't follow UTC, it would still not make much sense to complain about the absence of Norwegian Constitution Day, May 17 on May 18 Norwegian time unless we gave some indication that your timezone is in any way relevant (and we don't). Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, I wasn't complaining about lack of mention on May 18. I just didn't see any mention of Syttende Mai when I looked at OTD on May 17 at about 1600 UTC+6 (MDT in the U.S.) But no matter — Syttende Mai will roll around again next year.

Re relevance, well, there are several million Americans of Norwegian descent in the U.S. Alle de beste. Sca (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You must have just missed seeing it, because it was there: check the history (BTW, MDT in the US is UTC -6:00, not +6:00). howcheng {chat} 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I used that link on the (PDT) morning of May 17 (my Norwegian-American mother often mentioned it and I wanted to tell my kids.) Art LaPella (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

When I first replied, I could only think of two possibilities. Given that your complaint came on the May 18th, I thought the most likely possibility, as did the other respondent that you were confused because wikipedia didn't follow your timezone (which made little sense to me since the timezone of the place most closely connected to the event is UTC+2 as I pointed out, but I have enough experience with wikipedia to not be surprised when people think wikipedia should follow their timezone).

However I didn't dismiss the other possibility, that you had just somehow not seen it, even though it was there. So I also mentioned and showed you the links early on above demonstrating it was there on the May 17th. I.E. where I said and we did have it on May 17th Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 17 ([7] [8]). Although perhaps my reply wasn't entirely clear on this point, if you check the edit history carefully or the links I provide, it's clear the Norwegian Constitution day was always on SA/OTD this year, it wasn't something that was added some time during the day.

When you replied to me (i.e. your second message), I presumed you'd read my reply and therefore would no longer be in any doubt that it was there on the May 17 and nothing in you reply gave me any cause to believe otherwise. Instead you continued to talk about May 18th and seemed to continue to feel your complaint was resonable rather then saying something like 'ooops my mistake, I guess I just didn't notice it' or something similar, so I presumed you must have for whatever reason felt that it should have been there on the May 17 your time. So I again pointed out that it didn't make much sense to me to complain about it not being there on the May 18 even if that was May 17 your time and I did mention yet again (although in a manner of fact way and without links to demonstrate it) that it was indeed there on the May 17.

Hopefully you can understand why I was confused when someone missed something on SA/OTD, complained about it on the day afterwards and then missed, ignored or misunderstood when I pointed out it was there on the day it should have been there and appeared to me to continue to complain about it not being there, without it being clear to me until their third message that their complaint is that they were confused because they still didn't believe it was there on the day it was there, and not simply confusion resulting from timezone differences.

BTW, from what I can tell, no one questioned the relevance, we just wondered why anyone would complain about something that was there, on the day after it was there, and then continue to complain after it was mentioned and shown it was there.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to register a complaint about all the people complaining about the complaints. It seems to me, er, what? Down the hall. OK, then, thanks. Jonathunder (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, I don't think anyone was complaing about the location of this complaint, simply that it was a much ado about nothing since the complainant was mistaken, and seem to miss it when people pointed it out they were mistaken. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This was one pathetic case of a pathetic complaint done pathetically. –Howard the Duck 10:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

IIHF WC

I feel honored to see our article, which I have worked hard on for weeks, up on the front page. thank you very much!! Slaja (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What?! It's not "real" football/rugby/cricket/snooker/darts/curling?! I scream U.S... wait... Canadian bias! lol –Howard the Duck 19:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh Noes!! Nudity on Wikipedia front page!!

Should someone be telling Jimbo to get said image off the DYK area? You know, just in case some prudish folks get huffy and miffed at seeing boobies and then refuse to donate to the Wiki Foundation? And Fox News does a hit piece on how Wikipedia is corrupting our children by implying that Gods and Goddess in other religions are portrayed as strumpets?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

'Endemic' species

Well I learned something today but at first I thought the word 'endemic' was referring to a disease in the Alaotra Grebe ITN posting. Could we consider using language a little less scientific? Or do others think the word is fine?--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is really no other term that succinctly describes the situation. Besides, that's why we link terms like that. Random89 00:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Learning something when you visit an encyclopedia is a feature, not a bug. :) --mav (reviews needed) 04:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

'Endemic' is pretty much the only option, there isn't another way of saying the same thing that's less than a sentence long. Besides, it's a word everyone should have in their vocabulary. Modest Genius ^talk 15:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tidy up the navigational links? (redux - any objections?)

Hi all. Following from Talk:Main_Page/Archive_151#Tidy_up_the_navigational_links.3F, which had no objections to removing the redundant navigational links below the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bar but above the content, my intention is to remove these soon, so that it looks like that at User:Mike Peel/Main Page. Given the short duration before that discussion got archived, though, I just wanted to double-check that no-one had any objections. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

During the proposed Main Page redesign, someone did some statistics to find out which pages were the most visited, with some surprising results - I remember some of those on the redundant bar were (surprisingly) some of the most popular. If someone can link to this study I'd appreciated it because I can't find it in Google -Halo (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to read that, however it doesn't really affect things here as these are duplicated links. I would expect that the statistics would primarily be visits to given pages, given that we don't do tracking of individual links. Mike Peel (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My recollection is that special redirects were temporarily substituted for the direct links. —David Levy 19:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it: the results are at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_125#Results_of_main_page_traffic_experiment Modest Genius ^talk 19:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing redundant links makes sense to me. However, I wonder if it might be better to remove the second instances (ie those further down)? I agree it looks better without them, but as Halo points out those links were fairly heavily used. I too aren't sure where those statistics are, but there should be some discussion buried in the archives of this page. Modest Genius ^talk 23:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

These _are_ the second instances; in most cases, these links are in the left-hand sidebar, or in the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bar. See the details at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_151#Tidy_up_the_navigational_links.3F. Mike Peel (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, fair point. Fine by me then. Modest Genius ^talk 13:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If the links are removed, the padding separating the "welcome" bar from the columns should be increased to match the padding separating the columns from the featured picture row. —David Levy 23:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; I've corrected this on the demo page. Mike Peel (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note, the left and right hand edges of the 'welcome to wikipedia' banner don't line up with the left and right edges of the TFA and ITN boxes. I think that's true of the current main page anyway, but it wasn't noticeable with the line of links in the way. Modest Genius ^talk 13:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! I've fixed this within my demo version. I've also spotted that the widths for the cells in the "Welcome to Wikipedia" table don't add up to 100% (they're missing 11% on the current version - presumably due to a previous 4th column on the right), so I've tweaked this in the demo version. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks a lot better, well done Mike. — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; I've applied the changes. Mike Peel (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this main page material

What is so notable and important about Christopher Reeve's injury that it has to be included in the "On this day..." section? Debresser (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because he was an iconic celebrity of his era? --BorgQueen (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of the guy. Nor do I think a mere injury is so important. This information perhaps violates WP:BIAS, in other words, is not global enough. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

HE WAS SUPERMAN U MUPPET! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.224.168 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, compare it to today's other items: "Russian Tsar", "most destructive tornadoes in U.S. history", "Lisbon, Portugal," "Czech resistance fighters" -- this Reeve item doesn't even indicate what country it's talking about. 189.136.245.155 (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

He was also (more recently) an activist, advocating for stem-cell research. That said, I share the original concern about the applicability of this item at OTD. TFOWR^propaganda 12:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the item (and picture) to the opening of the Golden Gate bridge. Presumably this will make a different set of people unhappy... Bencherlite^Talk 12:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Superman fly under/over/round/through the Golden Gate bridge? (or did he throw it at someone?) I'm still unhappy at the pro-Superman bias... ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 12:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Superman would probably be the most hated person alive if he threw the Golden Gate bridge. Mind you, it would be nothing compared to the fact that he moved the moon out of orbit in Superman IV.--WaltCip (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you understand my first law very well. Good job, my dear padawan... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the A-Z index link?!

What happened to the link for the A-Z Index?! It was here yesterday, and today it vanished without a trace!  :( --Angeldeb82 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a major edit by User:Mike Peel. Before it happened there was a discussion here. I'll ask him the problem for you. Minimac (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It got removed along with the other navigational links that went below the banner, because most of them are duplicates of things in the side bar anyway. The A-Z item is one of the few that isn't directly on the sidebar, but is available in two clicks: hit Contents on the left, then A-Z at the top (this is on the old monobook skin, the new vector one may be different but I don't use it). Modest Genius ^talk 14:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As the testing indicated that the A–Z index link received substantial use, perhaps it should be added to the sidebar.

However, I wonder whether many users following the link had something different in mind and were disappointed. It might be worthwhile to solicit actual opinions on the index's usefulness.

I'll also note that we've lost our direct Categories link, apparently based on Mike Peel's mistaken belief (the statement of which I just noticed) that "the categories [were] given just above this link, in the welcome bar" (where portal links actually reside).

I've left a pointer to this discussion on Mike's talk page. —David Levy 08:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying; I made the change at a time when I was around for a while, and of course the questions start just as I return back to work... In reply:

• A-Z link: I asked in the original discussion "is this really that useful/used?", and didn't get any comments. So, is it actually useful? It certainly doesn't look like it is to me, to be blunt...
• Categories: as a Wikipedian, I know the difference between a portal and a category, but will a visitor/user? I'd see "Science", and think that's the science articles - not caring whether it's a portal or a category.
• "a major edit" - I'm not sure this was a major edit, more a minor tidy-up... The page does really need a proper major edit/update at some point, though.

If we want these added back, does anyone have a suggestion on how best to do this? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I've never viewed the A–Z index as particularly useful, but I can't speak for others. It was shown to generate a substantial number of visits, but we don't know how many users clicking through arrive at the sort of index that they expect. If it is a widely used feature, one option is to add it to the sidebar.

2. I've always perceived the distinction between categories and portals as potentially confusing, and I don't believe that the latter experiment has lived up to expectations. If we're to link to only one from the main page, perhaps we should revert to displaying category links (as we previously did) instead of the portal links that replaced them.

3. I agree with Minimac that this was a major edit, and I don't regard "Tidying up navigational links" as an accurate description of their outright removal. However, this is largely a matter of semantics, as you initiated advance discussion. —David Levy 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for more comments on the first two, but wanted to explain my thinking behind the third. I view it as a minor tidy-up of the navigational links because I view a lot of the links on the page as navigational in nature, not just the ones under the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bar, and in most cases they were duplications that were removed. Perhaps a "minor trim" might have been a better name with these two links in mind, though. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the removal of navigational links from the main page constitutes a "minor" change. (This, of course, has no bearing on whether said change is good or bad.) —David Levy 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DL's point above. Since it seems the OP isn't going to do it, I'll also mention that we received a comment about the loss of the questions link here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Wiki Main Page. As I noted there, I do feel great attempts to solicit feedback would have been worthwhile (apologies if that was already done), while this is the proper place for discussion, given the amount of OT or marginally on topic discussion here and the rarity we actually make any major edit to the main page it's not really that surprising people don't follow it much so probably a mention at VPT or VPProposals and Wikipedia:Centralised discussion or RFC would have been advisable. However it does seem to have received less commentary then I thought it might so perhaps it doesn't matter so much. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

The discussion started at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) may be of interest. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Adding the Main Page to .7B.7BCat handler/blacklist.7D.7D? Nil Einne (talk)

WP:ERRORS

...has several hanging requests that had not be acted upon in hours. –Howard the Duck 14:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for bugging you, but to use the term "general election" as a description to the congressional or legislative elections in the Philippines is applying British/Commonwealth English where it shouldn't be used. –Howard the Duck 15:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is at Philippine general election, 2010, is that wrong? Don't forget that the main page usually defers to articles - Dumelow (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, when I posted it, I used the term used in the title of the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, but that article is like one big nasty dab page for all elections happening in the Philippines on May 10, 2010, including presidential, vice presidential and local elections. The word "general" here pertains to "all" elections held on that day. The correct term when you describe elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives is a "Congressional" or if that doesn't work, "legislative" election, which are the only elections described in the blurb. That means that the blurb is wrong since other elections are omitted. –Howard the Duck 16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the word "general" altogether. Does that solve the problem? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That works, but I dunno why "congressional" or "legislative" won't work with you guys. Maybe it depends on the system of the posting admin, I guess. –Howard the Duck 16:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While 'congressional' or 'legislative' may be better, I still don't really understand the complaint. If the article includes it, then why isn't it okay to use on the main page? The fact that other elections are included in the general elections is somewhat irrelevant, no one said we are including all the results (the same argument would apply if we use elections anyway). For example, in Malaysia the state elections when held concurrently with the federal/national elections are usually considered part of the general elections (our articles mention both) but unsurprisingly we often only mention the results of the federal ones (not sure about the last ones, perhaps we made an exception because they were fairly extraordinary). Similar currently include both Senate and House of Representatives elections in Australia are in sync so the general or federal elections in Australia include both but from memory we only mention the House of Representatives results. Similarly, if we say 'in cricket' we don't mean that's the only recent result in cricket. If the term general elections shouldn't be used in the article at all, then that's something that should be resolved there or the WikiProject Philippines or whatever Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"General election" (did anyone read the first few sentences of this article?) has different meanings for presidential (the Philippines) and parliamentary (Malaysia, Australia and most Commonwealth countries). As you said it, the "Congressional" or "legislative" elections are the only elections mentioned and the blurb, and may be better, so why not use it? –Howard the Duck 03:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The very first sentence says "a general election is an election in which all or most members of a given political body are up for election. The term is usually used to refer to elections held for a nation's primary legislative body". How does that not apply to the Philippines and why are we still having this conversation considering the blurb has long since been changed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you describe the November elections in the U.S. Congress this year as a "general election"? Would the blurb say "The Democratic Party retains majorities in both houses of Congress in the United States general election"?

Actually, even if the article is renamed into "Philippine elections, 2010" there's no guarantee that the word "Congressional" or "legislative" would appear. –Howard the Duck 03:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. We're still having this conversation since the blurb still does not accurately describe "what" election took place. –Howard the Duck 03:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

I hope this is the right place to report. Sorry if it's not. I found one of the interlanguage links is not correct. Ko is Hangugeo, the code begins with k though. So it should be between "xal" and "ha". See this. And please check the rest too. Oda Mari (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been sorted under "Korean" instead of "Hangugeo." I've corrected this. Thank you for bringing the matter to our attention! —David Levy 16:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Presidential nomination in Europe's largest nation

• Christian Wulff is nominated for President of Germany by Chancellor Angela Merkel (Bloomberg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Gorand (talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought Russia was the largest? For quicker responses, use WP:ITN/C. –Howard the Duck 19:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

By area, maybe, but Gerany is the most populated at 80-odd million. Jusayin'.  f o x  19:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(Russia is mostly in Asia). Josh Gorand (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Russia has more than 140 million people... and most of them live in the European part. But anyway, that's irrelevant at this point, ITN/C is the place for nominations. And sure, a new president gets a mention at ITN, when elected, of course. --Tone 19:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case at all:

• "In the U.S. Presidential campaign, Sen. Barack Obama (pictured) obtains a predicted majority of delegates needed to become the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee."[9]

• "In the United States presidential election, Barack Obama accepts the nomination of the Democratic Party, becoming the first African American to be nominated for President of the United States by a major party."[10]

• "Barack Obama chooses Joe Biden, a Democratic Senator from Delaware, as his vice-presidential running mate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election"[11]

I'm sure there's a lot more, and the precedent is clear: A nomination can also be notable. This guy's election is considered secure (a formality similar to the election by the Electoral College (United States)), the nominating parties already holding a clear majority in the electoral body, very much unlike Obama's election at the time. I'm sure it's of great interest to know who the next President of Germany will be, unless something really extraordinary happens. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was clear that putting noms to ITN back then was a compromise, in order not to be flooded by angry counter-arguments... So I would not count it as a precedent, merely an exception. Besides, the election process is rather different in Germany. I'd prefer keeping the established conventions regarding the elections. --Tone 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the 2008 US Presidential election was a pretty exceptional case- we were looking at the possibility of the first woman or first black POTUS- so I don't think we should give as much coverage to "normal" elections. We should post the new president when it's known and we posted the old president's resignation (which is still up there). That should be enough- there's no need to put nominations up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be true though nobody knew at the time that the first woman or first black POTUS would be elected as they were both on the same side and it was only a possibility as you say. ;-) --candle•wicke 00:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The woman was the vice presidential candidate of the Republicans and the black was the presidential candidate of the Democrats; whoever was elected means there was something special about it. –Howard the Duck 03:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The three cited items predate John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

The woman referred to above is Hillary Clinton, with whom Barack Obama competed for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. (Obama's nomination was a historic first in United States politics, and the same would have been true of Clinton's.) —David Levy 03:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheles to equate a U.S. presidential equation to all other elections, and use that as a precedent is a bit of a stretch. –Howard the Duck 04:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The events in question were exceptional for the reasons cited above (though the Biden item was questionable). —David Levy 04:27/04:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. The president of Germany is a constitutional figurehead with no real power. The comparison is just silly. That being said, it seems a reasonable ITN subject - Giorgio Napolitano's election as president of Italy in 2006 was on ITN. john k (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The election of the President of Germany is certainly a reasonable ITN subject (no-brainer, in fact), but the election is on 30 June. We don't usually follow every step of the electoral process. The U.S. nominations are really the exception that proves the rule: I'd say their justified, partly because of the shear length of the U.S. presidential election process. For Germany, we still have the resignation of the last President up on ITN, we will have another German presidential piece in less than a month, that's really enough, don't you think??!! For another example of how WP:ITN/C deals with such things, there's a nomination today for the new Prime Minister of Japan, which was held up for a few hours until we had confirmation that he was actually PM and not just certain to be appointed PM. Physchim62 (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Newest articles"?

The "Did you know?" section, for as long as I've used Wikipedia, has had the tagline "From Wikipedia's newest articles:".... Right now, one of the articles referred to here is Juwan Howard. This page was created six years ago. This is not the first time I've seen a several-years-old article linked in the "Did you know" section among the purported "newest articles". Isn't it about time this tagline was changed so as not to be misleading? Betterusername (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was expanded five times. I imagine before about a week ago it would have been too short to be considered a real article.  f o x  08:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What wording would you prefer? ~DC _{Talk To Me} 15:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was already a real article before [12] the expansion started 18 May. It didn't follow the normal time frame between expansion and DYK entry. It was nominated 19 May [13] by the expander but he requested more time to improve it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Slight tangent, but there's a similar discussion about DYK from a different angle. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

John Wooden

Is there any reason why this is in the ITN box? I don't see how the article passes either of the death criteria: the article hasn't been updated, and he was not in a position of power, nor did he die unexpectedly or was his death internationally significant (no-one outside of North America really cares about basketball). Sceptre ^(talk) 15:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is at WP:ITN/C#John Wooden dies at age 99. Please redirect your comments there. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Now it's been posted, this is the most appropriate page. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What on earth is he doing on ITN? Get it off, now. It's not world news. 86.159.193.198 (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C is still the most appropriate venue. If there's a consensus there in favour of removal, I'll take it down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a matter of limited regional interest at best. At least restore the image of the historic Falcon 9 launch.μηδείς (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. The quality of the Wooden image wasn't a lot better, btw. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not one of these pics of Francesca Schiavone? --70.31.13.42 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the most appropriate venue is "Recent deaths" on Portal:Current events, not ITN. --70.31.13.42 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Next today's featured article

What is today's next featured article? Merle Lang 01:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merle Lang (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 7, 2010 is the blurb; Edwin P. Morrow is the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You can always see the next featured article at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/Tomorrow, or on Main Page/Tomorrow. Modest Genius ^talk 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia random article within a certain category?

Is it possible? 187.107.15.197 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure how. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Use this tool. Add the category you want to the end of the URL, after category=. Gary King (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture

I'm shocked! Insect rape on the front page! Will no-one think of the childen? 86.133.53.238 (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My first thought was how do you get "insect rape" from the featured article???!

For the record, though, they were both consenting insects. Since this photograph was taken they've started a family, and moved to a larger bed in the suburbs.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What "no-one think of the childen"? Obviously the pictured couple were thinking about making children! --70.31.13.42 (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite ugly children.  f o x  11:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Think of the nymphs! Kablammo (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not ugly if you are a bed bug !!!! Denisarona (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm the one who got permission for it and wrote the article. And it's by far one of my favorites of all time :) Raul654 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OMG ... 'got permission' ... 'one of my favorites' ... 'traumatic insemination' ... what is this, Madame Hildegarde's Torture Dungeon? 86.134.92.9 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. But I wonder why so many editors are linked to that photo? --I am 220.101.28.25 (talk) ^Contribs 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm all disappointed. I read that as "I wonder why so many editors are linked to that photo? I am", and was shocked to discover no salacious insect images on your userpage! TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, your go-to resource for hot bedbug spoons action! Shhh, don't tell Jimbo ... 86.134.92.9 (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

...Great, repeat of last year SouthH (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

One year on and I'm still here, still making insect sex jokes. My mother would be proud... TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 17:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Who would have thought Insectophilia was so common? Wot, no article? Yes, I think a signature modification is in order, thus.. 220.101.28.25 (talk) ^Contribs 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, saw the new signature on your talk page before you posted here ;-) Much less confusing! TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 16:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

1,000,000 articles

I think we need to add another grouping at the bottom of the main page, that is a group for languages for 1,000,000 or more articles. Thanks 74.14.134.14 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times, and consensus is that we should not have a tier containing one or few Wikipedias. —David Levy 00:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious if there exists any published metrics about how often those links get used in the first place. The question of their usefulness has been nagging at me for a while now. There's a chance that they aren't worth even keeping. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What's happening to the thumbnail quality?

Wrong forum. Try bugzilla or WP:VPT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been a problem for several years, a large discrimination against Wikipedia in other languages than English. This problem I've seen at: Fast servers, amount of traffic used, number of mirrors per kilometer, and ultimately the quality of the thumbnails of the items. A model generated in a wikipedia article in Spanish will always be of better quality than one produced in English wikipedia, for example. Can anyone explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfredor (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have no idea whether that's true or if so what's causing it, but this is certainly not the correct place for the discussion. Try asking at meta:, filing a bug or failing that, ask at WP:VPT. Modest Genius talk 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I'd expect it would be because the English Wikipedia is by far the largest project by every metric (articles, pages, edits, users, hits) the most popular project. It's not unexpected that technicians for a company would provide faster servers for their most important and successful pages/subdomains/whatever. Sceptre (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It kinda sounds like you are saying that wikipedia provides better faster servers for people that speak english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.213.21 (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Only as an unintended side effect. --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Pedantically, you don't have to be able to speak it, only read.  f o x  20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

More bold links on Main Page?

It appears that the Main page now has a lot more bold links than it used to. The change is visually jarring. Is there a link to the discussion that lead to this? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The number of bold links on the home page has not changed for years. The "main" article of each line in the DYK, ITN, and OTD sections have always been bolded so that viewers know which article the line is focused on. This is from 2005. The practice has been in use since at least then. Gary King (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the loss of the redundant and non redundant links between the top intro bar and the sections below make the bolding more visible? Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe before logging on, the Main Page came up in a completely different font. That happened to me once recently, but I don't know how to duplicate it. Art LaPella (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah I've had a variety of bizzare things with wikipedia (and other websites) that happen when something somehow goes wrong. Most recently perhaps [14] when I deleted most of this talk page. It's possible I somehow screwed up but I think it happened because of the edit conflict due to the bot archiving. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

On the "Discovering" of Inhabited Territories

Today's items include: "1494 – Spain and Portugal signed the Treaty of Tordesillas, dividing the newly discovered lands of the Americas and Africa between the two countries." So "Columbus Discovered America" is still legitimate terminology? Dick Gregory once commented that if Columbus discovered America, perhaps he (Dick G.) could discover your (anyone's) car in a parking lot and call it his, even if the driver were inside. SavantIdiot (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The usual approach is to use the accurate term "European discovery" rather than just "discovery"; as you say, some non-Europeans had beaten them to the actual "discovery" bit. If you see a way to incorporate this into the item, a post at WP:ERRORS (up at the top of the page) would likely get acted upon fairly quickly. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Some other Europeans beat Christopher Columbus, too. Jonathunder (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

New Section

We should add an "articles you can help out on" section of the main page so that it will encourage new people to edit articles, and we should list the top 5 or top 10 articles that need a lot of improvement. 71.94.158.203 (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that such a list would be horribly subjective and that frontpage articles tend to see more vandalism than the 'pedia as a whole. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well Wikinews have a "newsroom", linked on the menu at the left right below "Main Page". It contains a lot of useful information on how to get into WN, I think we could do something similar (just bouncing ideas around- not a solid proposal!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

""Satellite" by Lena (pictured) wins the Eurovision Song Contest for Germany."

Why is this important? American Idol is more important, why wasn't Lee DeWyze there too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.48.25 (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in the United States American Idol is more important, but to claim that it is more important on a worldwide scale is laughable. Eurovision is a centerpiece of the European pop music world, whereas American Idol winners usually disappear very fast (if they ever go anywhere at all) and aren't established artists. Zazaban (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

American Idol is broadcasted in over 100 countries all around the world. And American Idol winners dissappear very fast? Really? Have you heard of Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Jennifer Hudson, Clay Aiken, Chris Daughtry, etc.? C'mon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.48.25 (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. Are they very important? --candle•wicke 03:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

SInce when does being "very important" solely become an ITN criterion??? –Howard the Duck 03:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that only two of those five artists were actually winners, and that the show has crowned nine winners. --Maxamegalon2000 15:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I've never heard of any of them. Though to be fair, almost all Eurovision winners drop off the face of the Earth again afterwards (with some notable exceptions). Modest Genius ^talk 03:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard of them. One was Canadian as well. --candle•wicke 04:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard of Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood for being singers, and Clay Aiken for having the least surprising coming-out after that kid from Glee. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the bullshit concept of "internationalism" at work. Sure, the Eurovision contest involves more people, but more readers of the English-language Wikipedia are from America, and thus more interested in American Idol. But that thought doesn't fly at WP:ITN/C

The second sentence in American Idol says it is part of a franchise and that it was borrowed from a British TV series. Which doesn't sound very original. And you can't perform if you are over the age of 28? This Australian newspaper says the Eurovision Song Contest had an 83-year-old. --candle•wicke 04:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Since when does originality and age limits factor into "international-ness"? –Howard the Duck 08:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, we wouldn't mention The X Factor either. (Then again, did we cover Susan Boyle and friends?)  f o x  08:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion at ITN/C was shot down at he time her first appearance was aired. The Finale either didn't get enough supports or wasn't even nominated. I'd say AI has more viewership, heck it was aired on RCTI, dunno if any Indonesian network aired The X-Factor. –Howard the Duck 08:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but they're both fairly national competitions. Over 35 countries took part in Eurovision. As I say, it doesn't really matter.  f o x  08:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess the contention was the AI was a national competition that was aired and was followed with interest outside it's home country. –Howard the Duck 09:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe there was even an AfD for Susan Boyle. Didn't succeed, on the basis (IIRC) that she was internationally renowned by that point.

Anyway, my !vote: Eurovision is international (the European Broadcasting Union stretches from North Africa to the Western Pacific, taking in Europe along the way, and Eurovision itself is broadcast both within and outwith the EBU area).

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Just above you have the Indy 500, which really outside of the US isn't huge. Does it really matter? No, it'll be out of ITN by next week. Just relax, breathe, have a coffee, maybe learn about Eurovision, and have another coffee.  f o x  08:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it anywhere on the internets, so I'd just ask here: how many votes were cast for this year's Eurovision? Not the point-scoring system (Americans might have seen a similar application at World Idol), –Howard the Duck 08:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It was watched by approximately 120 million people, but I haven't a clue about the number of votes.  f o x  08:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) People may know my general distrust for audience figures. However since this discussion is continuing, the Eurovision article claims an audience of 100-600 million. Can't find any made up numbers for American Idol though, only US audience figures. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This says, normally, 9 million votes were cast as of the 2009 Eurovision contest. During David Archuleta's season, the AI Finale had 97 million votes, all in the U.S. (I have even seen on Philippine TV a digital on-screen graphic saying that the voting phone lines for AI won't work locally, as some viewers actually dialed those, lol). –Howard the Duck 08:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Since when does number of votes factor into "international-ness"? ;-) --candle•wicke 15:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really into "international-ness" but to find out if the intended audience is actually in to the show, which means voting. The viewers of AI outside the U.S. can't vote (so goes for Eurovision and those outside EBU) so we can't determine if how much they're "in to it"–Howard the Duck 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The X Factor a few years ago supposedly had 30 million votes in the final show. (Considering there are 60 million people in the UK, that's fairly good...) Neither are international.  f o x  09:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How many hours can the people vote before phone lines are closed in X-Factor? –Howard the Duck 09:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:Which probably means we should ditch Eurovision and replace it with The X Factor and AI. –Howard the Duck 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Indy 500 is pretty big outside the US. I'd argue that it's bigger than F1 in New Zealand, and probably Australia. Probably because it involves good Australasian car manufactures like Ford and Holden. (Yes, yes, I know where Ford and GM really come from!) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting that much answers. Well, American Idol is better. Period. Eurovision has 54 winners. 54! I only know two of them: Celine Dion and ABBA. American Idol winners and contestants have multi platinum albums, multiple Grammys, and even an Oscar! And as I said, 100 countries all over the world watch American Idol! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.48.25 (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

American Idol is better. Period. - hey! I can do that too! Watch: Eurovision is better. Period. Seriously, though - how many countries watch Eurovision? In 2006 140 countries. One estimate is that 1 in 10 people on this planet watched it. It's open to performers from Europe, Africa, Asia ... even, apparently, Canada. It's an international event, with an international following. Dana International, incidentally, is one winner that made international headlines - an Israeli transsexual (with quite a good voice, too...) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 14:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

i dont know why the two are being compared... american idol is a tv show and as such its selection process is purely based on making good TV. if anyone has ever seen audition episodes in any of the seasons they will know. if popularity mattered then we should have posted the LOST finale lol. -- Ashish-g55 14:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Eurovision produced by the European Broadcasting Union, which means it's selection process must've been based on making good TV? Dunno how they do the preliminary selections but that might say something. –Howard the Duck 17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Good TV"? OK, what follows is my personal opinion: individual EBU member nations select a candidate performer. The national selection processes may be good TV, for variable values of "good TV" (I wouldn't want to sit through some nations' selection processes for example (where "some" == "most")). Once each nation has a performer lined up, it goes over to the host nation's broadcaster(s). This has potential for truly bad TV. Then Eurovision itself, at which point the EBU nations vote. They'll vote on nationalist lines. Quality of the performance may enter into it, but ideally won't (it's very boring when countries vote according to quality - national prejudice is much more exciting). I've heard Eurovision described in many different ways, but "good TV" is a new one for me... We watch it precisely because it isn't "good TV" ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be arguing about whether it is "good TV" or how the contestants were selected -- the crux of the contention is if Eurovision and/or American Idol satisfies ITN criteria. Being "good" or "bad" TV, and how contestants were selected aren't in consideration. –Howard the Duck 18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, aye. My last comment was in no way serious. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just don't the discussion get off-tracked again. I'm interested to know where does Eurovision air outside Europe, and if it got significant viewers there? I dunno if any Indonesian terrestrial (over-the-air) channel it, certainly no Philippine TV channel aired it. Dunno about other Southeast Asian channels. Maybe it was aired in the U.S. in some cable channel no one watches. It seems that it has followers in Australia and Canada. It would've been nice to see head-to-head TV ratings between American Idol and Eurovision in Canada or even Australia. –Howard the Duck 18:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly aired in New Zealand (or was a few years ago), and I'm fairly sure one of the major Aussie channels shows it. I thought it was aired in Singapore back in the 70s, but wouldn't swear to it (and that was way back in the day...) The article is pretty low on detail - I got the stats above (140 countries, 600 million viewers) from the WP:LEAD. I checked again just now, and the refs for the viewing figures seem to support 100 million (which is still impressive, but I want to go back and check the 600 million figure). The EBU article mentions that Hong Kong and India are EBU members, no mention as to whether or not they show Eurovision, though. Incidentally, the EBU article is quite informative - I think the name Eurovision is misleading, as it implies "Europe"; in fact any EBU member can participate, which is how Israel takes part.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

They won't certainly know how many (had potentially) watched the AI finale outside the U.S. -- I mean how does one measure that? The American Idol finale had 300 million potential viewers in the U.S. and Canada, but according to Nielsen only 24 million watched. The 100-600 million number for Eurovision may mean "potential viewers". I checked the EBU article earlier and saw NBC, ABC and CBS as one of "second class" members. Maybe one of those three aired those in the wee hours of the morning in the States. These viewing numbers are way too fishy to use as proof.

As for AI contestants, they are certainly not limited to Americans either: Michael Johns is an Aussie, Ramiele Malubay was a Zamboanga resident, and Jasmine Trias' ancestor was the first Vice President of the Philippines. I'd say this is of somewhat similar nature to Celine Dion singing in Eurovision for Switzerland(?!). –Howard the Duck 19:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

American Idol#International says: "American Idol is broadcast to over 100 nations outside of the United States. In most nations these aren't live broadcasts and may be tape delayed by several days or weeks." It's not simultaneously news in all the countries and listing the winner in ITN after the American airing would be a spoiler for many viewers. I know we don't use spoiler warnings in articles but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to reveal the ending of a television series on the main page before it airs in many countries. I don't watch American Idol but I watch Lost with a delay of weeks and would have been annoyed to see the ending on the main page (assuming something meaningful would fit there but don't spoil it for me). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't speak for everybody but perhaps most TV networks that aired American Idol probably aired the FInale either live or at primetime the day after it happened -- it's in the news after all so they won't be able to avoid spoiling tjheir intended audience. –Howard the Duck 01:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's only a week or so afterwards then perhaps (here in NZ it was on Thursday at 7.30 pm and they said it was hot off the satellite so I presume it was not long after). If it's several weeks then this seems unlikely. The local media may be fairly cooperative in avoiding spoilers of this sort (they usually are in NZ) and this can happen with all sort of things like Survivor or even Lost (although that's more complicated to spoil). Of course if there isn't even that much interest it may simply be no one reports on it. The Lost finale was incidentally broadcast simulatenous in 8? countries along with the West Coast US which was supposedly a world first. Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The "via satellite" means it is tape delayed by a few hours, most of the time it'll be aired in primetime of the receiving country. AI is different from Lost since the former is not scripted (unless it was rigged) and hence can be covered by mainstream media while scripted programs are rarely covered outside the gossip rags except for anticipated series finales, just like what happened in Lost. Media, no matter how cooperative they can be, could not prevent their potential viewers from finding the "spoilers"in the internet. STAR World which airs in several countries, aired the AI finale live; in fact, some countries that have STAR World, and have another local channel that airs AI, probably had two channels showing the same program in primetime at the same time.

In fact most TV networks that air foreign programming air their some of their shows at most a month after the episode was originally aired, again to offset the spoilers in the internet or web torrents. –Howard the Duck 07:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that this is true, from [15] it appears we're only up to episode 9, but from Survivor: Heroes vs Villians it ended on May 16th in the US. That's suggests over a month delay. And I see a lot of reality shows aired here many months after they finished in the US. When I was in Malaysia, things tend to be even more delayed, many months is hardly uncommon (the first season of Survivor was several months delayed IIRC). (Over a year is hardly uncommon for scripted TV.) I doubt internet spoilers are an issue, in reality the biggest threat is from the first few days. No one talks about who won Survivor, 3 months after it finished. Nowadays I don't think I hear about who won survivor period, let alone shows like the Bachelor, The Apprentice etc. So if you don't accidentally read it in the first few days the chance you'll read it later is slim. (Talent shows are slightly unique in that they may involve a contract or public performance so may be mentioned later. Also reading wikipedia can be an obvious risk.) If you go looking, sure you'll easily find out, but that's true for many things including scripted shows so it isn't really an issue since people who don't want to know ain't going to go looking. Networks are reducing the timeframe because people may download the show rather then wait so they lose the advertising revenue, but that's a completely different issue from spoilers. However even with that, as I've already said I don't think months is a uncommon. Broadcasting schedules, costs etc mean that except perhaps for either very unpopular or very popular shows, it just isn't worth it. For American Idol, perhaps it's popular enough that it is aired close to live in many countries (as I said, it appears to be so here in NZ and it seemed to have ended Thursday last week on Malaysia FTA TV based on its absence in broadcast schedules so I presume it too was close to live) but more general I don't agree that most reality shows are aired close to live or only a month delay. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For AI in the most part, the delay must be a week at most in many countries. No one cares about Survivor, let alone other reality programs, anymore nowadays. AI seems going that route too so... –Howard the Duck 08:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Super Bowl, anyone? It's on ITN every year, claims fewer viewers and is almost completely ignored outside of North America. Not even European who have a sport interest really care much about it, no matter how big it is on one particular continent. And just imagine the shrillness and sheer amount of indignant replies that would be the result if some anon from, say, India or Kenya complained about it's relevancy here. In short: an American systemic bias does not make this a better encyclopedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Which begs the question: where do we draw the line? WP:ITNR (just an update and it'll go up) has hurling a sport that is followed in an island with a fewer population as Hainan, and I don't remember anyone complaining except for a person who thought hurling was cricket. –Howard the Duck 19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You might like to read our article on begging the question; it does no such thing. Modest Genius ^talk 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The point still stands. –Howard the Duck 19:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think people are missing the point, Eurovision's inclusion on ITN has nothing to do with viewer numbers, and it should certainly not be compared to reality TV shows. Eurovision is a cultural and historical institution. And I say this as someone who has never seen it and is not even European! Random89 05:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly dunno what ITN's criteria is nowadays, but I still think the "international importance or relevance still applies, and it's a safe bet both competitions, no matter how low culture a competition is in which 97 million people cared enough to actively participate, or if it's a "cultural and historical institution" in which 9 million people cared enough to actively participate, deserves a shot. –Howard the Duck 19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to argue either for or against Idol-winners in ITN, but something that might be worth noting in this discussion is that issues of nationhood and international competition often adds relevance to an issue which might not be obvious from statistics for active participation. Both hurling and the Eurovision Song Contest are very much "nationalist" concernt, while Idol is almost entirely commercial/corporate in nature. It's worth taking into consideration when discussing news importance.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Importance is (was) not the sole criterion. There is (was) interest too. –Howard the Duck 03:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this discussion has become way too long for something that is no longer in ITN. Can we just shelve it and move on? --Lucas Brown 05:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Search box location

Is there any way to get the search box back to where it was if I don't want to make an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.76.202 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In a word? No. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you use firefox you can use a greasemonkey script or similar to move it back. There are a couple of ready made ones on http://userscripts.org/ Macbi (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

new features don't work

I can't find the proper place to tell you this but none of the new featires are working on my windows mobile phone and you've somehow blocked some of the more useful features I used to be able to use while making the page much bigger than it used to be. And to make it worse I can't now sign in to use the older and better version. 82.132.248.160 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change/Bug reports. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You might also post here. Jonathunder (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures with fruits

I daresay pictures with fruits are displayed far too often as today's featured pic on the Main Page. I'm still too little experienced with editing the English Wikipedia and my appraisal of that could be more of a reader's one than of an editor's one. To me, personally, that looks like a shortage of diversity. What would you say about that? --Магьосник (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Although there have been many fruits, there have been many more flies-on-feces and vintage cityscape TFPs in recent months. Now what we need to do is synthesize these three themes: Fruit Flies on feces with a backdrop of Victorian London. Any pictures like that we can use? Antimatter--talk-- 01:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The fruit images, are (pardon the pun) somewhat bland, and could be more striking, like File:Fractal_Broccoli.jpg User A1 (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fractal broccoli was already POTD and is no longer eligible to appear. Meanwhile, fruits have been limited to no more than one per month over the last few months. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fractal brocolli was an example of a really good FP, and I don't mean to make a request. User A1 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

When will someone set up the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells discussion on inappropriate image use or excessive images from one category' discussion page? (This is probably simpler than myy other suggestion of, to go with 'ordinary' and Simple English Main pages, having one on which all the non-vanilla entries are given preference - likewise on 'random links': there are far more boxes and images etc, so that flowers/cars/animals/the US/the UK/things which annoy DoTW etc are featured every day). (Tongue in cheek.) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the fruit picture, also the insect ones. But my impression is also that fruit and insects seem to dominate this section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.136.200 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh guys, don't be so cynical! :) I'm just sharing an impression of mine, in my capacity of a regular reader and occasional editor of the English Wikipedia. Unlike Wikinews, where the Main Page is the entire focus, here most users ignore the front page and go in search of their topic. An item on the Main Page has to be unusual in order to catch attention. And the pictures of a whole fruit and a cross-section of another in front of a white background are really unusual in addition to being beautiful and differ vastly from maps or pictures of cities, buildings, people, or animals - which almost exclusively provide some context other than the object in question. Not to mention mere text, however interesting it could be. Over the last months, pics of a whole fruit and a half of one have been displayed on Jun 8 (today), May 5, Apr 17, Mar 6, Feb 5, Jan 3, Dec 11, Nov 21, Oct 19. That makes nine times in nine months. I may be wrong, of course. I now almost expect numerous replies telling me how much you disagree with me, but as I already pointed, I'm still more of a reader of en.wp than of an editor. So, it won't be surprising if my evaluation of certain matters is inaccurate. --Магьосник (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, once a month isn't bad. Bugs get on about once every 8-9 days. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

'In the news' is like a "Secret Society" to the common user.

[This is Front Page related]

I use this contraption for years and I always found surprising how hard it is to see who actually is that 'guy' that once something new is going on he immediately changes the Front Page to that. People are fighting 'in the news suggestions' over what to put on the Front Page but apparently a minority of admins can do whatever they want in seconds.

This is in direct violation of the 'free to edit' spirit since it's technically compliant but in spirit a wreck.

Make it more apparent how you control such tools of Vast Influence that can be used for Propaganda or destroy yourselves in sepsis. --Leladax (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A voting system a-la reddit/digg perhaps [if you think "people are stupid" put the "superior" admins being the only ones voting then]. --Leladax (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Blame the vandals who made Main Page Protection necessary, not those users who have access to edit the Main Page. --70.31.13.42 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of the admins active at ITN and I've posted a fair few of the items over the last month and a bit and I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Once something happens that might be worthy of an ITN entry, someone will nominate at WP:ITN/C, where it sits until there is a consensus to post it. Once such consensus has been established and the relevant article has been updated to reflect the event, it will go up as soon as it comes tot he attention of an administrator. But, of course, it's all a conspiracy! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Everybody can make suggestions and comments at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates which is linked near the top of this page. Due to vandals, only admins can edit things displayed on the main page, but their edits should reflect consensus among other users. There are often few who comment on a suggestion so each comment can have a large influence, but note Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This post by Leladax [16] is awfully similar to our anonymous friend [17] who complained about the alleged hiding of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Leladax seems to be interested in Greek topics and the IP looks up to Greece. Both were active in talk main page at the same time. Even if they are not the same person, perhaps Leladax could answer the question I posed to our anon friend Talk:Main Page/Archive 151#Hiding the oil spill from the front page right after its announcement :

Oh dear, it's back again... There go the conspiracy theories. Indeed even before it was added back, it appears it was on ITN for longer then say the Greek protests which were on ITN for about 2 days and 2 hours [3] [4]. Why didn't anyone complain about us hiding them?

I would particularly like comments on Leladax as to the parts I gave emphasis i.e. why they didn't complain when we hid the Greek protests after only 2 days and 2 hours! Which as I pointed out was shorter then the Deepwater Horizon oil spill at the time of their complaint (let alone when it reappeared after their complaint). I'm not holding my breathe since our anon friend seemed to ignore MG's comment even though they likely read it as they came back after it had been posted and made a new comment so I'm guessing Leladax is going to do the same.

P.S. I do agree we occasionally get admins unfamiliar with ITN posting things without discussion, sometimes even we've agreed to wait or whatever. It's a rather odd time to bring it up though since I'm not aware of it having happened recently.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting an ID for the FPC

{{editprotected}}

Most of the elements on the Main Page have an ID. The FPC doesn't, however. Please provide it with one. Replace the following line:

{| style="vertical-align:top; background:#faf5ff; color:#000; width:100%"

With:

{| style="vertical-align:top; background:#faf5ff; color:#000; width:100%" id="mp-bottom"

Which would give it the ID of "mp-bottom". This is so that we can use the ID to manipulate that particular box. The other boxes similar to this one that has IDs are mp-left and mp-right. Gary King (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 20:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Main page annoyance

It is very annoying how the Did you know... box is not in line with the On this day... box. Could this possibly be fixed?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks OK on my screen. And i have to say it's not really what I'd call "very annoying"... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that probably wasn't the best way to describe it. However, I am using Google Chrome and it doesn't seem to be in line.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not aligned because the height of Today's Featured Article and In the news can vary, so they don't want whitespace to appear below either one of them. Gary King (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not you, it's the Main Page. We try to keep them as balanced as possible, but keeping 4 columns, of which 2 change every few hours, perfectly symmetrical is easier said than done! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It also depends on the browser pixel size which depends on screen resolution and whether it's full screen. And while I'm not sure I suspect browsers may render it different enough that in some instances even if you have the same browser pixel size you won't get the same result as words overflow and stuff. Very likely the font will matter too which is generally browser and OS dependent. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Where are the Dutch elections?

Eh? 86.45.130.146 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Dutch general election, 2010 - it looks like Job Cohen hasn't been officially announced as Prime Minister yet. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 17:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You can follow the story's progress at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 17:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia box

Why was the background color of the Welcome to Wikipedia box made darker? It doesn't seem to fit anymore with the other boxes.—Totie (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

An explanation for the change was provided in the edit summary for the change. As to your assertion that the new shade no longer fits the other boxes, this seems to be more an issue of your specific browser/computer display configuration than the new actual color value. --Allen3 ^talk 12:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that it may be an optical illusion rather than a browser problem! The other places where this shade appears on the screen, it is bordered in light blue, whereas in the Welcome to Wikipedia box it is bordered in gray. I actually perceived the box as a darker shade as a result; only when I carefully compared the interior of the box to the other place this shade appears on the screen did I realize that the two were the same. TheGrappler (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear anywhere else on the page for those of us still using Monobook. Not complaining, since it's actually a decent match to the outside background at that level, just an observation. Modest Genius ^talk 16:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mhm, if you're on Monobook it will not appear correctly, but as the default (that presumably the majority of readers will see) it does work.  f o x  16:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I use monobook and it looks fine to me, but I suppose the change is meant to cater for the many who use the default, not the few who couldn't stand vector and ran back to monobook screaming! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks awfy dark to me, but hey. It looks fone on Vector, sooo...  f o x  16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's so obviously dark to me because the background color of the body is exactly the same. I made a picture of the difference. I prefer the brighter color we had before, it just fits better in my opinion. I guess I shall change it my user.css.—Totie (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is true - it's like a hole through the page down to the background. Modest Genius ^talk 20:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I use MonoBook. I was performing an unrelated check under Vector when I noticed the clash.

The box's original background shade was #f9f9f9, the same as most of the MonoBook background. Because a vast majority of users now view the site under Vector, I switched to #f6f6f6, the shade used throughout most of its interface (including alongside the box).

However, as noted by Modest Genius, the portion of the MonoBook background appearing above and directly to the left of the box contains various greys closer to the new shade than to the old one. So in my opinion, the box looks no worse under MonoBook than it did before. —David Levy 00:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dark??? It's barely any different, but a step in the right direction at least. Hardly surprising we have such pansy colours for the main page if that is the general view. The colours should be made bolder in my view. Not quite as "aevil" as my signature but just to make the main page stronger. It looks weak in my view. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Vector shows more of the background than Monobook did (Vector has more space to the left and the right). And yes, it is dark compared to the prior color. But it doesn't matter, I think it doesn't look good, so I'll change it in my Vector.css anyway.—Totie (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal:Recent GA's

Per the discussion here, I propose to replace the "On This Day..." box with hooks from recent GA's. The reason for this is that the "On This Day..." box does not always show articles that have recently been updated or highlight quality work. The box sometimes displays articles that are not of high quality. There have been numerous discussions to enable users to submit hooks from recent GA's to DYK, but it has been argued that this would create too much of a backlog at DYK and take away from the spirit of "new content". Interesting hooks from recent GA's (perhaps summarizing the article in a sentence or two, or in another format) would help to draw more eyes to GA articles, which might assist them in efforts to achieve FA status.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I endorse HJ Mitchell's plan below. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose a more mild suggestion. Instead of outright replacing "on this day", we can move it to the right side of the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section, underneath the today's featured picture. Currently that place is unoccupied and I don't recall if that white space ever got contents in it. This opens up a section for recent GAs. Consider this as a "middle of the road" proposal because we don't eliminate any sections from the main page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On this day is flawed because it cannot possibly show all anniversaries that are significant. There doesn't seem to be much user input to the section either. Where is it stated that "we don't eliminate any sections from the main page"? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that OhanaUnited meant "...because we don't eliminate any sections from the main page [under this plan]" (i.e. "we won't eliminate any sections from the main page if we do it this way"). —David Levy 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you interpreted my writing correctly. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The three meta-content sections are intentionally separate from the encyclopedic sections in both style and location (with the Other areas of Wikipedia section's items intended to not wrap under most configurations). Squeezing an encyclopedic section into the area designated for the meta-content sections would disrupt the page's clear demarcation (intended to clarify the sections' nature and guide users to appropriate material). —David Levy 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Since when is the purpose of Wikipedia's mainpage to only feature "quality work"? I personally love the "On This Day" section, and look forward to reading it every morning. Many of the articles linked to deal with subjects that I might not have previously come across, and I definitely appreciate the breadth of topics that are touched upon. While some may not be in the best of shape, an overwhelming percentage of articles are not GA/FA material. When I see these lesser-developed pages, I don't think less of Wikipedia, and I doubt many others would either. If they understand the true essence of what we do here, then not only will they know that a vast amount of work remains to be done, but that they can jump in and help anytime they'd like.

As for the recent push for "Think of the children Good Articles!": I don't get it. I would say a fair number of promoted GAs are on their way to PR/FAC anyway, and if they are made to be as prominent as FAs (which is clearly where we're headed with the mini green logo and now this proposal), then what's the point of achieving FA, other than the ability to display a more impressive gold star? Yes, it's hard work writing a Good Article, and even tougher readying one for Featured, but come on. Bite the bullet, go to FAC, and then get the article on the mainpage. It's a crowning achievement; let's keep it that way. María (habla conmigo) 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not terribly keen on replacing OTD- I think it goes some way to disproving the claims that we're focussed on 21st century popular culture and, to be honest, I find it interesting- often more interesting than the TFA and DYK combined. Perhaps the text for the TFP could be shortened and its box made the same size as all the others, that would create space which we can fill with something new and GAs sound like a good suggestion to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support the suggestion by Mitchell above. We could also make the "other areas of Wiki" two columns instead of one" to shorten the main page a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This would introduce text wrap/clutter at some resolutions. —David Levy 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that my suggestion will not be supported, so I withdraw my proposal to replace OTD, and endorse HJ Mitchell's plan.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe increase the size of the featured picture to fill the entire half and place the caption below it. Then recent GA's can be placed to right of that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. More picture, less text- the images are feature pictures, so let them speak for themselves. In the light of my casual suggestion attracting more support than I thought, we could start an RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the full-width format is the only one that can properly support panoramic images, so we would have to switch to displaying a thumbnail and asking readers to visit a separate page.

We should determine whether there is consensus for a dedicated GA section before focusing on any specific means of accommodating one. —David Levy 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The other thing about TFP is that's not just the picture. Featured Pictures are not promoted on the basis of technical merit and/or "wow-ness" only, but they also have to have encyclopedic value. In other words, it's not just about pretty pictures; they need to be placed in context, and images that are lacking that context are usually not promoted (unlike on Commons, where's it all about the aesthetics). So if you shorten the text on the Main Page, you lose the context and by extension the entire reason why those images got promoted in the first place. howcheng {chat} 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

All text that regularly goes to the right can go below the photo while increasing its size.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're describing the format that we replaced in 2006. Even with a larger image (to the extent that we can reasonably allow), the resultant white space was problematic under some resolutions.

And again, this precluded the proper display of panoramic images. —David Levy 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There will be no white space this time because the GA section would be located to the right. I don't see how this would affect panoramic photos, they would just need to be resized to fit in the box.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

1. You misunderstood. The previous format was essentially the same as the one that you advocate, with Today's featured picture appearing next to On this day (then labeled Selected anniversaries) as a weekend substitute for Did you know. The white space in question existed inside the featured picture section.

2. Resizing a panoramic image to fit within the proposed box would result in a size far too small to be appreciated (essentially a thumbnail). —David Levy 22:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather see this material integrated into Did you know than given its own section. Otherwise, we'll have two sections whose only meaningful distinction is obvious almost exclusively to the tiny number of editors involved in their creation (with everyone else left to wonder why the apparent redundancy exists). Our main page is primarily for readers, not editors, so we need to cooperate for the readers' benefit. —David Levy 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The editors and readers are the same. Also, note that I am not suggesting more DYK hooks, instead I'm suggesting something completely different.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

1. What do you mean when you say that "the editors and readers are the same"? A vast majority of Wikipedia's readers do not edit the site, and most editors concentrate on articles and have no knowledge of the processes behind the main page's various sections.

2. How would the proposed section be "completely different"? And more importantly, why should it be? —David Levy 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

1. The readers can edit the articles they read and the editors can read the articles they edit.

2. I'll repeat what I wrote above, "Perhaps summarizing the article in a sentence or two, or in another format." The purpose is to increase exposure to GA's to increase their chance to be FA's, and to recognize their work.

As I explained above, adding this to DYK would increase the backlog and take away from the spirit of the DYK, which is new content.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Again, a vast majority of readers never edit the site. Most editors are readers, but most readers aren't editors. And most editors do not participate in or possess knowledge of the main page content processes.

2. I understand the purpose behind the proposed section. I'm asking you to explain why, apart from attempting to establish the content's distinctness, it makes sense to use a format substantially different from that of Did you know. To me, a mini-summary seems less interesting than a DYK-style hook, and the difference is minor enough to leave readers wondering why the separation exists.

3. The DYK backlog is an internal issue secondary to the reader experience (and one that likely could be addressed with no greater difficulty than that of creating and maintaining an additional section).

The section's "new content" focus is every bit as subject to change/expansion as the main page itself is. —David Levy 20:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make if they don't edit the site? They can and that's all that matters. Editing is the entire point of wikipedia, it's the website that anyone can edit. In no plausible way would this take away from the reading experience.

A summary or DYK are not the only things that can be done for this section. Be creative, the possibilities are endless. But I hope you don't expect me to come up with an idea at this moment and to act as though that is the substance of the argument, because it's not. All I can say is that it should not be another DYK section. That section is fine and has been for years, and I am not inclined to broaden the scope of it for two things that are very different.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have missed my point, which is that we should not rely upon a distinction meaningful only to the editors involved in the sections' processes (a small percentage of a small percentage of the site's users).

You refer to "two things that are very different," but to most readers, this simply isn't so. Whether the good articles should be integrated into DYK is debatable (and I'm not certain that they should be), but any alternative presentational style should stem from an actual benefit to readers, not a desire to invent an arbitrary separation. —David Levy 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I will attempt to come up with an idea for a section of GA articles that will grab the attention of readers and be completely distinct from DYK.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but please focus on the format's usefulness to readers, not the desired distinctness from DYK (which should arise organically or not at all). —David Levy 21:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest you refrain from making comments like 'editing is the entire point of wikipedia'. Many editors and readers alike don't think so. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. The vast majority of readers come here because we have some semblence of an encylopaedia. Not because they can edit. While ultimately it's up to each editor, I think the general consensus is while we would like it for readers to edit, we should not lose sight of the fact that many people aren't going to want to edit, whatever we do, and we should not try to force them to either. Instead we should provide the best content possible with the hope of interesting them, encouraging them to visit more often and may be one day even consider editing (but even if they will never, we still want to provide them the best content possible). Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Editing is important, but our readers (few of whom edit) come first. —David Levy 22:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand by the comment. In no way did I suggest that readers must be forced to edit, I said they "can". I suggest you refrain from telling other users to refrain from making comments. --William Saturn (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You also stated that "editing is the entire point of wikipedia." In fact, Wikipedia's mission is to deliver a free encyclopedia to the world (with open editing serving as a means, not the ends). —David Levy 23:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the encyclopedia that anyone "can edit". That is the point. If you disagree, I suggest you change the motto.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing a means with the ends. —David Levy 23:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop arguing with me.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the free encylopaedia that anyone can edit. It doesn't mean that the whole point of wikipedia is that anyone can edit. As I've already said, for many readers and editors alike being an encylopaedia (and for many a free one) is more important then being one anyone can edit. We do for example protect (semi and full) many pages even though this makes much more difficult for people to edit them. The fact that not everyone wants to edit means that not all readers are going to be editors and therefore we should be careful about doing things which may interest editors and not readers.

And I personally do considering thinking that readers must be editors means we are effectively trying to force them to edit. Instead as I explained in my earlier comment I think we should acknowledge that while they can be editors, and we should try to make it easier and encourage them to be, we should also recognise that most of our readers are never going to be editors and we should therefore recognise that ultimately what they come here for is to read and not to edit (in fact that applies to many editors too). In other words, as I tried to explain in my first post, they can be editors, it doesn't mean they are editors or should be thought of as editors since they are not.

(And as I've now further explained even many editors probably don't want to be treated as editors all the time, definitely when I read the main page I do it primarily because I'm interested in reading what there is on it and if something interests me reading what the article says, not because I want to find an article to edit although I admit I do sometimes do that to some extent. I will of course usually edit an article or visit the talk page to comment when I feel the need but this doesn't mean I'm always going to the main page or wikipedia with the goal to edit, in fact I would much rather never have to edit but I also recognise that wikipedia can never be perfect so it does by design allow me to edit or propose edits if I feel there are shortcomings. The net conclusion from this is of course the same as what I started with, i.e. I don't want to be thought of as an editor.)

And yes the previous consensus is the main page should prioritise readers over editors so. So if you think they are one and the same, IMHO you're not likely to get far in proposing changes for the main page. I admit I didn't make this clear enough but my point was that while you are free to ignore my suggestion, but I made it for a good reason. If you make comments people find silly or disagree with then they are far less likely to bother to think about the rest of what you're saying.

And I have to say while I personally am not a big fan of DYK and would be happy to see it replaced with GAs, the way you've presented and argued this proposal ain't winnning me over as to the merits of your specific proposal (whatever it is, I'm not entirely sure except it involves treating readers and editors as the same since as I've said reading comments which I find silly disinterest me in bothering with the rest of the proposal) nor do I particularly feel I can rely on you to implement this in a way I would agree which therefore I would be reluctant to agree to this until there are people behind it I trust more. I suspect I am not the only one in most of this.

Telling people to 'stop arguing with you' when they are simply challenging claims you made which they disagree with also doesn't help. Remember wikipedia operates by consensus not because WSS says so. And saying things that many, perhaps even most editors would disagree with ultimately isn't a good way to win consensus. (Nor is trying to shut down reasoned discussion of things you have said in your attempts to win consensus.)

This was part of my point, if you are going to say things people may disagree with you should expect them to disagree with them so if they aren't fundamental to what you are proposing they are far more likely to hurt your proposal then help it so it's advisable not to say them in the first place. Remember you are the one who choose to make such a comment which is always your right but so is it the right of people to challenge such comments when as I've said they find them silly or wrong. And when people spend all their time discussing such issues, whatever the proposal is can quickly go out the window.

You may think this isn't fair but I think it is since if you say things which either suggests a fundamental disagreement about something important or which others feel is wrong and likely to mislead other people considering the proposal then people can and should help others understand their POV. You obviously are entilted to your POV, but so are others, and it is their right to explain their POV in any discussion. And yes just to re-interate I do feel treating readers and editors as one and the same is missing the point about wikipedia, the main page in particular. So I do feel that this is something quite worthy of discussion and which could easily make a fundamental difference to the way we treat the main page.

As a final comment I would note in case you're not aware that there is little chance a fundemental change to the main page is going to happen with only this thread. It's going to involve many discussions probably in many places. This is the main reason why I said what I did, you've made the comment now, no one is suggesting you withdraw it but if you continue to repeat that comment it will likely be challenged in any future discussion on this proposal as well. To re-interate it is of course your right to repeat your comment but you should also consider whether it helps your proposal in any way and if not, what's the point of it other then to raise a likely point of disagreement?

P.S. In many ways I find this whole discussion somewhat ironic since I would personally consider GAs more reader friendly then DYK so I'm not even sure why people would feel we should treat readers as editors in the context of GAs.

P.P.S. Actually looking further it looks like this discussion began because you challenged DL's statement that we prioritise readers over editors so it's not even the case that others distracted from your proposal by picking up a point you made which you may consider minor.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with the proposal. There is no conflict between those who read and those who edit. I will not accept this as a criticism of the proposal because it has nothing to do with what I am proposing. This particular discussion is over.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as OTD supply is concerned, it is under-utilised in any case, as many GA+ articles or even a decent B-class article, are not being used when they could be with a relevant, while some really bad articles, including POV pushing articles, unsourced start-class articles, can get a run on there. People just have to nominate one YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion originally began with the proposal to get rid of OTD on the main page, here's my two cents: Maintaining it on a daily basis is one of the most thankless jobs here on Wikipedia. It is no accident that there is only one or two admins updating each template daily (I am one of them). The general basic guideline on OTD states that "The criteria for inclusion in the selected anniversaries queue are rather subjective due to the fact that any given day of the year can have a great many historical events worthy of listing. So relative article quality along with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors" (emphasis added). But that still doesn't stop the numerous complaints I get that either there are too many U.S./UK events, there are too many 20th and 21st Century events, "[Event X] should be on posted there because it's the most significant event on this day", or "there are way too many C-class articles and below posted".

So yes, as User:YellowMonkey stated, the largest problem currently with OTD is that there are very few Wikipedians who suggest new B-class articles or above. And preferably events that are 18th Century or older, or occurred outside the Anglosphere. But at the same time, you're still under pressure NOT to remove extremely significant events like Attack on Pearl Harbor or the September 11 attacks even if they're currently one of those "POV pushing, unsourced start-class articles". I mean, just look at these complaints when Normandy landings did not appear on OTD last year – only because it was the FP on that day. So IMO with the current systemic bias here on Wikipedia, the goal of having everything on OTD each day be B-Class and above is incompatible with trying to list a mix of topics along with the most internationally significant events of the day. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean you can't please everyone. The latest, most recent complaint is about having way too many Vietnam-related items now, and wanting to remove some of them. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Move article

Could anyone move this article as 7 days have finished. --92.8.202.26 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here, but I'll take a look at this and respond there. Rodhullandemu 21:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WorldCup 2010

Where the fuck? Seriously? 1/6th of our species watched the 2006 World Cup and it's no where on the front page? GG.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.125.178 (talk • contribs)

It's not until next year, eh, bro? ;-)

WP:ITN/C has the full scoop - I'd imagine the soccer world cup will be added to the front page once they've decided on the "blurb" to accompany it.

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Most likely it will be added after the opening ceremony is over or at least when it's begun (like now but not at the time of the OPs comment) i.e. when the World Cup has actually started. We don't mention upcoming events on ITN Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article has basically no prose updates describing what happened in the blurb. Unless you consider changing verb tenses as prose updates. If this was another event this would've not been added. –Howard the Duck 04:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. I remember when people "filibustered" the Super Bowl's nominations because they thought it lacked an update. But now they turn the other cheek. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 04:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I was NOT going to bring that up. But now that you did...

We need an admin that has the balls to remove it, unless there are the elusive updates already. –Howard the Duck 04:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So we have the Stanley Cup on the main page but not the World Cup? Eh?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly confused by WP:ITN/C, but I think it's a safe bet that the World Cup will return to the main page in time for the final. TFOWR 10:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In July. 8D  f o x  11:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)