Talk:Main Page/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Strange alignment

Tenna is a flange trimmer How come " Archive – Start a new article " is on the rightside of the DYK template, but on the leftside on the Main Page ? Due to an extra </div> on the TFA template ? Am I the only one seeing this ? --199.71.174.100 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, I see a similar thing happening on ITN. " Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events... " is on the rightside of the ITN template but on the leftside of the column on the Main Page. -- 199.71.174.100 08:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ! Someone fixed it. :-) Thank you, whoever that was. -- 199.71.174.100 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've experienced layout problem in the Japanese and Chinese versions. I'm using Firefox. It seems okay though in IE. (And the English versio nis okay in both FireFox and IE) Is there anyone having the same problem? --samhau 16:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am having the same problem with my alignment when using Firefox, on the English page. When I use AOL Explorer, the Main Page, and all other pages align perfectly. Is this a problem with Firefox or Wikipedia? Ameinias 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

8th of June Featured article

The text states each. The next World Cup Finals will begin in Germany on June 9, and will continue until July 9, 2006. However this competition is the Football World Cup and not the World Cup Finals

This needs to be changed and FAST (I can't)

Jean-Paul 14:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me

Eh? What's the issue? Badgerpatrol 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I also don't get what the issue is. The text is quite clear at the beginning it is referring to the FIFA World Cup. Any further references to the World Cup don't need to mention that it is the FIFA World Cup in general. It should be obvious to the reader that it is referring to the FIFA World Cup finals since it is talking about the in the FIFA World Cup. Just as, for example, when we are talking about Tony Blair being the Prime Minister, we don't have to keep saying he's the Prime Minister of the UK. Nil Einne 14:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole tournament is called the finals, as it is the final tournament following qualifying. The last match ofthe tournament will be the World Cup final. If you'r saying it should specify Football, well I lost that argument ages ago. Jooler

Jean-Paul also brought this up at User talk:Raul654#FIFA world cup article intro for the 8th, and his concern does seem to be related to calling the entire tournament the finals or not: "the finals occur on the 9th of July", but Raul confirmed that the FIFA site calls all 32 tournament teams "finalists", which seems to have resolved the issue. --Dhartung | Talk 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming FIFA World Cup

During the World Cup from June 9 to July 9, shouldn't we have the current scores of all matches taking place at that time on the "In the News" section. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 17:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Mstroeck 18:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is international news. Flymeoutofhere 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Excluding the Final, the scores belong on Current sports events, but not on the Main page. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not ESPN. — TheKMan^talk 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I'm an active member of Wikiproject Football.) If the Winter Olympics and Commonwealth Games had their own ITN box, then the World Cup definitely should, as its global audience eclipses that of both the other events. Oldelpaso 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Jooler 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the logic, but it's my opinion that none of those events should be featured in this manner. —David Levy 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Oldelpaso. The World Cup is a huge international event and since both the Winter Olympics and Commonwealth Games had their results featured on the front page, then the World Cup should too. Or at least the results from the different stages should be included. -- Underneath-it-All 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Every event at the Olympics and Commonwealth Games did not have its results on the ITN. Does someone really want to devote their time to keeping current the "current scores" of every football match? Even the final results of every match is excessive. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The question to ask is whether it was a good idea to dedicate so much space and attention to the earlier events. If so, I agree that the World Cup warrants similar coverage. If not (which is my opinion), three wrongs don't make a right.

This being an encyclopedia (not a news site), the purpose of the section is to direct readers to updated articles. I believe that a single, static link to the main article (which wouldn't throw off the page's balance) would be sufficient. People may want to read our in-depth accounts of matches, but the scores themselves (information to which Wikipedia contributes zero) obviously are available elsewhere. —David Levy 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As an event, the World Cup is quite possibly an order of magnitude more important internationally than the Winter Olympics or Commonwealth Games. Maybe (maybe) the Summer Olympics just edges it into second place. Bearing in mind that the precedent has previously been set, I think this is a pretty good idea. This tournament is going to be on the back AND front pages of many of the world's newspapers for the next month. It is a gigantic media event, and blatantly newsworthy. Take that as a 'Yes' to the idea Badgerpatrol 00:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop gushing and take a deep breath. In the first place, comparison to other events is invalid; this event can only be argued on its own merits. Aside from that, although I'm sure there are a lot of people who get really excited about this (umm, _somewhere_; around here it generates approximately the same level of interest as the international basket-weaving championship), nonetheless, suggesting that it is an order of magnitude more important internationally than the Olympics just makes you sound like a gung-ho fanboy. Dispense with the breathless superlatives for a moment and try coming up with an actual line of reasoning as to why sporting event scores belong on the front page of an encyclopedia. --Jonadab, 2006 Jun 21

Please actually read my above post and alter your line of argument appropriately. Comparison to other events, in the context of following an established precedent for certain types of sports tournaments to appear on ITN, is OBVIOUSLY valid. I have previously established, and have expounded at some length, why (given current policy and previous precedent), this event ought to be on the front page of THIS encyclopaedia. If you actually read my comment, what I in fact suggested was that the World Cup was perhaps an order of magnitude more important globally than the WINTER Olympics (which, to apply your colourful analogy, generates about the same level of interest round here, and in most of the world, as the international basket-weaving championship). I suspect the reason why I may sound like a 'gung-ho fanboy' to you is because you haven't understood what I have actually said, despite my attempts to state my meaning clearly and in plain English. Please go over my above post again (and others on this topic) more carefully before responding in future. All the best, Badgerpatrol 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If this were Wikinews, I would agree with you. Because it isn't, I don't see why this undeniably newsworthy event deserves more than the single entry (linked to the pertinent article) allotted to other newsworthy events. What you refer to as "the precedent," I call "a mistake." —David Levy 02:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned by Jooler below, there are not a lot of matches. Relating the results of these (I'm not sure if I'm in favour of live updates) is not going to affect the formatting of the main page, and may indeed look a bit more professional than a static entry. ITN entries are updated as news stories evolve; I'm not sure how this is any different. However, it's no biggie- I'm sure if readers look very, very hard they may be able to find the scores elsewhere on the web...:-) Badgerpatrol 02:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking about a single entry (of approximately the standard size), I don't object to seeing it updated with the latest final score(s) throughout the month-long finals. —David Levy 03:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly just the major match of each day is worthy of inclusion, but at least some results are worthy of inclusion seeing as the FIFA World Cup is the largest sporting event in the world. AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 01:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two matches every day for two weeks and then for the following two weeks the matches thing out. This is not huge burden. Jooler 01:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The entry should not go to the top of ITN everytime it is updated; it should probably remain at the bottom of the list, for however long it is on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 04:15

I think Brian's idea of one (regularly updated) line at the bottom is a fair compromise.--Pharos 04:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur; that seems reasonable. —David Levy 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus it'd be jarring to see the word football used (as it is on the main page) all the time, when they mean soccer --Angry mob mulls options 05:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

See Football (word). Plenty of games have equal claim to the name football. Provided it's linked to the correct sport, there's no reason not to call "soccer" "football". GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely. The Football worldcup is the most important sporting event in the world, these days even eclipsing Summer Olympics in importance and attention. Since the In News section is there to convey the most important international news, and during the worldcup the matche results will be some of the most important news anyhwere, we should definitely give scores. But not live scores, we can not guarantee real-time coverage and in any case Wikipedia is not ESPN as someone said. Final results of the matches should be enough. Loom91 07:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think having the scores may be a good idea, but after the end of the group stage (23rd June), when there should be fewer matches (There's three to four matches a day during the group stage, compared to one or two during the later stages). Four match results will probably clog ITN, but one or two should be okay. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 08:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There's gonna be 2-3 matches everyday during the group stages, after which the frequency per day will lessen, and finally, the semis and finals will be spread over a number of days (see FIFA World Cup 2006). --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 09:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

why should some minor sport go up? I'll remember this for next year during the Rugby World Cup! Seriously though, there needs to be a policy on this. --Midnighttonight 10:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No The question shouldn't be how many matches per day, and how will it affect the order of the Main Page. The real question is thus: Should Wikipedia be a provider of up to date sports scores? Should an encyclopedia--should the MAIN PAGE of an encyclopedia, for that matter, function as an outlit for updates on a sporting event? I think the answer is a clear no. Preston 17:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ITN is a special corner of the encyclopedia to showcase well updated articles related to current events. So mentioning the World Cup there is fine, as long as the World Cup pages are well updated. -- 64.229.176.142 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Theres an ITN Box? I hadn't noticed. A week ago, people got horribly upset at adding the raid on The Pirate Bay; an American corporate organization pressuring Swedish police to raid and temporarily shut down a legal site. Which I think most would agree is news. And now, along with news of a President, a President-elect, a dead terror suspect, and the dissolution of a state union, we include soccer games. It's wrong to do it for the Olympics, and it's wrong to do it for the Commonwealth Games. The final, sure? I'll grant that as being important world-wide news. But every match? It's not a matter of whether or not there is an ITN box to put it in. It's at matter of global important and relevence, that I'm not willing to grant to every match of a sporting event. Preston 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For most of South America, it is of global relevance. It may be the most important news of the day for a given country, grinding it to a halt. The same is true for several countries of Europe, so downplalying its relevance isn't really accurate. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"For most of South America, it is of global relevance" - you realise what you just said? ITN should be about important events that change lives. The final - yes, the semis- maybe. Every single game - no. That should go for the Olympics, Commonwealth games and so on, only the most important events. --Midnighttonight 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For lots of people, the FIFA WC is the most important sporting event, yes, even more than the Olympics!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We should forget the comparison to the Olympics, football is much more of an obsession. For many people the World Cup is far far more important than what happens in the Olympics. For every country in South America, Europe and Australia the World Cup is going to be front page news for the next four weeks. South Africa are going to be staging the next one; there will be a lot of interest there and there are five African nations competing. So Half of Africa are also going to be obsessed as well, this global obsession is the key thing you guys need to realise. This is also much more than a sporting event it is a global festival. Something like 40,000 England fans alone are going to Germany for the competition[1]. It is a huge event. Jooler 08:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. A combined total of 28.8 billion people watched the last world cup, which is phenomenal considering that most of the games were played in the early morning for viewers in Europe and South America. The 1998 World Cup's figures topped 33 billion. This is an event that means an awful lot to an awful lot of people, if we can give space to the SuperBowl on ITN, which we have done, then we certainly must give space to the World Cup. See [2] for those numbers by the way. Rje 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what the Super Bowl XL article looked like when the ITN link was added, and it continued to be rapidly updated with in-depth information about the game. Where is our comparable coverage of the Poland-Ecuador and Germany-Costa Rica matches? —David Levy 12:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am by no means claiming that individual soccer matches are necessarily notable enough for their own articles, merely that the World Cup itself is worthy of mention on this page; this is an important distinction. This of course is comparative with the Olympics, for example, or the World Series. The results are of tremendous importance, but individual 100m races or Series games probably would not pass muster in terms of notability. Rje 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

All the results should be on the front page. The World Cup is a matter of global importance and relevance. Some say is a matter of life and death, but they're wrong. It's much more important. For Latin America, for Europe, for Asia, for the Middle East, for Africa, and this time Australia as well. Don't compare it to the Olympics, the Olympics is only sports. This is the World Cup. Piet 08:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey that's funny. Great minds eh? Jooler 08:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got to say, being an avid American Football fan, being left out of this crazed obsession has made me temporarily proud to be an American. :-P Preston 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree! The end results should be in the ITN box. Just watched CNN headlines. The World Cup was the first headline, ahead of the Zarqawi killing. It is indeed of global importance whether you like it or not. Lathrop1885 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've started it off with the Germany-Costa RIca match results. Please tell me if the format is OK.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, excellent. Badgerpatrol 00:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No The only thing people in this debate has shown is that the World Cup has world importance. Therefore, "The 2006 FIFA World Cup begins in Germany." is more than enough for the ITN box. A live scoreboard is not encyclopedic. Or, perhaps all major sporting event results should be posted.? There is considerable interest in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs in Canada, parts of the US and parts of Europe. I trust that the final score of tomorrow's game will also be posted on the front page? Dont forget the NBA finals as well. The leaderboard for every major tennis and golf tournament? etc, etc, etc. Resolute 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Interest, and participation, in the FIFA World Cup is truly global, like it or not, interest, and participation, in the Stanley Cup and NBA playoffs is not, like it or not. We have kept scoreboards on the mainpage for other major international events, why not for this one? Given the global audience for this event, it would seem remiss of us to ignore it - and would lead to further accusations of US-centricism no doubt. Just because the US media, and many of its citizens, are largely apathetic towards the World Cup doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Rje 09:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we please not transform this into yet another "United States versus the world" argument? No one has suggested that the World Cup scores should be omitted from the main page because Americans don't care about them. "Like it or not," the inclusion of such information is a deviation from the section's usual format (just as the earlier athletic reports were), and it's unreasonable to assume that opposition to their addition is based upon national bias. (In case you didn't realize, the U.S. doesn't even participate in the Commonwealth Games.) "In the News" is not merely a collection of headlines, so I don't understand why people keep citing the World Cup's global popularity and importance (as though being a major news story is the sole criterion). Personally, I'm not impressed by the article updates that I've seen, and I believe that the section is being slightly misused. I'm willing to tolerate this, however, as I see little practical benefit in attempting to deny the World Cup fans this leeway. It's mostly harmless, after all, and many people support this temporary departure from the norm. In other words, it's not such a big deal to bend the rules once in a while. Just understand that the rules are being bent, and try to me more respectful of (and less accusatory toward) those who seek to follow them more rigidly. —David Levy 11:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, you have only shown that the World Cup Finals should be mentioned as an ITN headline. The tournament most certantly would not be ignored if we did not put up the scoreboard, as it is still prominently mentioned in the ITN box. You have once again failed to explain why the scores should be included, other than to say "well we did it before." Just because a mistake was made in the past does not mean we should be locked into that mistake forever. Your attempt to turn it into a US vs the world argument only underscores how weak your arguments in favor of keeping a scoreboard are. You cant even justify it. You can only hope to divert the topic using a strawman argument as a crutch. (And FTR, I am not American, and I am watching the games as I type.)

I will state it again: There is nothing encyclopedic about a live scoreboard. As such, the final scores should not be on the main page. If you can convince me otherwise, I will concede the point. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason why people should not simply click on the WC2006 link in the ITN box to go to the main article for the scores. Resolute 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel I am being a little misrepresented here, although my initial point could have been better expressed, I was taking issue with comparing the FIFA World Cup to US sports finals rather than turning this into a world vs. the US debate. It may well get less coverage in the US than the Stanley Cup and the NBA finals, I would believe we can agree on this, but the magnitude of global relevence is somewhat different - thereby by no means constraining us to include scoreboards for every sporting event just because we have for this and several others (although I would not be massively put out by the inclusion of any big sporting events on ITN). Given the sheer volume of people watching this event in particular, I do not see the big problem with a single line of text giving the scores - If one does not wish to see it simply do not look at it, there is even code to help in this matter. I personally am not too interested in the presidency of Iceland - and I would wager less people are interested than will watch the world cup - but I just ignore it; including the football scores might not fall within policy, but policy is not meant to be a straightjacket. This is something people genuinely care about, I therefore see no reason not to include it on the main page. We should put the interests of our readers before policy and be a little less snobbish about sports on ITN; I do not think anyone sees it as the Today programme or anything. Rje 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Rje makes a good point. The ITN guidelines are already being bent as is; at least one of those stories surely violates point 3 of the ITN guidelines, and I have yet to see 3 out of the 4 appear on the BBC News headlines page (or if they were ever there it was so transiently as to make them unnoticed by a regular reader), making their international significance unclear at best. Policy is not a straitjacket, and in any case, a clear precedent has already been set for events of lesser importance. The World Cup is a global phenomenon. The scores should stay. Badgerpatrol 02:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I mentioned the NHL and NBA finals becuase they are currently on going. I could have used the French Open as well. I could have used the FA Cup, or the Aussie Rules Football grand final, or any major championship. My point was in wondering where we draw the line though? Does posting the scores on the main page actually add anything to it, or does simply giving the tournament a prominent mention serve its purpose? Fans of football, hockey, basketball and tennis can easily make one more click to go the the appropriate tournament page. Personally, I do not think it is a case of being snobbish against sports - if you look at my edit history, 99.9% of my contributions are hockey or baseball related - I jsut think that if we are going to post scores for major events, we should be fair about it, and post for all of the major championships. Resolute 03:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hell, maybe it isnt a bad idea to include a small space for selected final scores for certain events. Afterall, sport is a major part of most news organizations, so a small sport box that does show the result for major events around the world could be a benificial part of the main page. Resolute 03:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, even for minority sports like rugby, winter sports, ice hockey, baseball etc. Part of the beauty of wikipedia lies in its internationalism; learning about other sporting events from around the world is a good way of appreciating and understanding other cultures. 90% of sports fans in the UK and 99.9% WARNING: These stats are total guesses ;-) of the general public are unlikely to know that the Stanley Cup and NBA final are ongoing, and the vast majority will not really know what these are. Equally, it is likely that many Americans may not even be aware that the World Cup Finals are underway. This encyclopaedia is about learning and teaching; I see no harm in extending the remit to sport, one of the few things that REALLY unites the world. Badgerpatrol 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Request at info-en@ to not show the scores as they are spoilers for readers Tivoing the games and wanting to use Wikipedia. I personally think sport, celebrity, etc. news shouldn't be on the main page anyway. -- Jeandré, 2006-06-10t06:09z

How about a horizontal line between the last ITN item and the scores? Or how about placing them below "Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events..."? --Howard the Duck 07:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It belongs there. I have no doubt that the relevant pages will be viewed far more than all of the other ITN items combined. violet/riga (t) 08:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Games and Winter Olympics had a section on the Main Page, so why can't the FIFA World Cup (an even bigger sports event) have a section? 203.208.88.170 10:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The daily scores should certainly have a place on the page... I mean no offence to "Halldór Ásgrímsson resigns as Prime Minister of Iceland, and will be succeeded by Geir Haarde." but I think even these first few games of the world cup are more important to more people internationally... and I think they should both be there. Please put the one line daily scores back up. Misterniceguy7 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Please note that the FIFA World Cup is a more noteworthy event than the Winter Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. I'm not certain about it, but this sports event is either the biggest or second biggest in the world (it could be second to the olympics). I don't see how you could say no to this when you said yes to those. That's bias, plain simple. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are yall bitching so musc? Maybe i'm just a n00b, but why don't we take a vote. Or just ask jimbo (better seeing than yall bitches bitching.)

Template:Click (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created Template:Click-Inline as a fork from Vorlage:Link-Bild-Inline from the German Wikipedia. It is an inline-Version of the Click-Template. Please make a link to it in the Click-Infopage, because (at least in the German WP ;-) ) it resolves lots of topics caused by the paragraph-creating "Click". I think the implementation of Click (Vorlage:Link-Bild) in the German WP is much more robust and reliable than that in the english wp... You should think about replacing the en one with the de...

However, I don't like to make admins too much work, therefor I created a suggested version of "Click" in my User-Area: User:PSIplus/Click ... Try it out, it works perfectly (at least it is widely used in the Navigation-boxes and similar things in the german wp without known problems).

PS: I already posted this in the requests for unlock, but someone meant this should be written here...

Best Regards, --PSIplus Ψ 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Date specific TFA

Any reason why FIFA World Cup is the featured article today rather than tomorrow, when the tournament actually gets underway? Too late now I know, but I quite like having things like that prominent on the actual day, as with The Ashes, which was TFA on July 21, 2005, the actual opening day of the Ashes last year. — SteveRwanda 07:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, because the featured article isn't supposed to conflict with other sections of the main page, and the world-cup article will be linked from In The News soon enough. Raul654 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So the reason FIFA World Cup was featured yesterday rather than today was because it was going to be ITN today. But it isn't. Skittle 09:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup Nations

I think that the Featured Articles section should have a World Cup team every day for the next 32 days. It sounds like a good idea because it's to fit in with the theme. Wikipedia Stubmechanic 08:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pls see above section on #Upcoming FIFA World Cup. -- 64.229.176.142 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't do it that way because a) Featured Articles need to pass a rigorous peer review and meet the highest standards before they can even be considered, b) the front page is supposed to rotate subjects (we aren't the football-ipedia), c) getting the eliminated teams featured before their elimination would be very tricky even if the articles were reviewed, nominated, accepted, and queued, and so on. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

World cup box?

Are we going to have a nice little box summarizing the events in the World Cup on the main page like we have when it's the olympics? It is a more popular sporting event after all. Although I guess there is not as much to report, but still it would be nice. Oskar 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes we are, see #Upcoming FIFA World Cup.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was really easy to find. I guess I'm just lazy as hell :) Oskar 16:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Red vs Blue

Oh Come on... Yet another case of Systemic Bias, especially to do with some online video series. And some of us thought having a frontpage featured article on Perfect Dark was bad. Boochan 04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Read systemic bias sometime. The only way you're going to counter it is to write some featured articles that counter this inherent bias. Or, you can just complain. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 04:12

I think that its is a good thing to feature on as games have a lot to do with people and entertainment and red vs blue is just an expansion on the original idea of the halo game for xbox and computer, also peter jackson (who filmed Lord of the Rings) is making halo the movie and we all know how good those movies were so there must be some good material is the Halo series.

• Well, be sure to send your phone number to the admins so that they can call you up and make sure that your interests, and only your interests, are always represented. <rolleyes> Resolute 04:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• *Sigh* - Oh Well.. and I didn't even come close to hinting to the above. - Boochan 04:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it really that prevalent? In the past 161 FAs we've had 8 technical/computer related articles. That's about 5% I think. The other subjects have been quite diverse. I'll agree that RvB is a "soft topic" but if it has reached FA status then bully to the editors. We've had just as many FAs about hurricanes as we have had about computer games (2 each). We need to actually get in there and edit other articles so they can make FA status --Monotonehell 05:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) (Oh and there's another hurricane FA on its way)

I am guessing its just quite a few within the same timeframe. Otherwise I find it rather quite diverse, it just seems that there has being more on technology related (specifically gaming) homepage featured articles lately. Oh Well, guess some of them just stick out :) - Boochan 05:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whats with the whining? RvB is an awesome show and the page is informative and interesting, and i know that i for one would never have heard of this show if it wasn't for wikipedia. WookMuff 11:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Bah

So... is there a link somewhere hidden around to the one millionth article? Wikipedia hit a million kind of a long time ago, and i guess it isn't much of a big deal anymore; but i for one like to go back and look at old stuff simply for the niftyness of it. I dunno... it's sort of like replaying an old game or watching a movie again, except the game or movie is incredibly difficult to find buried in the page histories and discussion pages. Agkeene 07:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Old press releases can be found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases

In particular, you want this one, which says that Jordanhill railway station was the millionth article. Raul654 07:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(and yes, I'm still miffed that my article on Cellular architecture was 1,000,004) Raul654 07:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry if this question is misplaced or out of context. Agkeene 08:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that Millionth article redirects there. It's a lot easier to remember :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup

A couple of minor points.

First, what decides which team appears first? We have Germany and England who both won on the left, but Ecuador are on the right.

Secondly, should the scores be centred using a table, like this

England	1	–	0	Paraguay
Poland	0	–	2	Ecuador
Germany	4	–	2	Costa Rica

so that the scores line up?

smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the winners should be on the left, and I think your table idea is great. Excuse me while I steal it and copy it onto WP:ITN.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Convention is that teams are presented in the same order as listed in the fixtures list. Bazza 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Only the current date's results should be listed, not all of them. If people want old results, they can look in the article. Otherwise, the section is going to be flooded with scores. Also, we can switch to country codes, rather than whole country names, for days when there are several games at once. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 16:24

Sounds logical enough to me, although there should probably be enough room for the full names if there are two games or less (this might not be true for Trinidad and Tobago and Serbia and Montenegro games though). Rje 00:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Too much World Cup

Antikythera mechanism

IMO, there is too much World Cup on the Main Page right now. I want it there, but let's not overkill. We don't need two bolded links to 2006 FIFA World Cup on ITN, one on top and one at the bottom. And the picture of the FIFA World Cup Trophy has been on the Main Page for days, starting as the TFA image on June 8th. I'd rather have a picture of the Antikythera mechanism (right) on ITN instead. -- 199.71.174.100 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Given the fact that we've bent the rules by creating a special subsection for the World Cup scores (amid some controversy), it's only fair that we also bend the rules by removing the redundant news entry. And yeah, it's time for a new image. —David Levy 17:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. NSLE _(T+C) at 17:29 UTC (2006-06-10)

But 3 lefts do. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 17:41

That's true, but the special subsection alone is more prominent than a standard entry. Given its presence, retaining the redundant news entry would only make matters worse. The situation isn't exactly "right," but it's less "wrong" than the alternative. —David Levy 17:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously though, these aren't simply "rights" or "wrongs". Going against guidelines/policies isn't always wrong. We adapt to a given situation, within reason. So your statement was an oversimplification. But at least it allowed me to make that joke... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 17:47

Main Page Photo

When you place the cursor over the new photo on the main page it still says world cup. 74.133.8.162 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that. —David Levy 17:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Antikythera is not the oldest analog computer

The oldest analog computer is still the abacus, which pre-dates Western civilization by several thousand years.

Actually, I refute my own claim. A tally stick is a crude precursor to an abacus, and can be considered an analog computer. There are claims of 37000 years of historical record involving tally sticks. See: Lebombo_bone King queermo 19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• The abacus is a digital computer. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 19:27

I concur. Analog, King queermo, refers to how the device calculates, not "pre-electronic". A slide rule, for example, is analog; but a gear-based calculator is digital. I'm actually more skeptical of the claim "first analog computer" as there are many primitive calculation devices known to the ancients; a simple example is the sundial. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes sorry, you are correct. Babbage's Difference Engine is a good example of a complex mechanical and, of course, digital computer. If a gear-based calculator is digital, does that make the Antikythera digital? Regardless, it's old, but certainly not the oldest. It depends if all or any of those gears are not notched precisely; it may be of note that mechanical, replaceable parts don't seem to be a particularly modern invention, not to mention that there may be hybrid forms of digital/analog devices, of which the Antikythera may be one. King queermo 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you call a tally stick (or equivalent device) analog because it is not limited by gears or switches and only by size and some indeterminant number of notches? King queermo 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Digital means that it works with individual units, like beads on a abacus, or notches on a tally stick, while analog devices, like the slide rule, or other "smooth-motion" devices, have a pseudo-continuous range; in other words, on an analog device, you couldn't definitely say that "this device is in state X", where X represents some definite quantity, such as the number of beads on an abacus, or notches on a tally stick. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:19

Quantum mechanics says that you cannot "definitely say that 'this device is in state X'", only assign a probability that it is in fact in that state. Indeed, quantum mechanical science has blurred the distinction between analog and digital, and there may in fact be no distinction.

What if an analog device has markings on a dial? Is _that_ digital? Johnny Dangerously 06:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

so is it then considered analog or not, actually? [unsigned]

It's analog. I'm only questioning its "firstness", which is definition-dependent -- but it's undoubtedly a fantastic artifact no matter what category we put it in. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiding 2006 World Cup results

To ignore the World Cup results, add the following to your User:YOURNAME/monobook.css file, and after saving, press CTRL+F5 to refresh the file:

#worldcup { display: none; }

— BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 19:25

Handy alias to that file is Special:Mypage/monobook.css. — ceejayoz ^talk 21:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

News...

The user edit counter is no longer updating en.wiki.x.io data. Go here and go to User talk:Interiot for the discussion. FellowWikipedian 21:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is very old news: it has been the case since at least April. It also isn't entirely accurate. Before the recent shutdown of the tool for resynchronisation, it was still updating en data, just slowly and erratically. —Cuiviénen 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides old, it's also irrelevant to the Main Page. Better at the Village pump than here, if the goal is to get people to discuss at User talk:Interiot. -- 199.71.174.100 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditch the scores

With the latest Stanley Cup revert war, I say we ditch the whole thing before it gets completely out of hand. When the finals of both of these cups are determined, go ahead and put an entry in, but until then, don't flood ITN with pointless statistics, which will only encourage every other sport to flood with their scores, claiming precedence. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 02:28

I don't think the scores work, but a "FIFA World Cup 2006" link with the Germany 2006 logo to the left of it, linking to a page with scores and an analysis of each game would be nice. I'm sure it wouldn't be extrmemely hard to make a nice GUI for the scores/analysis pages. It wouldn't be too hard to make a nice looking layout for the scores and a short 1-2 paragraph analysis would also work.

• This is an encyclopedia, not espn.com. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:49
  • See this existing discussion on World Cup results. Thanks. Harro5 03:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Trinity Sunday

Please add " Trinity Sunday in Western Christianity (2006) " to On this day. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 16:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Bring back the world cup

We had scores of Winter Olympics and even the Commonwealth games, so it seems just stupid to exclude the World Cup, which is more popular than even the Summer Olympics. Just because the US doesn't watch a sport doesn't mean it's not extremely popular. Every world cup game's results are an important news and deserve a place in the main page. Bring them back! (It was removed without any attempt at discussion or consensus anyway). Loom91 18:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would rather prefer not featuring the World Cup to create a precedent for not featuring the Olympics next time around. dab (ᛏ) 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out espn.com for all your World Cup needs. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site, and not a sports news site. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 19:29

I don't think it has anything to do with the sports lack of popularity in the US, but more to do with wikipedia being a encyclopedia, not a sports site. Zarniwoot 19:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To understand the importance of the World Cup Football, it is not a good idea to compare it to Rugby, or the Olympics, or whatever other sport. It is better to compare it to the First World War, but without the casualties. The Netherlands are still collectively frustrated over the two lost finals in the seventies. In Brazil, people over 70 are still weeping over the lost final of 1950. Every country has its triumphs and defeats. But it is not like the Olympics, where defeats are forgotten a few weeks later. Read the story of Andrés Escobar for example. The world cup results determine the happiness of a nation, more than any other event. Sure, the British care about Iraq and Tony Blair, but in no way like the World Cup. If Brasil wins the title, Lula da Silva is very likely to be reelected into office. The importance of today's match between Portugal and its former colony Angola far transcends that of a mere sports event. That is why, imho, the world cup should be on the front page, from the first till the last day. And instead of just giving the scores, I would put it in a paragraph with a short explanation. I mean, Roland Garros is up there right now, and it is absolutely nothing compared to the World Cup. Piet 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If Martians were to invade our planet, this wouldn't warrant an entry in ITN unless and until a pertinent article had been written or updated accordingly. The reason, of course, is that THIS IS NOT A NEWS SITE. Please stop pointing out the World Cup's importance, and try to realize that you're misunderstanding our main page's purpose. —David Levy 20:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth does a website that is not a news website have a section on the FRONT PAGE headed IN THE NEWS?...

In the News highlights Wikipedia articles about subjects that have recently been in the news. It should not be used as a news source. —Cuiviénen 22:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So it is actually news but not a news source, wow, that is a paradoxon to me ;). And Piet, thank you for your remarks, that's exactly the fact! It's the biggest cultural event on earth affecting billions of people, in that matter it's not just news it's more than that, football world cup games and its significance can live longer than any war in people's minds, taking for example the winning of the World Cup tournament 1954 in Bern (Germany was the winner) was commented by serious journalists to be the true birth hour of the Germany Republic, not 1949 when it was officially declared a state. Thus we can see the FIFA World Cup not only affects sports and culture it affects high ranking politics of all kinds and human history.

Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia, but it is undeniably an unusual - if not unique - one. How many encyclopedias have an "on this day" or "in the news" section? Let's come up with better reasons to do or not do things than "well other encyclopedias <insert thing here>". — ceejayoz ^talk 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of these sections is to promote specific articles. If you want news, go to a news site (e.g wikinews.org). Zarniwoot 21:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And the links currently on the front page promote 2006 FIFA World Cup as well as the various national football team pages, like Mexico national football team. What's the difference? — ceejayoz ^talk 23:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say, I really, really miss the world cup scores. And the articles on the world cup ARE great and they are updated to the minute. How about a compromise: Change this line in ITN

Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

to

Wikinews – Recent deaths – The World Cup – More current events...

or somesuch. This would be a great way for people to find a some great topical articles that around 1 billion people would be interested in reading. Oskar 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest something like that. It would be a reasonable compromise, especially since the football editors seems to be working hard on this subject at the moment. Zarniwoot 21:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Currently we have the results of the French Open tennis championship but not those of the World Cup. Recently we have been treated to the fact that a man no-one has ever heard of has resigned as Icelandic Prime Minister only to be replaced by another man no-one has ever heard of, that an archeological artefact that no-one has ever heard of has been suggested to possibly, maybe, be important, that a man no-one has ever heard of has been appointed to a UN position that no-one has ever heard of- but the greatest global news story of the week is relegated to an 8 word summary. I fail to see why it is reasonable to include these other events in order to improve those articles, but not to link to the competing World Cup nations in order to improve those articles. Rightly or wrongly, this is going to be interpreted as a US-centred bias on Wikipedia. If the scores do not go back up, let us hope that we don't have to suffer in future any results updates for Mickey Mouse events like the Winter Olympics and Commonwealth Games. I very much doubt that this decision truly reflects consensus. Badgerpatrol 21:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You having not previously heard of these things means that your knowledge horizon has been expanded day by day by choices of ITN. Sounds to me like the encyclopedia is working fine! -Splash - tk 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent point and one that I have made previously- see my posts in the discussions above. Giving precedence to the World Cup (a global phenomenon but one which is given a disproportionately low level of attention in North America, from whence surely half or more of en.wikipedia's audience are derived) serves to educate that part of our readership and generally improve cultural exchange and understanding. Isn't that a key part of Wikipedia's remit? (I would still question however to what extent some recent stories have fulfilled the ITN inclusion guidelines, but that may be a matter of opinion) Badgerpatrol 22:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of ITN is not to enlighten the poor heathens of North America. It is to provide a list of articles currently related to news topics. Each and every game about the World Cup need not and should not be mentioned, only the World Cup itself, and the results of the final match, when they come in. —Cuiviénen 22:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that all the teams that play are on the news in at least several dozen countries, which cannot be said for other sporting events. And if we aren't here to enlighten the poor heathens of the world, what are we doing, then? Titoxd^(?!?) 22:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they are on news stations, but surely it would be best to link to the World Cup itself and allow people to navigate through the results from there? Instead, we allow the ITN section to be taken over by any sporting event (whether it be the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games or the World Cup), making us essentially another news station. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to report on sports results. (On an aside, it also makes me wonder why we do not do this for any other event, such as elections to legislatures.) —Cuiviénen 22:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is now ESPN, lets also get some NHL and NBA playoff scores on the main page.--BoyoJonesJr 22:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, when NHL and NBA become as newsworthy and culturally important to such a large proportion of the world as the World Cup is. And have good, updated articles to link to. But I don't see the first happening any time soon, since the World Cup is amazingly important to so many countries. In England, mention 1966 and the first thing in most people's minds in the World Cup win. It's about the only time you'll see St George's crosses everywhere. Companies make arrangements for staff to keep up-to-date with the games, or even watch them, while at work, because otherwise they won't concentrate. It's on front pages around the world. Skittle 22:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly in the front page of the French and Spanish Wikipedias. Are they not encyclopedias? Titoxd^(?!?) 23:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The World Cup is not just a sporting event; that's what you guys don't seem to understand. It is a worldwide festival. In 32 countries throughout the world a huge number of peoples' normal routines are stopping for 1 hours and 45 minutes while they watch their national team. On each day in six nations' capitals and major cities, people are taking to the streets wrapped in their national colours are biting their fingernails, watching the games on big screens as well as millions , huge numbers of people watching it on TV. In 32 countries throught the world the front page articles in the major newspapers are consumed with the World Cup. There is simply no comparison whatsover to any other sporting event in the world. The remark about the NBA and NHL is a joke. The articles about the all of national the teams as well as the FIFA World Cup and the 2006 FIFA World Cup are being constantly updated so that fulfills the basic criteria of ITN. In fact the World Cup should have it's own panel within the ITN section. While I'm at it - can we please put the full names of the nations back in the ITN sections. Why have they been shortened it makes no sense. Jooler 22:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But we don't let festivals take over ITN, either: Oktoberfest, Saint Patrick's Day, Diwali, etc. barely even appeared on the Main Page. How is the World Cup different from a festival, then, that it should merit more space? —Cuiviénen 22:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, have you ever taken a look at the Main Page's "on this Day" section? It lists out important holidays, festivals, and observances. --Madchester 00:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The magnitude of the festival is completely different. If there were an event that caused over 100,000 people to go onto the streets of several countries at the same time, and we had an article related to it, we should have it on ITN. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On ITN, yes, but not with constant reporting of game results. Also, at least Diwali (and probably Saint Patrick's Day) is a bigger deal than the World Cup by the measurement of number of people out in the streets. Should we report on every event of Diwali as it unfolds? —Cuiviénen 23:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And it was! Again: I support the compromise suggested by Oskar above. Zarniwoot 23:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If anything, I think that's even worse than the current situation. It makes it out that the World Cup is of greater importance than any other event at ITN and therefore is a part of the Wikipedia structure. (And you missed my point about the festivals, see above.) —Cuiviénen 23:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That implies the current situation is unacceptable, and I don't think that is the case. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the ITN section is not so much about what is "the biggest deal" but about notable articles which has been updated with recent news, I think it is more relevent in this context, since there are more editors working on it. You point about Wikipedia structure is good, but I think some form of a discrete link to something like a "FIFA Portal" would be a good idea. Zarniwoot 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has removed the scores while leaving the World Cup on the Main Page. IMO, this is the best solution - we don't report results on the Main Page until the final match (when the winner and second place should be on the Main Page), but the fact that the World Cup is ongoing remains there (and those interested can find current results on that page). —Cuiviénen 01:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I think this situation has enough people debating on it already but Id thought id add this point quickly. Almost everyone here has failed to understand the worldwide importance of this event. It is one of the single largest media events in history and to most around the world a far bigger deal than say the Olympics. To put this in perspective the cumulative viewing figures for the world cup are expected to be 30 billion (from the official site - [3]). Given the worlds population is roughly 6.5 billion this equates to every person on earth watching just over 4.5 games each. If this is not worthy of the main page then what is? OGO 01:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Three points:

1. The World Cup is notable.
2. A link to the 2006 FIFA World Cup article should stay at the ITN, even at the bottom.
3. <large>The World Cup is mentioned at the ITN.</large>

Scores wouldn't have to be inserted unless the game per se has an article. --Howard the Duck 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Eleutherodactylus lineatus

Wow, I think this is the first time I've seen a redlink on the Main Page! Timrem 00:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian0918 made an article to fix that. Timrem 02:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup status on ITN - Coin flip dispute resolution

These daily reversions for and against the World Cup scores are getting rather ridiculous. The fact is both sides have valid arguments, and you can't really say that one side is more "correct" than one another. Personally I don't like how editors are taking sides when these edit wars are not conducive to Wikipedia's daily operations.

I would suggest a simple coin flip to decide whether the scores stay or not. It's a rather standard procedure for dispute resolution. This is probably the best way to resolve the matter once and for all. --Madchester 00:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose we do a coin flip so the results cannot be tampered with, and everyone accept them as actual results? Maybe say something like "if the first edit at 01:00 UTC is by an anon, the scores are included, if it is by a registered user, the scores are not included." Timrem 00:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) BTW, this was the first edit at 01:00 UTC, by a registered user. Timrem 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See my comment here. Badgerpatrol 01:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One argument is better than the other. As evidenced by the length debates on the talk page of T:ITN, adding non-finals scores will result in scores from other sports being listed, until the news section is flooded with sports. This is not a sports site. It's an encyclopedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 02:35

And it's not a news ticker either, yet ITN death tolls and election results are updated with regularity. Seriously, just do the coinflip and get a result. Again, there's no definitive argument for or against posting scores. Do a coin flip to resolve the dispute, and we can leave it at that... Wikipedia can do without this tiring debate for the next 4 weeks. --Madchester 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This makes no sense. We don't do coin flips on anything anywhere else. You can claim one argument isn't better than the other, but consensus can still find a solution. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 04:01

I've done coin flips before as part of my admin work. If both sides are deadlocked in an issue, it's a good way of resolving it. Considering that there is no obvious concensus to the issue, I think this is a good alternative solution. --Madchester 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No process of dispute resolution can work untill all disputing parties have agreed to accept that process. I seriously doubt any significant portion of editors will agree to abide by a decision arrived at by a game of chance, particularly if the decision goes against them. Loom91 06:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but this idea seems to me like the worst solution imaginable. Frankly, I'd prefer that we simply restore the scores.

Has anyone considered asking Jimbo what he thinks? —David Levy 06:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So now this is a dictatorship, with Jimbo making final decisions on things? The community concensus doesn't have to bear any relation to what Jimbo thinks. Skittle 10:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As a last resort, it beats a coin toss! —David Levy 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, instead of a coin flip, why don't vote, as is usual in these cases. If it worked for the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, it should work here. We can use sevral rounds to see what people think is acceptable. --Denoir 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• See my new compromise below. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 17:13

World Cup ITN straw poll

There has been a discussion if the scores of FIFA World Cup matches should have a permenent presence in the In The News (ITN) section during the world cup. The arguments for and against can be found on this page as well as on Template talk: In the news.

Do you support or oppose a permanent mention of the world cup scores on the in the news section of the main page for the duration of the world cup?

Support or oppose here.

---

New compromise

I've added a link to Portal:Association football into the "In the news" section. Now readers can easily find all the latest scores, and the editors have all the space they want to list any details they want. No more cramped space. This seems like a fair compromise to me. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 16:29

No, that is not called a compromise, that is called doing what you want with complete disregard what other people want. And please, please stop modifying the main page until we have reached consensus. This type of editing back and forth only serves to give wikipedia a bad name as inconsistent and unreliable.

The discussion was and still is primarily if we should have scores on the main page and while and while from the discussions it can be argued that apart from a few stubborn individuals there is a consensus (to include the scores) - no decision has been made either way. So please try to control your urges to edit the main page every five minutes you get a new idea for a solution. --Denoir 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone needs to take a breath. We certainly don't want to get into any slanging matches and I'm quite certain everyone is acting in good faith. I do agree however that we should probably freeze editing the main page over this issue until a permanent solution is achieved; constant to-ing and fro-ing may be confusing to casual readers and makes it seem as if there is some kind of recert war in progress when in fact (for the most part) the debate has been complete and all sides have had a chance to make their case without pettyness. Steady on everyone- after all, as a great man once said, football isn't that important anyway! ;-) Badgerpatrol 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll does not reach Consensus. Please stop misusing that word. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 00:01

To quote the rule book again: "In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes". Point being that it is a tool to see where we are as opposed to just think that consensus is proprotional to how loud certain people are in the discussion. Otherwise it would be enough that one or a few individuals put in an above average effort to block something from being published. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it ceratianly doesn't give liberum veto to the editors either.

By the way, so far the vote is 18:5 for having scores on the main page. That's nearly 4:1. --Denoir 05:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this first paragraph. I feel that Brian0918 is pushing his point with so much effort that the end result will be skewed towards his point of view. In a discussion, listening is just as important as talking. Giving a vigorous reply to every comment hampers the discussion rather than improving it. Once in a while, let a remark that is offending to you just be, readers are big enough to form their own opinion about it. Piet 07:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All this talk on process is fascinating I'm sure, but Brian0918's solution is elegant and obvious in hindsight. It serves everyone's interests. Is someone going to actually raise a point against it? Melchoir 07:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that it's a good solution. The results should be on the front page because they're a big news item. That's how simple I see it, and I'm not alone. Piet 10:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree. -b 01:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I will crosspost a comment I made within the poll, since the discussion there has cooled off with no consensus, and I think we should reach one for future occasions relating to this matter. -What is the point of the poll? Finding out what people want only to justify that it can't be done according to the guidelines is not going to help anything. It seems analogous to me like making a poll "Do you want Wikipedia to give you free money?". A lot of people will support it only to have other people say "That's not what wikipedia is for". Maybe the question in this poll could be better phrased to something like "Do you think the guidelines for the In the News section should change to acommodate the world cup?" and maybe something else like "Do you think sports events coverage should cease alltoghether?" or "Do you think Wikipedia's purpose should be giving you free money?". I think those should be more efficient in determining the course of action through a more focused discussion. PHF 05:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article: Indonesian earthquake/tsunami

Re Indonesian earthquake:

"However, recent analysis indicates the number of casualties were 186,983 dead and 42,883 missing, for a total of 229,866 affected. The catastrophe was one of the deadliest disasters in modern history. The magnitude of the earthquake was originally recorded as 9.0 on the Richter scale, but has been upgraded to between 9.1 and 9.3."

The phrase "recent analysis indicates ..." is unacceptably vague for the quite-specific numbers that follow. Please cite the source of the analysis and when. Same too regarding magnitude: say who recorded the original 9.0 (likely usgs) and who upgraded (ditto). Numbers have varied between U.S. and Indonesian sources.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.1.171 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

The sources are cited in the article. Raul654 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten that sentence in the article; it was pretty awkward wording. --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal as a removal candidate

I propose the main page as a removal candidate, unless it doesn't give enough tribute to the world's most important event in modern history (you can say what you want, it's not just a sport event, a cultural event, a global festivity it's all of that and even more), it binds billions of people in the world (not just millions as NBA or the Oktoberfest do). It should be clear that the FIFA World Cup is meant.

Not everyone cares that much about sports. I know the World Cup is a major event (although most of my fellow countryman would just as soon yawn). But keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. You should go to BBC, Sports Illustrated, or some other news organization for World Cup updates. --Nelson Ricardo 13:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, not everyone cares about sports, but even people (like _women_ :-) ) who normally do not care about sports, care very much about the world cup. On Friday in the Netherlands (16 million people), the opening game (Germany - Costa Rica) had 2.8 million viewers, 60% of total viewers that evening. Poland - Ecuador scored 2.4 million viewers. Two games that the Netherlands were not in, not even from their group! These were the two most popular programs of the evening, number three was the World Cup news show. But actually many people probably went out to watch the game in a pub or bar. Piet 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about how important it is, it's about what wikipedia is (not)! Zarniwoot 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What could Wikipedia be that major news events watched by billions would not be worth an entry? There is a lot of trizia in Wikipedia, like the massive entry on Star Trek Enterprise and why fans don't like it. If Wikipedia can have the Klingon Language (a massive section on it) it can have the World Cup. Both are just entertainment.

• Quite. I doubt you'd be able to get the main page removed. Anyway, we're an encyclopedia not a World Cup fanpage and we tend to talk about more than just sports. If you look up a fan page, it will give it all the attention you want and more. In fact, FIFA World Cup was already chosen featured article when it started last week. Normally, featured articles aren't linked to current events. We've discriminated in favor of it too much already. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • FIFA World Cup was featured the day before it started, rather than the day it started, because people expected it to feature prominently in ITN. Out of interest, do you think we discriminated far to much in favour of the Olympics? Skittle 09:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Lesotho

The information that appears in the products regarding Lesotho is simply incorrect —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.228.4 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

Where is the wrong info ? --65.95.106.88 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup Result

Australia - Japan 3-1. Can I say that :-) ? Piet 14:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I know! It was amazing (I'm Australian) what a match!!!!!! There'll be riots in the streets lol!!

BUT I still don't think that sports scores belong on the main page. --Monotonehell 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mandela sent to prison: incorrect wording

Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. -- 65.95.106.88 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured

Hi, can Homestar Runner be a featured article?--H*bad 16:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. -- 65.95.106.88 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New article

Why is Newest articles linking on recent additions? Why isnt there New article special page anymore? Luka Jačov 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• The special page still exists, it's just not of any use to readers; only editors. See the relevant discussion at WPT:DYK#What_.22recent_additions.22_links_to. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 16:52

Featured picture is just a second featured article

I find it quite frustrating to see a featured picture on the main page with a description of something somewhat related but without any direct reference to the image. For example, the current "frog" image is quite unusual and should be described rather than having a blurb about what frogs are. The other day the Euro image showed a variety of measurement lines around it but the blurb talked about the currency. The first example does have a little bit of a tie-in, but I'd expect to see a description of what the image is.

It has almost turned into a second featured article. If we have a featured picture on the main page I really think the blurb should be about the image as much as possible. violet/riga (t) 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting idea, although I'm not sure where you'd suggest it. Does anyone watch Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day? Maybe at the WP:FP or WP:FPC talk pages. I think I agree with you about this one. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 18:21
• I definitely agree, and for a while when it was first introduced I tried to edit the POTD blurbs to actually reflect the image. We should however, mention the article it's in at least incidentally as article illustration is one of the vital criteria FPs are judged on. I would say the model should be an extended image caption as if appearing in the article, that would tie in the image content to the general subject. IMO an appropriate mainpage blurb wording should really be a part of the original FPC nomination process, and a nomination without a decent mainpage blurb would not be approved.--Pharos 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The pictures don't usually have articles specifically about them. Do you mean the story about the photography, how and where it was taken? I'm not sure that they would be encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding value to an article is one of the criteria for FP status. A picture without an article can not be featured. Zarniwoot 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All FPs are required to be used effectively in one or more articles; that's part of the nomination criteria. Of course usually an FP will only illustrate one aspect of an article, though, and it is that aspect that should be explained in the blurb, in the matter of an extended image caption. The direct subject matter of the image should certainly be explained, as well as "historical" circumstances of image production when they are more interesting and significant than "some Wikipedian went on holiday and snapped this photo". For example, today's FP blurb should really discuss Ernst Haeckel more.--Pharos 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is information from reliable sources (not just Wikipedians) about the photograph, then it could be added. For the Haeckel image, it would discuss the various frogs in the image, and list details about how the image was created, when, etc. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 19:47

For today's frog picture, some mention of Kunstformen der Natur would be better than another paragraph about frogs. -- 199.71.174.100 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Mainpage caption as part of candidate nomination for a proposal to reform this process. Thanks.--Pharos 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Roethlisberger

Defending Super Bowl winning Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was in a major motorcycle accident today. Why isn't this in the ITN Box with the World Cup? This Anti-American, Anti-American Football POV is offensive. [/sarcasm] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsorr0w (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

Because there is no open [sarcasm] tag, I'm not sure where the sarcasm begins. Is it before the Why or is the whole thing sarcastic? joturner 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

False tags are often placed at the end for humor. Putting an open <sarcasm> tag at the beginning would ruin the joke. It would give away the ending. --JCasto 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Fear not, for it was all sarcasm. Preston 22:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We can talk about American football. The American football team lost 0-3 to the Czech Republic yesterday :-) See the football portal for up-to-date details. Piet 07:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We did? Wait... we have an American soccer team? Really? Are you being serious? I've seen soccer being played in the US before, but... they were all 12 year old girls. This team you speak of, are they grown adults? Preston 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't clear from what I saw... You guys are funny. When the US gets a good result you're shouting it around for everyone to hear and when they lose it's suddenly unimportant. Nobody in the US cared about cycling either, until Lance Armstrong started winning the tour, then suddenly everyone had to hear how great this American was. I guess we'll have to wait for a good USA result in the World Cup for the US to become interested in soccer. Piet 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

People in the US were much more interested in his divorce/relationship with Sheryl Crow than in the Tour de France. Preston 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Really User:pallfy 18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Move portal link to the top

Currently it seems the Rolland Garos has more space and is more towards the top than the FIFA World Cup which is hidden in the bottom and given a small space. This despite the fact that even the smallest World Cup match is watched by several times more people than the Men's Singles final of Rolland Garos. Stop this discrimination and give World Cup more space. Either box the portal link or move it to the top. Loom91 07:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The world cup is already being positively discrimated against as it is. Other ITN articles would not enjoy such attention. It's naturally moving down the list as new articles are added. --Monotonehell 08:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Other ITN articles would not enjoy so much attention, but the Olympics enjoyed far more. That is what people are comparing it to, because it is bigger than the Olympics. Do you think the treatment of the Olympics was a bad idea (I do), or do you judge the World Cup to be less important? Skittle 09:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think people were carried away by the Olymics fever. Yes I think the Olympics were a bad idea (but since I was on a 'wikibreak' back then I don't remember seeing them on the MP much). IMO it was a bad idea to try to turn ITN into what what WP is not (WP is not a news service). Also; It's not about what is or isn't more important. In fact something could be said for featuring less well publicised articles (an encylopedia is meant to be educational - people can find articles that they know might exist by themselves - features should probably expose them to new information). I think the world cup is very important and very newsworthy across many nations; but we shouldnt disrupt the purpose of ITN just to make a "sports ticker". Judging things more or less important is so subjective to one's personal bias - I wouldn't try. --Monotonehell 12:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bigger than Olympics is POV in the first place, and I think many people now regret giving the Olympics so much coverage (partially because it led to the far less notable Commonwealth Games getting huge amounts of coverage), so we're trying to scale it back now. —Cuiviénen 03:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The French Open tennis is near the top 'coz it's more recent, and it will gradually move down. FIFA World Cup soccer arrived at ITN last week !

ITN is a special corner of the encyclopedia to showcase well updated articles related to current events. So mentioning the World Cup there is fine, as long as the World Cup pages are well updated. But, if it's the same page over and over again, and every update is just the score, than the ITN line should not stay on Main Page till we have a champion. Just a link at the bottom of ITN, as it is now, is fine. Don't change it. -- 64.229.230.121 14:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Anticipating silly edit wars

Can something be learnt from this edit war that took place (is still taking place?) over whether the World Cup football results should appear on the Main Page? Can this sort of thing be anticipated and planned for? What, in the past, has caused the most controversy and lame edit wars on the Main Page, and can we anticipate and plan to avoid the next one? It would make the encyclopedia appear much more impressive if some discussion took place beforehand, and a consensus was reached. Carcharoth 12:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sports events in general. Should they be included at all? I see this argument reoccuring, especially now that those against it now have the precedent "but the World Cup wasn't on the main page!" Borisblue 14:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If the World Cup doesn't appear on the main page, I think it is case closed. Nothing should appear on the Main Page in the way that the Olympics did ever again, since the decision has been made that this is not what Wikipedia does. Since there are no similar events bigger than the World Cup, and the World Cup does not get this treatment, the decision seems to have been made. Skittle 14:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The final of any highest-level sporting tournament (World Cup, Stanley Cup, World Series, Briar, Olympics, Commonwealth, French Open, Kentucky Derby, Rugby League World Cup) should be mentioned, nothing preliminary. -- Zanimum 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No-one is asking for the preliminary rounds of the World Cup to be displayed on the main page, that would be excessive. The Stanley Cup and World Series are both national tournaments; including these sorts of events really would open the floodgates and I don't think it would be a popular move. I would suggest restricting inclusion only to sporting events of global interest- e.g. the World Cup, the Olympics, the baseball world championships, the ice hockey world championships, cricket world cup etc etc. There are really only two events which are undeniably of global import, each occurring every 4 years. I doubt if ITN would grind to a halt if only these were included, which would satisfy the vast majority of correspondents. Having said that, I am not 100% against your idea provided it is fairly and consitently enforced (see below), i.e. if we have the Stanley Cup and the World Series then we also have e.g. the Copa Libertadores, the Russian national football championship winners, winners of major cricket test series, winners of rugby 6 nations and tri-nations, winners of UEFA cup, winners of the English and Scottish Premier leagues, etc etc. PS- What's 'briar'?Badgerpatrol 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussions? Several people are asking for the preliminary rounds to be listed. One even argued that not to do so would be POV against the countries that didn't make it to the final round... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 17:36

I have been following the discussion, quite closely in fact. I did indeed mean the preliminary rounds before the finals, beginning in late 2004, as described by Skittle below. The key difference is one of scale; nobody cares if an athlete wins an athletics heat and gets into e.g. an Olympic final for its own sake. By contrast, any win in a World Cup finals match is massive, particularly in the countries concerned but also more widely. I believe many are struggling to grasp the unique nature of this event, which is only reasonable given that not every country has a history and tradition of football as national obsession. Much of the beauty of Wikipedia lies in disseminating information of this nature across cultural boundaries. Badgerpatrol 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussions? The preliminary rounds are over, what is going on now is the Final. Skittle 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I'm referring to the final round, between the last two teams remaining. This is what we did with the Olympics, with the French open, and previous sports features. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 19:15

The Olympics got endless attention on the Main Page, because it is a series of world-level finals. Every day, the top person in whatever sport is named. Biathlon, luge, track, triathlon. There is only one world-level final for the World Cup, and that is the final day of play. -- Zanimum 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Zanimum, I think you will lose that argument :-) The match England played in on Saturday was a much bigger deal both nationally and internationally than any one 'final' at the Olympics. The world level finals of the World Cup started on Friday and are still on-going. This is the World Cup Final. If you want the Olympics in next time (I personally don't), then you need the WC in now. Otherwise whole swathes of people will not stand for it. Skittle 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are simply stating your opinion. The Olympics had finals all the time for numerous sports; that is why there was a section for it. There is only 1 final round in the World Cup. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 17:37

I am not stating my opinion; the Final is what is currently going on. We are in the final rounds of the World Cup; there is more than one. Are you implying that the Olympic men's synchronised diving 'final' was a bigger deal nationally and internationally than a single match in the WC final? I think few people would agree with that. Skittle 17:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop redefining words. "Final" means the very last match. "Semi-finals" means the matches immediately preceding the final match. Just because it is labelled "the Finals" doesn't mean they are all final matches. Playing linguistic tricks is never a solid rationale. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 19:18

I'm not playing linguistic tricks or redefining words, I am trying to explain why people are not going to agree with using this argument if you try to get the Olympics featured next time like they were last time. 'Final' does not mean 'the very last match' in all contexts, in the context of the World Cup Finals, all the games since Friday are world-level finals. The qualification rounds are over, and these are the finals. I'm not trying to play games, I'm trying to explain that these really are finals. I don't even want the scores in ITN, I'm just warning that if you think you can have your cake (no WC scores in ITN) and eat it (get thorough Olympics scores on ITN), you will find your way blocked. This is not to do with any sophistry, it is to do with setting precedents, importance of global events and how people react. Skittle 09:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, linguistic tricks. When we featured the Olympics, we only showed the final winner in each sport. I'm fine with doing the same with the World Cup, as we have done with the French Open, and other sports championships listed on ITN in the past. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 20:07

Your premise seems to be that games that determine "final winners" are worthy of being on the main page, while games that don't determine "final winners" are not. I think that's a faulty premise. Certainly the second-to-last game in the World Cup is a lot more interesting to the average person than the absolute last ribbon dancing competition is. Perhaps you don't think that that's fair to the ribbon dancers, but that's the way it is. --151.200.139.143 01:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no comparison between almost any Olympic final and games in the WC finals. Most WC qualifying matches (let alone those of the final set) will receive more coverage internationally than most individual events at the Olympics. Badgerpatrol 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't a page about that one game, then there's nothing to showcase on ITN. IMO, more is needed than just the score to get on ITN. For the Olympics, at least every day there was something different. I enjoyed the variety and depth Wikipedia has on the various winter sports. -- 64.229.230.121 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what can basically be learnt is the importance of setting a precedent or policy and then sticking to it. This debate would not be happening had it not been for tha fact that previous events (the Summer Olympics, the Winter Olympics, Commonwealth Games) have had their results placed on the main page. Now that the World Cup is here (a tournament which is at least on a par with the Summer Olympics and a much, much bigger event in every significant sense than the other two) results are suddenly no longer allowed. Rightly or wrongly, some see this as discriminatory. All that is needed is even-handedness; if a clear policy ruling is made that sports results will never appear in ITN then this debate may reluctantly dissipate- sadly I feel that many are of the opinion that the next time the Olympics or some similar event comes around, the results will return. Fairness and consitency are all that's required. Badgerpatrol 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to talk about sticking to policy, why not read Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page. You talk about sports results appearing in ITN - for the last time, ITN is not a news service. See my comments here, here, and here. I'd be particularly interested in comments on the idea of weekly, monthly and yearly ITNs (though similar concepts may already exist under other names). Carcharoth 16:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I read those guidelines some time ago. Since the links are to national team pages which are being updated throughout the tournament, I don't quite see why including the scores is contrary to the intention of the guidelines. Nevertheless, like everything else on Wikipedia, those guidelines are interpretative. It is very hard to make a case (and with the best will in the world to Icelanders) that a change of Prime Minister in that country, especially when he is replaced in an uncontested election by another member of his own government without any obvious scandal or outside intervention, is really a story of international importance and interest. This may apply to some other ITN snippets on occasion also. Policy (if the ITN guidelines even technically count as policy?) is clearly therefore not a straitjacket, not least because a persuasive precedent has already been set for other sporting events. Many are wondering why there has been such a sudden outburst of rabid disapproval from some quarters regarding the WC. As I have said elsewhere, consistency is what is required- if the ruling is that the previous inclusion of the Olympics et al. was a mistake, then an unbreakable, proscriptive addition to the ITN policy is required to the effect that ongoing results of future sporting tournaments must never be included. Whilst I think this would be great shame, and in many ways contrary to the principles and ideals of the project, I would accept this and I suspect many others would also (albeit no doubt with much grumbling!). I can't think of another way to resolve this; we appear to have reached something of an impasse. Regardless of policy, what is missing here is the appearance of fairness. Badgerpatrol 00:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I too found the Icelandic Prime Minister item a bit strange. And I don't think we have reached an impasse. I would be more than happy to see World Cup news items in ITN, providing that some balance was maintained (not a link every day - allow room for other items as well) and a diversity of links (not just items about the scores, and not just links to the team articles). See my suggestions below (The ongoing story involving one of the managers of one of the African teams, Cisse's broken leg, Wayne Rooney's metatarsal, sex tourism in Germany, the World Cup mascot or songs, World Cup stadium architecture) and here (a few pages down, starting "Yes. That is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about."), plus also having engaging items and links that a general encyclopedia reader might be interested in, and not just a football fan (ie. not just a static link to the football portal). Carcharoth 00:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a decent idea, but the problem is going to come in the selection, which will be (or will at least seem) more or less arbitrary at the moment. This would lessen as the tournament progressed and the field of potential stories became smaller. There are a number of articles that may be suitable, (and a number of others not directly in that category) and now is obviously the time to try to get these improved if they need to be. As a compromise, it doesn't seem too bad- the WC gets the prominance many feel it deserves given previous coverage, whilst avoiding the 'sports ticker' concerns outlined by others. BUT- there are two problems that I foresee. First, it sets no precedent and there will be a collective bated breath when the next major sporting tournament comes along as we wait to see what happens and the potential uproar that may result. Secondly, I think that many correspondents are still going to object to the fact the WC is being prominently touted on the main page. I am not bashing anybody, but I think some people are genuinely perplexed as to what this tournament is, what it means, and why any space at all should be devoted to it. The occasional lack of understanding over the basic rules and format of the tournament and the somewhat spurious comparisions to competitions such as the Stanley Cup or World Series (and no disrespect to either of those, I have been to the baseball myself a few times and it is an excellent game, although I must confess my knowledge of the Stanley Cup is minimal) bear witness to this. Unfortunately, some of the arguments made and some of the language used has served to polarise discussion along the lines of the hackneyed 'America v The ROW' line of debate. Once something becomes a point of national pride reasoned discussion tends to fly out the window as sides become immovably entrenched. However, I applaud your idea and I think it's not a step in the right direction. Badgerpatrol 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather convenient that this debate started when the World Cup came around such that the scores are not being posted until a consensus is met... it may not be the intent of those in opposistion to such scores being ITN, but it definately seems like the World Cup is being singled out unfairly. Those in favour site precedent with the olympics and other such games, but it seems to me that those in opposition want to use the World Cup next time a sporting event comes along as their own precedent. I find it difficult to understand how something so many people want included INT is so vehemetly opposed... will it really ruin your day if a line is added with the daily results? Misterniceguy7 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To me, adding a line with the daily results will turn Wikipedia from something that has an interesting variety of articles linked from its main page, to a page with a month-long link promoting a football tournament that I would not want to read Wikipedia articles about every day of that month. I don't use "In the News" to find out the results of World Cup matches, or read reports on World Cup matches (I go elsewhere for that). I expect to be able to read an ITN item and follow the link(s) to read an interesting article, not some rehashed collection of football statistics and subjectively written reports on the matches and the teams. Carcharoth 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Brian and Zanimum ; we should continue the precedent of only mentioning when a final winner of a major sporting event is known. One sporting event, one winner. There will only be one winner of the 2006 World Cup - we can and should state who won when we know. --mav 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As many have outlined above, that is not the precedent for global sports tournaments, the results of which have been listed as the event was ongoing regardless of the outcome. Badgerpatrol 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And as many have outlined, posting results is not the function of "In the news". How difficult is it to understand that? If there is a good article about the result, then fine. If not, think of another news item to suggest to attract people's attention to the World Cup articles. The ongoing story involving one of the managers of one of the African teams, Cisse's broken leg, Wayne Rooney's metatarsal, sex tourism in Germany, the World Cup mascot or songs, World Cup stadium architecture. There are many possibilities, and there is the opportunity to be a bit more creative than just listing results. It shows Wikipedia is aware of the World Cup, but also shows, in a good way, how we are different from other information sources in that we can provide easy access to in depth articles on certain issues. Carcharoth 00:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when are mascots news? -- Zanimum 13:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

When the match results were posted I did use the links provided... I was curious about the countries involved in the different matches, and accusing articles of being subjectively written is not a good reason to hide them, it is a good reason to try and remove their subjectivity. Just because you aren't interested in the links provided doesn't mean they aren't worthy, just don't use them if you don't want to. Misterniceguy7 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think well-thought-out, interesting and engaging news items about the World Cup would be a bonus. See my comments here (a few pages down, starting "Yes. That is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about."). But there is the opportunity for so much more than just news results. And getting the balance between football and other news items is important. Carcharoth 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So what the hell, after all this crap people are still talking about making a special section for the Olympics in there when it happens? The only equivalent I would be satisfied with is saying the "The Olympic games continue" and in the end of the event put a final standing of the medals. If anybody argues that it is ok by the rules and guidelines to put every single competition results in the olympics, but not the World Cup, then the rules and guidelines are clearly biased and dont maintain fair balance, while even if they did get balance (equal coverage), in reality the World Cup actually outweights the winter olympics and commonwealth games by a ton. While I agreed to let it go and don't fight the rules for the World Cup, if it comes to, I will most certainly fight against the Olympics. PHF 16:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if this is about the scores not leading to a full article report on the individual games, how about the lazy ass solution of just copying the wikinews game report and making it into an wikipedia article? You can go there and take a look at what they got, it has all the relevant information people would like including "Ronaldo is fat" and "The tunisian striker dribbled his way into a corner kick" or some other thing that gives validity to the score. While it is lazy ass and unfair, it fits the criteria for being included, no (A news item that led to an article that has been currently updated with relevant information)? PHF 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit break

Some people seem to be losing sight of what ITN is; it's a list of articles that have recently been updated to reflect current events. Not news for news sake. Relative notoriety isn't something that should dictate whether something makes it to the main page or not. Just because one event is perceived more popular than another doesn't make it more ITN-worthy. It may make it more news-worthy, but as has been said before WP is not a news service. In fact there's something that could be said for exposing readers to a variety of new information and new ideas. As long as the subject is encyclopedic then it should be considered.

We could take the Stanley Cup verses the FIFA World Cup for example. On my side of the world the World Cup is everywhere, while the Stanley Cup I only know about due to my rabid Canadian friends. Both deserve an encyclopedic article written about them. By that I mean a discussion of what they are, their impact on society(s), their history, specific events perceived to be important by their followers. The ultimate "winners" of each season could be listed in those articles but only as a sidenote to the article itself, not the entire season's or semi-finals results.

When such an event begins, and the article is updated with appropriate information, then it could be nominated for inclusion. Also when the "winner" is announced the same could occur. I see several people citing the Olympics and what occurred then. I honestly can't remember exactly what happened, but no matter, what should occur is similar to what I've mentioned above. If an article is updated regarding a sportsperson, event or other related subject with current event information then it could be nominated for inclusion.

Recap:

• ITN's purpose is not as a news service
• Relative notoriety should not bias inclusions into the ITN box, either way.
• ITN candidates need articles with interest and content beyond "Australia 3 - Japan nil" ( GO AUSSIE!! *ahem* see? I like football too ;)

I suggested a name change for the ITN box a little while ago to help remove misconceptions about its purpose. We might like to reconsider this.

--Monotonehell 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Some name changes are being discussed here - search for "Behind the news". Carcharoth 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That page is a tediously long discussion about a World Cup scors poll — not really to do with an alternative name for In The News, a suggestion for which is Topical Articles Bazza 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you search as indicated there's a few lines in the middle refferring to my initial suggestion and another such discussion. But not very much more regarding it. --Monotonehell 14:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. It's a good idea though and should be explored some more — people do have trouble with what In The News means and I think the number is greater than User:Brian0918 gives credit for. Bazza 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad picture at On this day

File:AC72-2143.2.jpg

I think Image:AC72-2143.2.jpg is a bad picture for On this day. It's too small and too dark to see the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, and today is not the anniversary of the launch, which is depicted in the picture. Can we have Image:Braddock.jpg to go with the 1935 anniversary, instead ? The other anniversaries do not have PD-free images. -- 64.229.230.121 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (But, if the licence for Braddock's pic is not valid, never mind. No, Russell Crowe's pic won't do..... -- 64.229.230.121 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm getting flashbacks on this one. I agree that it's a problem. In fact, the picture isn't even of Pioneer, but the rocket carrying it. How about Image:Pioneer10 art.jpg, which at least depicts the craft in space? Melchoir 19:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I changed it to another image, which is even further away in time from Pioneer 10 crossing Pluto's orbit, but at least it isn't so dark like the other two. I'm pretty sure the Braddock photo is a copyright violation, and I'll be dealing with it shortly.--Pharos 21:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

On This Day... contributing help

How can i send in things to be appeared on the On This Day... box ??

Have a look at the guidlines on this page and contribute away. --Monotonehell 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense in the featured picture description

The statement that "this image only applies to some suburbs in the United States and Canada" is simply nonsense. The easiest solution would be to remove the whole sentence. ReeseM 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. It's not nonsence - the concept of what a suburb is in one part of the world may not be the same as in anther part of the world. A suburb of Athens looks quite different to a suburb of Cardiff. Perhaps change the word "image" to "concept" to make it more clear. --Monotonehell 07:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Isalm

what is mean by Isalm?!

You could start with the article here at Wikipedia Islam. But this is not the place to ask questions. In future you could try Wikipedia:Reference_desk or use the search box on the left. - --Monotonehell 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He asked what Isalm was, not Islam. OtOcAn.

As far as I understood both were english variations of spelling of the same Arabic word. I could be wrong. --Monotonehell 18:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely 'Isalm' is a typo.....?? ~~T. Servaia~~

Crab Nebula

Beautiful picture for the featured article. Anything is better than that eye.

lol - shush you ;) --Monotonehell 07:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How about I bring this nebula's article up to Featured Status and gross you out again? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 14:57

*plays creepy Lord of the Rings music*

i concur, ANYTHIng is better, that eyee was disgusting.

If you want creepy LotR stuff, how about Image:Fomalhaut_ring_hst_2004.jpg? Carcharoth 10:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Flag Day

While I do see that today is credited as the day we in the USA selected our national flag, no mention is made that today is actually celebrated as Flag Day in the United States, I think perhaps a blurb would be appropriate? Elipongo 15:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to see every image on the front page changed to the American flag in honor of this occasion. God bless the USA! Ziggur 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And then honor every other country's flag day and turn wikipedia into nationalistic bullshit, great idea. Allah and Buddah Bless the world! I disagree. PHF 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Was the sarcasm not obvious enough? Ziggur 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Had you been referring to any other country than the US, it would've been obvious. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 23:05

rol I've never laughed so hard here :-) God bless America! Piet 21:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is one business that will never go bankrupt, it's making American flags. Those guys must be absolutely minted ;-) Badgerpatrol 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo

June 15th is the anniversary of Kosovo on the Julian Calendar, not the Gregorian, which i believe is on the 28th... so was it On THIS Day? What are the rules for that? Does the Battle of Kosovo get two On This Day mentions? Arthurian Legend 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the historically significant date is better used, whether gregorian or julian. For example, the October Revolution may have occured in Gregorian November, but its date of historical significance is October 23 (correct me on this), and thus should be placed there and not on November 5th, the Gregorian Date (again, correct me). -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 07:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm is that logical? To me it seems better to put it on the 5th of November. We also use our own calendar when relating to Chinese or Islam or French Revolution events, who use a completely different calendar. Just because the difference with the Julian calendar is small doesn't mean we should abandon our own calendar. Personal opinion of course. Piet 09:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, but doesn't it seem a bit odd to have the October Revolution occur in November... even though by all means it happened in November, Gregorian, it's date significance is relevant to October. Anyway, this is off topic now, it doesn't look like the mention of the battle of kosovo will be removed/replaced anyway. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 20:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There is probably a guideline somewhere, but finding the right guideline is usually not as much fun as discussing about it :-) Piet 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hah, yeah it is more fun discussing it. If there is a guideline, I just hope someone will jump in with it, or if not, maybe they can think one up now. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Corpus Christi

June 15th - Corpus Christi in the Western rite Christian liturgical year, please add it to the on this day, thanks

Might that statement be true for all years? Doesn't it depend on the date of Easter (a moveable feast)? If you were to calculate it for future years and add it to the article, your work would be welcome. --Ancheta Wis 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does appear in Corpus Christi (feast). In 2007, it will fall on the 7th of June. —Cuiviénen 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know

Does the Singapore entry seem obvious to anyone else? A region declares self-government, and then holds elections to determine its leaders... there's not much of a gap between 1958 and 1959... So, what's interesting about this fact? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 01:33

In general it seems to me that christianity is a big lie!

POV

One of today's anniversary dates says:

1846 - Pius IX was elected pope, beginning the longest reign of all popes since the days of the apostles.

The part I italicized seems to me to clearly be POV since a sizeable body of Christians (e.g., nearly all Protestants) deny that the papacy existed in the time of the apostles and thus that St. Peter was the first pope. The intro to the article on Pius IX states it more neutrally ("(not counting the Apostle St. Peter)"). I neutralized the text this was likely derived from in June 16. --Flex 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

St. Peter was an apostle, so it can hardly be said that he wasn't around when they were. — ceejayoz ^talk 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Protestants do not contest the existence of popes, only their authority and powers. Deipnosophista 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong title for POTD

The image shows STRAW, not HAY. Could someone change the links on the main page, please? --Tom 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is actually hay; note that it is quite thin and flexible, while straw tends to be wider. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK - Banu Nadir

The "Did You Know" section today feature s a section on the Bani-Nadir and a short write-up about the article. The wrtie-up feels a bit anti-Islamic, that is just my opinion.

• See Talk:Banu Nadir, and explain why it is anti-Islamic, citing sources. Otherwise all we have is your opinion, and opinions don't count for much around here without evidence. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 22:30
  • What evidence? Those alleged events happened more than 1300 years ago. Followers of Mohamed do not even agree on such basic issues like in which position he held his hands during prayers according to various eye witnesses (the still on-going debate is one major reason why shia and sunni muslims in Iraq keep killing each other so viciously). Compared to that how can you trust such a detailed write-up of atrocities? On the same logic the Elderly Protocols could be considered true just because they are very detailed. The front page entry is certainly not something Martin Luther King would have approved of.
    • Evidence, i.e. reliable sources. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 00:08
  • That is incorrect. Evidence is irrelevant. See NPOV dispute, The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion.... Difference of opinion, held by a non-trivial minority, which the article fails to fairly and sympathetically describe, constitutes a NPOV failure.
• I'm willing to believe that this is an accurate account of events, but I too think it's a bit... much to have it appear on the front page. --Krsont 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How so? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 01:11
    • It is a bit obtuse to not see why some might consider it unwise to feature this particular piece on the main page- whether it's true or not. Wikipedia shouldn't be censored- but it should be sensitive. Badgerpatrol 02:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not being obtuse; I just want specifics about what should be changed, and what it should be changed to. Simply supplying one's opinion means nothing on this site. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 03:30
        • DYK items should be unbiased and neutral. Unless this item is a manifest fact- i.e. there are no dissenting views from archeologists, historians or theologians- then a neutrality qualifier should be included. A case might also be made that the very inclusion of the item itself reflects some bias or lack of neutrality; another case might be made for a WP:POINT violation. I prefer to assume good faith. However, can you explain your thought process in picking that particular item (I believe from the history it was your selection, although correct me if I'm wrong). Badgerpatrol 03:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The article should be changed to include both POV and disputed tags, since it unambiguously meets the criteria for both. And thus should never have been placed on the front page.
• Totallydisputed tags have been added to the article more than once, and then removed by others. As above, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the NPOV and accuracy policy. See Talk:Banu_Nadir.
• A bit? Contrast the article Banu Nadir with [4].

Meta-question: Has this kind of thing arisen before? Do we need some mechanism to deal with a small group of folks dropping randomness on the front page? Say a celebration of the Holocaust? Or of the four thousandth aniversary of the creation of the Earth?

• Small group of folks? Randomness? Do you have any clue how the DYK process works, or how the content that goes on the main page is selected? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 12:42

Why don't you explain it to us all, Brian, since it seems to be your area of specific expertise. Badgerpatrol 14:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, you could just go to [Template_talk:Did_you_know]the page linked on the front page under Did you know?] and read about the process there. — ceejayoz ^talk 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks CJ, I actually had already done that. What I really wanted was for Brian to explain, per his above comment, in exactly what way DYK items were NOT selected by 'a small group of folks', and to take us through his exact thought process in selecting that particular item for the main page. The DYK guidelnes are not particularly instructive in this regard, as far as I can see. Anyway, the item in question is now off the main page, and there's no point crying over spilt milk, as they say. Badgerpatrol 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

CJ, for background: A terse summary, but non-neutral and ad hominum, might be that a couple of, hmm, people concerned that the badness of Muhammad and his followers be more widely known, created a Muhammed bashing history article, devoid of NPOV, and it was put on the wikipedia front page. A more neutral summary might be that an article, category "People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad", was created describing Mohamed's treacherous avarice, murderous abuse, and general sliminess towards a Jewish tribe. No alternate points of view. Little cultural context. Disparagingly worded. Not at all subtle. Hmm, not subtle at least for a native speaker of English, obviously. Brian put it on the front page. The creator, Brian, and others, then removed npov and accuracy disputed tags added during the day by different people. With arguments similar to 'Cite facts for NPOV claims, opinions don't matter. Provide edits for consideration instead. Only some biased words are a problem. My cites are better than your cites, so no dispute exists'. At best it was a misunderstanding of NPOV, accuracy, and dispute policy. Otherwise, obviously, it was something else. 66.30.119.55 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Placing the article on the front page was clearly against NPOV and DYK policy. Thus the interest in Brian's thoughts when judging it fit for the front page. My own interpretation is a combined failure to see the article as biased, and misunderstanding of NPOV (ie, 'since Muhammad was slimy, and the true facts are cited properly, there can't be a POV issue'). Rather than a WP:POINT. But that's just looking at the one event, without checking for a pattern in past acts. Brian has not said whether he now believes any mistakes were made. 66.30.119.55 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Over-emphasis

It seems that the featured article tends to focus a great deal on weather related phenomona like hurricanes. I know there is a featured article candidacy phase and that doesn't seem too dominated by weather phenomona, but it seems that somehow lots of storm stories make the status. Mbisanz 01:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weather and climate have shaped the entire history of the planet more than anything else. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 02:05

I'm sure, Mbisanz, you won't be happy to know that Global warming will be on the Main Page on 21 June. joturner 04:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I count 14 "storm" FAs out of over 1000. It does seem like the Tropical cyclones WikiProject has been busy. The point of the FA is to upgrade articles, though, and if you say only so many, you're defeating the purpose. People have complained in the past "too many celebrities", "too many computer articles" and such, but then it's different the next week. Sometimes people are remembering other front page items and lumping them in, too; DYK has had a couple of storm articles. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has complained about "too many Russia/Poland" articles on DYK. There are at least 3 committed nominators who deal exclusively with Russia and/or Poland. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 12:40

The solution is obviously to have fewer featured articles. -Splash - tk 16:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, while there were two hurricane-related FAs on the Main Page this month (one, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, by request), the last one to be on the Main page before then was Hurricane Dennis back in February. Cyclone Tracy appeared on the Main Page in October of 2004 and Galveston Hurricane of 1900 in April of 2005. This month has simply been exceptionally concentrated in the number of hurricane-related articles. —Cuiviénen 18:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Space Exploration Featured Article?

If the Space Shuttle Discovery does launch in the first weeks of July, would a Space Exploration Featured Article be appropriate? Just a thought--Flyintothesky

You've only got a few days to nominate it, so get to work! --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Burglarizing

I wasn't bold enough to change it on the template itself, but I'm pretty sure that using the word "burglarizing" is not in many British English speakers' vocabulary, nor to many outside of the US. This nasty American English-style use of the language should surely be altered to a word which has more world-wide knowledge. Should I simply be bold enough to change it to "burgling"? Am I making a fuss over nothing? Bobo. 10:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

General consensus, as I understand it, is that if an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect. Also, it has also been noted that if spelling, grammar, or punctuation is correct in one form of English, it shouldn't be corrected unless it has stronger ties to another form of spelling. The Watergate Scandal being an American topic means that the American spelling should be used. That's based on Wikipedia guidelines outlined here. Also, and this is meant in an inoffensive way, but calling American English nasty simply because it is different is a bit harsh and immature. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 11:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't mean it that way. I just meant that to my eyes it sounds unwieldy. I'm happy for it to be left that way if that's the way it appeared in the original article. Thank you for your swift response. Bobo. 11:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "stealing from" - as I understand it, neutral terms are preferred if at all possible. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good move, neutral to all I am sure. To "burglarize" is alien to BE users, as I'm sure to "burgle" is to AE users. Well done. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize "burgle" could be so alien to AE users. Thank you for the clarification, Cactusman. Bobo. 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Burgle" refers to the actual stealing, and as such is rarely used in the US anymore. Places, like the DNC headquarters, are burglarized. I think it was a bit of police slang that migrated to public use. Daniel Case 03:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither did I, but all American based dictionaries I consulted redirect to burglarize. Bit of a "Bushism" for me, but there you go-ify. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I lived in the UK until age 10, and it looks foreign to me now, too. Of course, I write "burglarise", which is improper to both Americans and Brits, but whatever. —Cuiviénen 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank the ridiculousness of British words for allowing me to get the Final Jeopardy question on Friday. As soon as I saw the word "routemaster", I knew it sounded so ridiculous to be said out loud, that it must have been a British word; I could never envision anyone in the U.S./Canada walking around, talking about, "catching the routemaster at the next stop." So, thank you. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 13:26

It's not a word. It's a name of a vehicle. And, original research policies aside, I can assure that people refer to "catching the bus at the next stop", and not "catching the routemaster". -Splash - tk 13:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Routemasters have been retired from use, but you can still catch one at the Design Museum if you are so inclined. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And on certain heritage bus routes in town, I think. Badgerpatrol 15:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, old chap, my mistake. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, it's a name that only Brits would come up with. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 16:15

London has purple triple decker Knight Buses, right? :P Misterniceguy7 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Knight buses are available across the country, not just London, and are still in service. Very handy for burglarizers in need of a quick escape - I was on one just last week (knight bus that is, not a burglarizer) :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 16:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, the Routemaster has a picture of one in front of the Piccadilly Circus. It doesn't get any more ridiculous sounding than that. --Descendall 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? There are many urban places in the UK with "circus" in their naming. Check out the etymology, it's a perfectly sensible name if you are familiar with the place. There are no elephants there, but plenty of clowns :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 11:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The word burglar goes directly back to Latin (via French), so burglarize is technically more correct than the back-formation burgle.

"On this day..." error?

"1873 - Woman suffrage activist Susan B. Anthony was fined $100 for attempting to vote in the 1872 U.S. presidential election." Surely this should either be dated 1872 or be the 1873 election? Correct me if I'm wrong this just seems a little strange... --TheCooperman 00:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Its fine. From the article: "For casting a Republican vote in the presidential election held on 5 November 1872, in Rochester, New York, Anthony was served a warrant on 18 November and was actually fined $100 on 18 June 1873." Jmount 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

POTD caption

We learn that:

• "The spiderweb has always been thought of as an engineering marvel."

Has it? Has it really? Melchoir 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, just like There'll Always Be an England ;) Perhaps change 'always' for 'long'. I guess you can say that since before Robert the Bruce people have been marveling at spiders' web engineering, without too much need of reference. --Monotonehell 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

chemistry

DNA is on chemistry.

Thanks for the comment. --Descendall 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)