Talk:Main Page/Archive 118

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 115 Archive 116 Archive 117 Archive 118 Archive 119 Archive 120 Archive 125
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202

Did you know about this very interesting boat?

Has anyone else noticed a certain fishy smell around the DYK section recently? It seems that every day for the last month at least one of the entries has been relating to a ship, a class of ships or some other form of nautical-related info. I counted no less than 5 entries on the page one day last week that could fall under that definition. While I applaud Wikiproject Ships for their obviously tireless work in improving this section of wikipedia, it is getting a little wearing to read about little else. I'm not for one minute suggesting that all natical content be banished from the main page forever just because I don't like it, because that would be like fascism, but is a little variety too much to ask for? Tx17777 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Sorry for the clichéd generic answer, but the best way to get a little variety would be to write about some other things, or nominate some other new articles you may have come across. I'm all for more interesting tit-bits from history. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I'm disappointed at the complete omission of Pirates of the Caribbean in the DYK section, if you're running nautical and nice these'd best stop it now before I really get hurt. --Kaizer13 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[]
So write a new article about the pirates of the Caribbean. WP:Be bold!. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Nobody gets a joke these days. --Kaizer13 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Um there are like 8 items + every update with about 3 updates a day. If one out of 8 items is nautical related you still have a lot of other items Nil Einne (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Please be encouraged to nominate ship-unrelated DYK candidates at Template talk:Did you know. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
DYK seems to go in waves (no pun intended) according to whichever project is very active at the moment. I've noticed large numbers of baseball player articles before, and seen an older complaint about huge numbers of Eurovision articles. Over the longer term, it varies. (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Guys, please take note: this is address at everyone. If you go out right now, source about 12 really great facts about duckbill platypuses, add them to there appropriate articles, and submit them to DKY, then we will have a duckbill platypuses bias on DYK for a few days. Please, for the love of Wiki try to understand this fact and stop complaining when someone writes about something that interests them, and wants something to show for it by submitting it to DYK... now rant over, I'm gonna take my usual position and not get involved again. Good day gents. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 15:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
For what it's worth, you don't even have to nominate an article for DYK. I've had 3 articles in that section so far, and haven't personally nominated a single one of them. Bots pick them up, and then the people who are interested in such things chose them and write the hooks. Simple. So, all you really have to do is write the article, with the required references and minimum size.
Now I'm gonna go find out about duckbill platymoggies. Carre (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Systemic bias or a type 1 error, anyone? THOSE are the problems. It hardly matters that there are a few too many nautical jokes here. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]


there is pr0n on the main page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11--Terminalerr1 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]

You're turned on by dromedaries? Eeeugh.. --Kaizer13 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Don't be hatin'. Albus Dumbledore's brother was into goats... Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Heh, good one. But to clarify this matter to onlookers...
Use of mammary glands on main page
It is a bit odd, but the image has some artistic merit and is unfortunately no worse than today's shampoo commercials. This is erotica, not porn. (To mangle Pratchett, the difference is like the one between using a feather and using a chicken.) --Kizor 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Aw man, I was hoping the ubiquitous penis had reared its ugly head again. Zeality (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]

You would say that...jk, jk. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes, we must be vigilant. Having that elongated travesty poking in people's eyes as they come to Wikipedia wouldn't be a good thing. Zeality (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]

So wrong, in so many ways. Moyopic (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Really tacky

Featuring a blatantly commercial piece in Did You Know (Pandora's Jewelry) is not appropriate, is it? C'mon, that really reads like an ad. I hope they at least made a nice donation to Wikipedia.Amity150 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]

So nothing commercial is ever allowed on the Main page ever? (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Sure it is! Articles about commercial products are still articles (I remember when Maraba Coffee was TFA - someone asked how much they paid to be featured), blatant advertisement however is not allowed. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
The article's not too bad- could use work, but worthy of being kept. Not certain it is quite main page material though. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
While the article has problems I don't know if they necessary disqualify it from DYK. I think the bigger issue is the hook choosen sounds too much like an advert even if the words are empty. This is I think one of the problems with DYK items when it comes to commercial items, by trying to make the hook sound interesting we risk making them sound too much like an advertisement. The Maruba coffee et al TFA aren't anywhere nearly as much as a problem since we don't need a catchy single phrase Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
When I uploaded it to the Main Page diff, there was no advert tag (that was added 4 hours later) and it had been "fact checked" on the Suggestions page (for length and the ref for the hook). The Main Page was a few hours overdue at the time, so I was in a hurry and, while I also scanned the article, I did not catch this. It is my fault (I put it on the Main Page). I agree that clearer guidelines on what is allowed and what is not would be helpful. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I know this is off the beaten track to some degree, but I too am having a problem with the advertisment issue when it comes to some of the articles I edit for male porno stars. It seems strange to me that these people are even notable, but then when they have web sites that are posted to the page and are able to put within the page that they offer escort services, I think sommething is wrong with that! I also think it's wrong to use sources that promote their escort services as well as pages that display explicit photos of them engaging in sexual acts. I understand that these things are sources, but I do not feel they should be displayed as we have children who come to this encyclopedia for references. I think the advertisments need to be addressed within the rules! I am done ranting now! LOL Canyouhearmenow 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia is not censored, but remember that we do not count primary sources as awfully reliable- they certainly do nothing to assert notability. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
However is a porn star is noteable (and we have specific mention in Wikipedia:Notability (people) to help people establish that) then there would definitely be nothing wrong with linking to their official website in the external links section anymore then there's something wrong with linking to Microsoft's website in Microsoft Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]


A featured article about not only a British book, but a feminist one!?!? I feel this is positive discrimination against both men and the US! I demand the FA be changed to something manly and American, I don't know, possibly a football match ... or something homosexually erotic at least! --LookingYourBest (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]

How blatantly biased! Don't worry, she wasn't really a feminist, she believed that women should be wives and teachers, she didn't support women working outside the pedagogic sphere. And tomorrow's FA is Golden plates, an American male topic. That's followed by Boeing 747, so you shouldn't worry. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]

No News on Super Tuesday?

Why is there a headline for the Superbowl results but no mention of the results of the Democratic and Republican primaries? No world news organization (e.g., BBC World) is including the Superbowl results in its headlines, but every single one has a headline on the presidential primaries. -- WGee (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]

See WP:ITN/C if you wish to suggest an item, but trust me, it won't get in. We'll report the result of the election, and possibly the result of the party nominations (though I doubt it), but nothing yet. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I should also point out that the Superbowl results getting posted is a matter of great debate, so using that as a comparison doesn't lend much weight to an argument. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 02:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I don't think me kicking up a light hearted 'fuss' constitutes "great debate". ;-) Or is someone else with me on some page I don't visit enough? Down with sports! J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Frankly, the results were rather boring (POV). Hopefully when someone wins a nomination, ITN will cover it. (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Nothing about Chinese new year?

Today is Chinese New Year, but I don't see anything about it on the main page. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]

You just missed it. Wikipedia, an international web site, uses UTC (aka Greenwich Mean Time, aka London time). Today is tomorrow. —Nricardo (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Think of the readers

"The golden plates were a set of engraved plates, bound into a book, that Joseph Smith, Jr. said was his source material for the Book of Mormon, a scripture of the Latter Day Saint movement. Smith, the founder of that movement, said he obtained the plates on September 22, 1827 on Cumorah hill in Manchester, New York, where they were hidden in a buried box and protected by an angel named Moroni. After dictating a translation and obtaining signed statements by eleven other witnesses, he said he returned the plates to the angel in 1829."

This paragraph, quite frankly, is crap. It's disjointed, incoherent, overly defensive, basically if I was an English teacher I'd give it an F without bothering with the words. If commas cost money Wikipedia would be bankrupt. Please, Wikipedia, either pay someone to write your front page content, or don't have a front page at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Basically the passage was incorporating as much appositives as possible since without those appositives, it'll be even harder to understand the context. --Howard the Duck 04:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Generally speaking the TFA blurb is a refined version of the FA lead. You are welcome to improve the FA lead if you can. However we will definetely not be paying you or anyone else to do it. BTW a teacher who doesn't even try to understand what he or she is reading is a bad teacher and I think we should be glad you aren't one... Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Um, no personal attacks and don't bite newcomers please. He or she commented on content, and it would behove you to restrict yourself in a like manner. (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I'm simply giving my opinion that a teacher who doesn't bother to try and read what they are grading is a bad teacher (and that was as an aside/secondary point to my main point). And I stick by that opinion. If someone says something stupid, then I will reply in kind. This isn't biting a newcomer or a personal attack. It is simply pointing out that the comment was a dumb comment in the first place. If and when I make dumb comments (and yes I do sometimes) you are welcome to likewise point out my comment was dumb. BTW my comment on the teacher issue was more then about simply pointing out the comment was dumb. If you read and understand the sentence, it's fairly easy to see that it isn't that easy to improve. I'm sure it can be done, but it's not a simple matter. And it definitely isn't a terribly constructed sentence worthy of an F. It is perfectly understandable. That in essence was my point. If you actually read the sentence, you may realise it isn't as bad as it seems by counting commans. And if you are going to comment and say something is bad you need to actually understand what you are commenting on before coming up with a random comment... We are humans, not computers and we should evalute stuff based on understanding what we are evaluating, not by applying a set of rules (too many commas, must be bad) which a computer could do. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I made no comment on the merits of the sentence. I just suggest that you not respond to Talk:Main Page criticism of content with a personal insult and use of the royal "we" (which I'm sure you'll maintain did not seek to put the commentator outside a clique and you inside it, but does have that effect, nonetheless). I'm disappointed that you think such things are negotiable in proportion with your perception of the worth of any given criticism. (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I thought it was decently written. The only comma I could see removing is the first one; maybe if you rewrote the second sentence you could also get rid of the first two commas in that sentence. Either way, it's not a big deal. You would give it an F? Can you suggest a better wording? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-08 15:50Z

A vagina on the main page...

I went to the Commons but I couldn't undo the vandalism. миражinred (speak, my child...) 03:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I fixed the vandalism on the image. Sorry for the weird comment. миражinred (speak, my child...) 03:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Thanks; the commons image should never have been linked in the first place, precisely to avoid this problem. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Ah, so there is opposition yet to the main page penis presence. Zeality (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Oops. There goes another kitten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Candidate craziness

Ah! A Mormon article and John Edwards on the same page! Think of the impressionable voters. With further primaries in two days, I personally can see no other situation than every voter choosing to waste their votes and vote for two candidates who are no longer running. Wikipedia, how easily you corrupt voters with your unofficial endorsements. (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Does anyone know when the last time was that we went, say, three days without either an accusation of bias or a joke accusation of bias? ;) -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
There you go again, demonstrating your anti-joke accusation of bias bias. Joe 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
We're coming!
Every time you talk about bias on the main page, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. Raul654 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
What the other domo-kun said... --Howard the Duck 06:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Kawaii! Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]

And that just shows Wikipedia's abhorrent pro-kitten bias. Think of the puppies! Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]

That's a pro-cuteness bias! Think of the slugs and naked mole rats! JoshuaZ (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
How about the Domo-kuns? Remember the domo-kuns... --Howard the Duck 06:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I'm a little curious

How are the featured articles chosen?Д narchistPig (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]

The featured articles are chosen based on the criteria in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Nakon 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
If someone thinks the article meets the criteria, he nominates it at WP:FAC. If the community agrees that the criteria is met, the article is made a features article. Then it waits (this can take years) before it becomes a TFA, meaning it's featured on the Main Page. User:Raul654 chooses TFAs from the pool of FAs, always trying to keep the main page topically balanced (not having six articles about albums in one week) and prioritising articles that have a date connection (people might be featured on their birthdays, universities on anniversaries of their founding). Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
but why does Raul chose? did he start the featured article thing?Д narchistPig (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
No, read the second post of the first discussion :) Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article, AnarcistPig. --PFHLai (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Can i choose one? (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, if it's got a strong date connection you can make a suggestion at WP:TFA/R. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]
user:Bmills started the Brilliant Prose process, which later became stricter and was renamed featured articles. It was my idea to put them on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Raul 654

How did he get the job of scheduling TFAs? When is the next election?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

My understanding is that Raul first became the defacto featured articles director when the whole FA system essentially started four years ago in 2004. Of course, Wikipedia did not have as much activity, publicity, and users back then – and the only one who was willing to work on it regularly was Raul. Several months later, a discussion now archived here, led to him being ratified as the official director. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[]
If you need any more information, I suggest carrying this discussion on at WT:TFA, which would be the correct talk page for the topic at hand. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[]
I don't want to "carry this discussion on." I want his job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Request denied.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
...especially when you are editing as an anonymous IP address without the benefits you get when you create an account. ::::::Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
My IP address isn't anonymous. You know exactly what it is. And it's your sort of snide comments that get this farce of a website a bad name. Powerless in the real world, so you get your kicks from being churlish to anybody with less than 6 million edits. And please excuse the expression , but WTF does it matter where this discussion is held? NOBODY'S GONNA DIE IF I ASK THE QUESTION HERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Simple, this page is here to discuss the main page as a whole, the page I recommended is to discuss the topic you want to discuss, I'm sorry if that seems complicated to you, but I don't see how you can expect to become TFA Director without understanding one of the more basic concepts of Wikipedia... well, that and the other very obvious reasons why you wouldn't qualify for the job. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 09:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
But the post will rotate to someone else at some stage? right? --Fredrick day (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
No, Raul has had the job for a long time, I'd say the only way someone else will take the post is if he gives it up, which will require either (god forbid) Raul leaving us, or community support for the idea of a weekly/monthly/yearly/whatever rotation of the job, which hasn't really come up because he's doing such a good job. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 12:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Nobody is going to dies if you ask the question here, but it has the following disadvantages:
  1. Threads here get archived rather quickly, it's not a good place to do a long term discussion.
  2. The people who frequently visit this page might not be interested in things unrelated to it.
  3. People interested in TFA aren't notified of this.
    I think Raul is doing an excellent job, and should stay the director. There are few people who have time, energy, and skills to do this job. Further discussion should be held at WT:TFA. A non-administrator can't get the post, because the templates are fully protected. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]

But the post will rotate to someone else at some stage? right? --Fredrick day

Alas, the position will never rotate as long as this cabal remains in control of things.

There are few people who have time, energy, and skills to do this job.

What sort of nonsense is that? You should lay off the hyperbole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Yeah - thousands of people work on this project. Claiming that only a few have the time and/or are qualified to do something as simple as choose the FA for the main page is a load of bollocks. John Smith 06:54, 30 January 2008 (GMT+9) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Some of the qualifications include being extremely trustworthy, impartial (and seen to be impartial) and very familiar with the way wikipedia works. For whatever reason, as people approach these qualifications they tend to also spend less time and energy on Wikipedia. Finding someone with a long, respectable history on here who can be trusted with the job, and who spends enough time and energy, is not that easy. Most of the thousand of people who work on this project are not sufficiently known to be trustworthy. I'm certainly not. (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[]
  1. Extremely trustworthy as opposed to just trustworthy? Again, you're talking up something that really amounts to very little.
  2. Nobody on the sodding planet is impartial about everything.
  3. Very familiar with the way wikipedia works? What does that even mean? You sound so unconvinced by your own statements that you have to add superfluous words like extremely, very, etc. I suppose he has to be a super guy, too?
  4. People who are nice don't spend much time on wikipedia? Well, finally something I agree with. The regulars here are nothing more than a bunch of infants who love to jump on things in the collective. There is rarely any real debate. You all relish the opportunity of jumping down the throat of any newbie who turns up with ideas for improvement. Rather reminds one of Plato's cave.
  5. Your final point about most people not being known to be trustworthy is, I have to say, shit. I do apologise, but there simply isn't a better word to describe that comment. It is shit. And repetitive shit at that. So,
a.) How much damage can the TFA director actually do? Very little. Abuse his power once and he'd be voted away anyway. (Yes, yes, I know wikipedia is not a democracy. But, let's face it, IT IS!)
b.) Nobody can be seen to be trustworthy until they are put in a position of responsibility and fail to abuse it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) said nothing about being impartial about everything, they were clearly implying that TFA Director would have to not be biased towards certain category's appearing on the main page on a regular basis, which Raul654 has proved he is not. Considering the systemic bias that exists in Wikipedia, Raul654 has really done an outstanding job in that regard.
Considering the span of Wikipedia's operations, there is a very clear difference between being familiar with them, and being very familiar with them, don't be so naive.
So we're infants? This from a user who can't seem to make a single post without the use of profanity.
We don't want a TFA D who abuses his power once and then gets caught, we want one who doesn't abuse his power full stop. Your apparent lack of understanding about the value of trustworthiness proves your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia.
I'm going to put this here, second to last, because I don't want to diminish the importance of my final point; you know you can sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of your posts? If you want to acquire an important post such as TFA D sometime in the future, I suggest you make yourself familiar with the more basic aspects of Wikipedia, such as making yourself identifiable without the need for users to look back over a pages history.
Now, to my final point, and please, if you can only make one cogent response to my points, please let it be this. Something I've been hoping you might like to explain, but haven't paid enough attention to this discussion to ask until now, is why you seem to think that an unregistered, inexperianced, brash, and quite frankly rude anonymous user who hasn't made a single provable edit outside of this conversation would make a better Today's Featured Article Director then a knowledgeable, experienced, trustworthy, friendly, long-standing user such as Raul654? Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[]

So we're infants? This from a user who can't seem to make a single post without the use of profanity. In my experience, it's adults who use profanity more than infants. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I never called you an infant for the use of profanity; I was basically saying that you shouldn't insult when there is a very easy rebuttal available. Care to respond to my other points? Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Not really, but as you're gagging for it: in your second to last point, you use the indefinite article before a plural noun. You really shouldn't. (Did you miss out an apostrophe, or something? You really shouldn't do that either.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Before scheduling TFAs, you should try copyediting other articles first, you're quite good at it. Then after doing that then perhaps you will be considered for the position. --Howard the Duck 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Alright then, well as you have no answer to 3 fairly important questions, particularly point number 4, then I think we'll consider this interview over. Job application denied. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I cannot say I'm overly impressed with the discussion here - it seems to boil down to "he's the boss so there!" - If he abuses the position or not is not actually relevant (and to my knowledge he hasn't), it a question of should the position exist in it's current form - I'd say no - it either needs to be rotated, subjects to terms of office or some other oversight process. The concept that everything gets filtered through a single person's worldview seems to me to an anomaly in the project. Again, let me repeat, I am not saying that Raul has performed a bad job or anything of those sort - I arguing against the position not the person. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
The position works absolutely fine. If Raul was showing even the slightest provable bias the vultures who look out for that on a daily basis would have his head. Considering the severely unbalanced category's in FA the system is working out perfectly. His world view doesn't come into it. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Norgy (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC) His world view doesn't come into it. - what? I don't understand how anyone can make a statement like that? of course his weltanschauung 'comes into it', it's impossible for it not to, since he is human not a robot. You miss my point, it's not that he had a world view that is an issue (and if it was the project would have to close), it's that by not rotating the post or making it the responsiblity of a number of trusted editors that I do not think we are fulfiling our duty to combat systematic bias. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I understand where your coming from Fredrick, and if the system that we currently use was showing cracks then I'd be completely on your side of the line, but I just don't see anything other then a well balanced spread of FA's from day to day, so I can't be part of uprooting it, and turning it into a daily bickering match, which is what it would become, and of that you can be absolutely assured, the archives of this very page are proof of that. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I think that there'd actually be more of a problem if you had the post rotating. With just Raul doing it, he can get a good long view of the TFA's. Constantly switching may prevent one sort of bias from forming, but I think that you'd get a lot more little biases all over the place; each editor trying to balance perceived imbalances of the one before. (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Conspicuous silence from the boy himself on this matter. Does he fear for his position of power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]
No, its quite the opposite I guarantee it. If he feared for what you refer to as a position of power, he'd be here arguing his case. Raul has many responsibility's here at Wikipedia, and he doesn't want to get in the way of the community deciding if its working or not. I could ask him here to comment if you'd like, but he frequents this page regularly and I guarantee he's aware of this conversation. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Actually, the conspicuous silence comes from the fact that lately I've been busy (changed jobs this week), tired, and not editing as much lately. Raul654 (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]

So, it is conspicuous, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes. According to Wiktionary conspicuous means:
  1. obvious or easy to notice
    • He was conspicuous by his absence
  2. noticeable or attracting attention, especially if unattractive
I believe Raul meant the first definition, easy to notice. Wikipedia is transparent, things are easy to notice. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't believe it was meant in the other sense, his silence is not "unattractive".
Oh, and please do sign your posts. Either type four tildes (~~~~) or press the signature button (Signature icon.png) in the tool bar above the edit box.Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I must say, this "job interview" is bizarre, with the person being interviewed that one who is bossing around. --Howard the Duck 06:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

It's also taking abnormally long. I don't know what's the standard in North America, but over here, interviews are finished within thirty minutes. Can't we just shake hands with this guy, smile, and tell him to wait for an official decision in the mail? Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I dunno, he's gone from wanting Rauls job to wanting to smash the system, little bit Punk Rock really... Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Sorry it took so long to reply - I was busy pissing myself with laughter. You guys are too funny. But, nobody has addressed the real point: Why is it that there are regular elections for all sorts of positions on wikipedia, but Raul has a permanent position? I may not be suitable, but others should be given the opportunity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Simple, if it ain't broken, don't fix it, or to put it another way, a way you may have read earlier:

I think that there'd actually be more of a problem if you had the post rotating. With just Raul doing it, he can get a good long view of the TFA's. Constantly switching may prevent one sort of bias from forming, but I think that you'd get a lot more little biases all over the place; each editor trying to balance perceived imbalances of the one before. (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please do sign your posts. Either type four tildes (~~~~) or press the signature button (Signature icon.png) in the tool bar above the edit box. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 07:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Not all posts are rotating and elected. The arbcom is, but most aren't. I wouldn't really be against a rotating position but I'd support a long term (5+ years) and I just don't see the need for it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

It's that time of the year...

To complain about US-centrism. :) --Howard the Duck 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Let's face it Howard, you just love a good argument. So here goes... the USA assumes that the whole of creation spins around it. Why, only today it started beaming "Across the Universe" out into the cosmos (ok ok the track is a Beatles song, but let's not get stuck on detail) ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Hey Howard, as you can see by the information box at the top of the page, the best place to discuss this would be the Village Pump. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Sorry mate, couldn't resist. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I knew someone would to do that >:p --Howard the Duck 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually, the Main Page turned out to be very not US-centric today. The FA is History of American football, which is derived from rugby (a UK sport). There isn't a single US item in ITN. DYK only has two US hooks (US Navy ship and George Schlatter). OTD has one US item (The Day the Music Died). The FP is of concentration camp victims, though they were liberated by US troops this is more of a German/Austrian topic. It's quite a non-US main page today, except for the FA. We still might get some complaints though. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]
The real fun will revolve around ITN after the game, I'm sure.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Oh God, it's not going to be on there, is it? J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Only if the Patriots win :) Antimatter--talk-- 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I think it should be, because the Super Bowl is the most important American football event of the year. Then again, I first heard of it last week in English class. Still, it probably deserves a place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I fail to see internation significance. It isn't going to change the world, nobody cares. There is no way this should be on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
International importance? No. International interest? Maybe. --Howard the Duck 13:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Very few things change the world, if we restricted the ITN to that, we'd have a "news" item every century or so. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Hmm, OK, maybe it was a bad phrase to use, but it isn't in the same class as the other news items. (With the possible exception of the item about Internet connections, but we do, as an encyclopedia, lean towards Internet related items.) Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't belong there? J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Calling the Super Bowl an American only interest is really quite naive. The game was broadcast in 223 countries and territories around the world, in 30 different languages. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I realise it is broadcast widely- I even watched about a minute before dying of boredom. I didn't actually use the "OMG US-CENTRICISMZ" argument, I just think it's pathetic in terms of newsworthyness. People may care, and people may know about it, but, in the grand scheme of things, it matters not, unlike the others (again, with the possible exception of the Internet thing). J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • News, by definition doesn't have to be important to be "new" information, news is simply a chronicle of recent events. The Super Bowl is a recent event, whether or not you personally think it is important is irrelevant. The gate keepers in the media have determined that it is "important" enough to be chronicled, thus making it news. (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
That's not the way Wikipedia works- there is a shitstorm of press about pathetic pop-culture events, but they don't find themselves on the main page, and rightly so. This page outlines our guidelines on the matter, and I just don't think that this is of international importance. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[]
As I've said above, international importance, no. International interest, maybe. Also, all sporting events don't affect the grand scheme of things, either. --Howard the Duck 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Yeah, which is why I support their removal, almost entirely. I can see the need to mention the world championship results in top sports (tennis, basketball, soccer, golf) as well as the start/end of huge competitions (Olympics, Commonwealth Games) but the internal result of one country, in a comparatively small sport? What about the results of the Eritrea 200m butterfly championships? Obviously, this is a purely scholarly argument, as I can't see it getting changed, which is a shame. J Milburn (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Hey, as long as you can prove that the Eritrea 200m butterfly championships "was broadcast in 223 countries and territories around the world, in 30 different languages" live, perhaps the admins can be convinced.
(See, ultimately the "one country argument" would come into fore, I was waiting for it). --Howard the Duck 11:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Also, the world championship in Tennis and Golf aren't really that notable enough for ITN standards. And you may want to talk about changes in the ITN criteria (especially on sports stories) to avoid the Super Bowl vs. Eritrea 200m butterfly championships debate. --Howard the Duck 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Nah, as I say, I don't see it changing in a hurry. If I moan a little every time it comes up, maybe people's opinions will start to change... J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
A complaint like this comes up every February, June and October every year I've started here on Wiki, so no sense of complaining every year. --Howard the Duck 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Incidentally, the Super Bowl was front page news across Canada ("MIEUX QUE PARFAIT" read Le Soleil) and Mexico ("SORPRESA GIGANTE" said El Universal), as shown on the "Today's Front Pages" of the Newseum website. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Well it was you who started it off this time around Howard so there's no way to prove it was definatly going to happen this time around :), infact, I'm pretty sure I've read the words US-Centralism in your posts more then any other person, or perhaps more then all others put together. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Hey at least I kept off some US-related topics from the ITN and supported UK-related items some months ago... --Howard the Duck 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Someone in a thread above this was complaining about DYK's apparent bias towards nautical topics... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 16:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Bias against United States topics is bias too! A couple days ago there was a topic about a game in India. How is that relavant. I really would like to see people treat the United States like other countries, and not be hypocritical.

RJRocket53 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Uh, we've been told we're Indian centric in the past (see: Talk:Main Page/Archive 116#is mainpage all about india). Wikipedia and its Main Page has been declared to biased in every way imaginable, and I disagree with most of these accusations (including the US-centric one). Puchiko (Talk-email) 00:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Well with exception of our god damned, running to the core, wikicentralism and encyclopediacentralism I disagree with all of them. I mean come on, the site name contains BOTH of them :L. On core belief I do have is that anyone who accusing us of a bias (in a serious sence) is bigotted against that thing. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Who are 'us'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]
.......the Wikipedia community, quite clearly.... I mean, here we are in Wikipedia... I'm sorry but I really don't see how that was in any way confusing.... Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 20:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]
So anyone who suggests in particular instances that there is bias is a bigot and is not one of 'us'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]
No, if they can provide more then just "I think I might have seen this topic at sometime in the past but I can't provide anything more then that" and actually show that the topic is turning up more often then others then I'll listen to what they have to say, but 10 times out of 10 thats all they do, and only say it because they don't like the topic. Also, bias claims come from within as often as without, stop trying to make an issue out of nothing. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]

The claim that the super bowl is widely broadcast outside the US is a myth. It is watched by less than 100 million people, almost all of whom are in the US. As for it being broadcast in 223 countries, that seems to be strange considering there are only 192 countries out there... --Theshadow89 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]

194 actually, 192 is a common mistake because thats how many members there are in the U.N. [1]. Thats just a fact I'm sticking out there, I'm not arguing for or against what your saying... Howard the Duck would kill me, lol. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]
For the 220+ number, see list of countries. --Howard the Duck 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Ronald Reagan as FA on Super Tuesday

This is just my personal opinion (which I know has no place on wikipedia...) but I find it both ironic and extremely POV that the FA is Ronald Reagan, the god-send of the American conservative movement, on one of the biggest election days in the United States... Hmmm.... FluxFuser (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Reagan's birthday was February 6, 1911, just FYI. I wouldn't assume evil intent here. (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Haha, hadn't realized that. Seems reasonable and innocent enough. Still ironic none-the-less, but thanks for the quick response. FluxFuser (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I personally think that innocent, ironic, or whatever, it really should be changed. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Right, because some poor soul is going to read it and suddenly find himself a red-blooded conservative by the grace of God. Quick, censor Wikipedia! Think of the politically-neutral children! Zeality (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Oh, and by the way: the polls are by and large closed by now. Zeality (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
The polls being closed is a reasonable point. Meh. I guess I really don't care much then. It was still a questionable judgment call though. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Why exactly? Wikipedia endorsing someone? Wikipedia influencing voters? I'm sorry but anyone whose vote depends on Wikipedia is probably not voting anyway. (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Let's not forget Ronald Reagan is actually featured on February 6, his birthday, and not February 5, Super Tuesday. It just so happens that February 6, 2008 starts 5 hours earlier UTC than it does EST (ie New York City). - auburnpilot talk 01:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
The polls were still open when the FA went up. They still are in some states. Screw UTC. Screw his birthday. This is highly inappropriate. Given Wikipedia's visibility, I wouldn't be surprised if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigates. —Nricardo (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Hahaha yes because it is illegal for private websites to (very subtly, if at all) advocate candidates. I guess better watch out too! -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
It's commemerating Ronald Reagan's Birthday. If someone is infuencled by Ronald Regan being on the front of wikipedia, then that is not our fault. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually, ya know what? Never mind. It's just the primaries. I'll save my my ire for when John McCain is featured on election day. —Nricardo (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Won't happen. John McCain isn't featured. And even if it becomes an FA this year it won't make it through the waiting period. --Howard the Duck 06:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]

As usual Raul with his subtle Neo-con propoganda --Pensil (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]

:Forgive me my ignorance, as I know nothing about the US election system, but the US presidential election is to take place on 4 November 2008. I think it would be unreasonable to restrict all political FAs until then. It's just the primaries, and I don't think they're that important. The first round of the Czech presidential election is to take place on Friday, now that's exciting.
Pensil, I don't think Raul intended to influence anyone with this FA. It's a common habit feature people on their birthdays or death anniversaries.
However, this raises the issue-Raul's been getting a lot of criticism lately. While I personally trust him, perhaps this implies that not everybody agrees with him having the current position, and a discussion should take place. Combined with a section above-I think this implies it's time for a community discussion. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(struck per Raul's explanation-I'm not good at interpreting humour Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC))[]

Puchiko - Pensil's comment was intended as a joke. I'm most certainly not a neo-con. Raul654 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I'm as liberal as they get, but I've got no problem with Reagan being on the main page on Super Tuesday. I would have no problem with Grover Cleveland, Franklin D. Roosevelt, or any other U.S. President either. It might be inappropriate to include any current candidates on the main page, though, at least until after the election. Lovelac7 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Sorry, people, today, Reagon's B-day, is Wednesday. Super Tuesday was yesterday! -- (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Oh for crying out loud. There's no grand Wikipedia conspiracy to make people vote for conservative candidates. Indeed, we are more often accused of the exact opposite. I can see more plausibly how having an FA of a current candidate during election time might look problematic but even then I'm not convinced there's any real issue. If the article meets FA then we should be good. I may be cynical but I have trouble believing we could have an article about any politician reach FA status and not have a lot of criticism in the article. If the article reads like it is a campaign piece then we have other issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[]
<G>... I think it might be safe to sleep this one off.. I don't think R. Reagan is running this time around... (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) CaribDigita (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Politicians Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[7] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

From Wikipedia rules for notability. Ronald Reagan fits. Many people are mad at the USA bias on wikipedia, but I find it hypocritical that some have a anti-USA bias. And Ronald Reagan is not running! RJRocket53 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I'd be scared if Ronald Reagan runs this year... (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[]
What, what, what? Where did notability come into this from? This started of as a complaint about featuring RR on Super Tuesday. From there it go side tracked into bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and a bunch of other discussions but no one has argued that RR isn't noteable or brought US bias into this other then you. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]


Okay, I found two pictures in the Peru which would look much better than the flag one. Image:Peru Machu Picchu Sunrise 2.jpg and Image:Casadepizarrolima.jpg both look better. And the flag in the infobox for the Peru article isn't the same one used on the main page. Slightly confusing (and I realize I could be bold and change the flag there, but I don't feel like disrupting consensus on an article I've never edited).Charles Stewart (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Obviously no disrespect to Peru, but in terms of those striking images in comparison with the rather bland looking flag, I would also agree that one of those images would be far more appealing. WilliamH (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
For FAs on countries, we use the nation's flag for the image. Raul654 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Okay, now that I think of it I don't recall ever seeing another country here before. Is there a reason why you chose this flag instead of the one in Peru's infobox? Never mind, that issues been adressed. Charles Stewart (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]
We have had several countries featured on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Fill in please

Can somebody with permission complement the news with the article in red:

  • President José Ramos Horta (pictured) of East Timor is wounded in an attack that leaves rebel leader Alfredo Reinhado dead.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

There isn't an article at that link. If you find one, please let me know. Nakon 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Please add a hyphen to the nameof José Ramos Horta

José Ramos-Horta is spelled with a hyphen. Please add the hyphen.-- (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Fixing. Nakon 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

So why not use it?

Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks! Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]


In the Peru featured article box, why is "home" highlighted? contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994TALK 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I cannot answer your question, but I believe this question belongs in the error reports near the top. Earthbendingmaster 00:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Never mind, it was my own problem. (just pressed the highlighter button on the google toolbar) contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994TALK 00:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Jake Simmons, Jr. on DYK

"Did You Know" currently reads:

This sentence sounds very POV to me. Even though it is cited in the article, it is too subjective for the main page. The article is good and the subject interesting, so I would suggest changing the DYK blurb to a more objective fact, such as:

Any thoughts on the issue? — Lovelac7 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]

My thought is that it stands on the source. It is open to challenge from another source, if such there be. Just because something sounds like a point of view that is not neutral, is no reason to change it if sources back it up. That would be a sort of NPOV paranioa, surely? (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Plus, success has a very easy measure: $$$$$. —Nricardo (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Main Page Reformatting

Has anyone ever considered that it might be easier or just look nicer to put the main page sections in templates? Something like

{{WP:TodaysFeaturedArticle/{{CURRENTMONTH}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
(and continue on like that)

Has this already been suggested or done or are there problems with that idea? Or is that a good idea? F*L*RAP 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Isn't that pretty much how it's done now? Sbrools (talk . contribs) 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes, it is. :). Prodego talk 13:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
DYK is not in a dated template because it is updated about 3 times a day and at no set intervals (it's supposed to be after 8? hours but it depends on when admins get around to it). Similar ITN is not a dated template because it is updated when new ITN items are added only Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]
... that's exactly how we do it at the moment. —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Just wondering


There's no need for a debate about geeks vs. nerds, or any further discussion on the subject. Question asked and answered. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]

dont ban me or anything, but the people who are on wikipedia all the time editing the front page and joining in the discussions here, are u guys nerds with no life or something or do you work for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]

We're volunteers. There are very few people who actually work for Wikipedia/the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, see Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I see. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Estonia DYK blurb

'...that a poster in the 2003 Estonian European Union membership referendum called on Estonians to vote yes "for access to millions of sexier men"?' I don't see this anywhere in the actual article. Source? Borisblue (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Estonia expects EU yes vote and Estonia endorses 'sexy men' of EU. It was incorrectly changed by Fritz bermejo (talk · contribs) but has now been fixed by Kelapstick (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 16:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]

NIU shooting

We need to mention the North Illinois University shooting on the main page. Breaking news coming through on BBC at the moment --Capitana (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]

See WP:ITN/C --Ouro (blah blah) 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]

you're right! we need to mention it. Its very important for those who the shooting hit the hardest... like me.. my family lives around cousins go to NIU... im completely devastated and we need people to know what happened!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]

If you want news, then read the news. (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Or here Wikinews:Main Page Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Article count

What do you think about the idea of displaying the number of featured articles alongside of the article count? Maybe something like this:

6,399,439 articles in English (1,895 featured)

16@r (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]

The Main Page is mostly designed for casual readers, who would have no idea what "featured" status meant (possibly confusing it with thinking that every one has appeared on the Main Page already), and probably wouldn't care if they did. GeeJo (t)(c) • 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree with GeeJo. I don't think the number of featured articles is something relevent to most readers. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]
That's a good point, and prominently displaying the article count is even more misleading to casual readers (who can't be expected to realize that relatively few of these 6,399,439 articles are of high quality). It also implies that quantity (and not quality) is what we care about.
Can we please reopen the discussion regarding the article count's removal from the header (keeping in mind that it also appears in the Wiipedia languages section)? This really is long overdue. —David Levy 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I disagree, but out of interest what are you proposing it is replaced with? -Halo (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Nothing. That text was crammed into a design that originally omitted it. The header looks much better without it. —David Levy 17:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]
The number of featured articles was displayed in the TFA template for a while. For technical reasons IIRC it was removed and for whatever reason we never readded it Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]
People may want to see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Number of FAs on the main page for more information on what I'm talking about Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]


Impending Kosovan independence not worthy enough for the 'in the news' section eh? Who took it off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatWalkingMan (talkcontribs) 03:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Really, i think these administrators are on crack.

The NIU shootings seem not to be worth enough either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[]

See WP:ITN/C, as the header states. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 11:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[]


Yeah. Kosovo declared independence a few short hours ago.

That's kinda important. yes it is very important :]

Might merit being on the "in the news" section.

Just throwing that out. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[]

See WP:ITN/C, as the header states. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Also Kosovo has NOT declared independence. They've just hinted that they're going to at 1400 UTC. People really should get their facts straight before making a fuss in the wrong place Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Kosovo#Independence Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
They have now, but not when that message was posted (as is obvious from the time stamp) Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes, I know, I checked the dates. I was saying that they have now. Sorry, I should probably be more descriptive than just a single link next time I respond to a message. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Navbar Suggestion

Moved to Wikipedia:Village Pump. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 08:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]


Is there any info on the preliminaries for the presidental race?Foamy's Girl (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

United States presidential election, 2008. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

thanks...dont know why i didnt think of that in the first place —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foamy's Girl (talkcontribs) 00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]


[b]I'm not sure this is at all notable news in the same vein as the stories that are usually posted on the main page (i.e. a country declaring its independence). Charles 04:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Please go to WP:ITN/C. --Howard the Duck 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I find censorship mandated by a U.S. court notable. See also (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[/b][]
Completely non-notable. --Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Soccer / Football

Please could the word 'soccer' from the news item about the African Cup of Nations be changed to 'football'. Many thanks

Intergr8 (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]

If it is changed to 'football', it could be mistaken for any number of games- Soccer, American Football, Gaelic Football, Rugby Football, Australian Rules Football... And that's without even looking at the dab page. Soccer means people actually know what the story is. And, for what it's worth, I'm British, so "football"= soccer for me too. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Did someone say mistaken???ThisMunkey (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]
It was 'Association Football', which also avoided the ambiguity. I'm not sure why it was changed. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Becuase there was a discussion, and because that phrase is not in everyday use anywhere in the English speaking world. Kevin McE (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
As I can vouch for with my comment below... J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I'm not a sports fan, but 'Association Football' doesn't mean anything to me- soccer does. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I liked the previous title of football (soccer) the association football article had before. --Howard the Duck 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
not only does the article read soccer instead of football, when it is an organisation run by the Confederation of African Football, it also makes a concession to American style by stating that "Egypt wins the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations" wheras in any other English speaking country, including Ghana, where the tournament took place, one would say: "Egypt win the 2008..." To me it reads terribly. Why would anyone that Egypt were playing Cameroon in a notable Gaelic/American/Aussie Rules final? Petepetepetepete (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
The best way to resolve this is to use "football (soccer)" as the displayed link. --Howard the Duck 13:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
(ec)This discussion has come up many times before. I'm British-English, and I would certainly say 'Egypt wins the 2008...' in this case. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree with Howard the Duck, and have changed it on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Glad to see its changed to that, will read better now. I would have thought it was: Liverpool F.C. win the 2005 Champions League after a dramatic comeback in Istanbul... Liverpool wins the bid to be named 2008 Capital of Culture. Petepetepetepete (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
In this case, I think that football or association football should be used instead of soccer, even if just for the fact that the organising confederation is the Confederation of African Football, not the Confederation of African Soccer. AecisBrievenbus 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I vote for the usage of football instead of soccer. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[]
This is probably the millionth time I've been engaged in this argument, but... "Football" is ambiguous. "Soccer" isn't. Soccer wins. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]
The millionth time? Wow that's obsessive. Maybe it's time for you to take a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Football may be ambiguous, but Association football isn't, and it is the name we use for the article about the sport. AecisBrievenbus 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]
"Association football" is ambiguous in the U.S., where most people have never heard of the term. I suggest we say "association football (soccer)". Lovelac7 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[]
"Associtation football (soccer)" would be bizaare! This is not a question of what to name the actual articles, that discussion has been had. It is a question of how to refer to the sports on the In The News section. My suggestion would be that we side with the usage in the country where that sport has taken place and is most relevant to. Therefore: "In football, Manchester United are defeated 2-1 in the Manchester derby…" or "In soccer, the USA reach the last 16 of the World Cup". Although I'm English and a huge football fan, I wouldn't be at all confused if an article in the news regarding American Football read: "In football, the New York Patriots win the SuperBowl". In the case currently on the main page, it doesn’t really need (soccer) in there as its surely easy to work out that Egypy didn’t play Cameroon in American football. If they had, it wouldn't have notable enough to make the In the news section. It generally pretty clear which sport is being spoken about. While we compromise on snappy article titles to clear ambiguity (hence the Assocation_Football title), with the in the news section it should be rather more concise. Does anyone support this idea? Petepetepetepete (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]
YES, SIR ... in fact, I really couldn't agree more. The exact meaning of "football" almost always instantly explains itself in the context. Don't make the whole stuff too complicated and cumbersome. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]

The New York Patriots would confuse the hell out of a lot of Americans though -- (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]

As I've pointed out elsewhere, in the United States, the word "football" always means the pointy-ball variety, and most Americans are unaware the word can ever mean anything else. Therefore, an American who sees that "Egypt beat Cameroon in football" would think, "I didn't realize they played football in Egypt." That's why we should always use an unambiguous term, at least on first reference. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I think he was going more towards the point that the team is called the New England Patriots, not the New York Patriots. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
deliberate mistake - well spotted ;-) If most Americans dont know that the worlds most popular sport is called football in almost every country, including non-english speaking countries, other than their own, then they should! To be honest, I doubt very much that they dont. Petepetepetepete (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
As they say in (U.S.) journalism, never overestimate the knowledge of the reader. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
The relevant Wikipedia guideline is WP:OBVIOUS. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
This seems to be a perennial debate on wikipedia. How far do we have to go to ensure the reader is not confused? Hopefully most people will agree we have to draw the line somewhere, the question is where? Note that the main page is, in any case, primarily intended to direct readers to our articles/content, not be a stand alone section, so there is always going to be the assumption that if a reader is confused they will check out the articles and learn something. But this doesn't mean we should expect a reader to need to have the knowledge of a very experience librarian (couldn't think of anyone else who should have a very good level of general knowledge) to understand the main page or else need to check out every single link to understand what the heck is being talked about on the main page. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Most of the world refer to it as Football, not Soccer. So what if the Americans think it's referring to their pointy ball game? It's the world that counts, not just them. It should be referred as either Football or Football (soccer). --Jammy (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]
but shouldn't this discussion be moved off this's not a Main Page error, never was... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Any number of games based on handball (or hand some egg shape thing) is usually mistaken for the game Football. I am not English but maybe if football has to be called something else this site should be changed to the or people might GET CONFUSED or something. Hand the ball no... foot the ball. Hand the ball is not foot the ball. Oh but I foot it earilier on. Yes and that was foot the ball. The rest was a load of balls. If you cant tell your hand from your bum and your eggs from your balls what help is there for you??? Rugby/American Rugby is violent sport and has little to do with using a foot or a ball. Football is ancient and has not stopped or diminished...And is definitely to do with the foot and a ball. Why dont we call it washing dishes and call washing dishes watching the TV? I'll watch the TV and you can dry the dishes. ThisMunkey (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Uh... what? Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]
hmm only drying the dishes? What about washing them first would that not be better otherwise it could be messy? :) On the topic in discussion I agree with the comment above with regard to content on the main page that if it is discussing say Houston Dynamo vs LA Galaxy then surely soccer should be used and the same for Australia and any other countries where the sport is known first and foremost as soccer. But equally where the sport is not known as soccer first and also where as in the case mentioned above that the Federation contains the word football, then football should be used.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]


Shouldn't we wait a little bit longer before adding this to the Main Page? I'd like to be more certain than only 'early returns'. (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

That issue is best raised at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#Pakistani elections. Thanks. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

It's not I checked that out and it is completely accurate Skeletor 0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletor 0 (talkcontribs) 05:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]


Castro resigns! Please add that. abelson (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

The In the news section's purpose is to direct readers to articles that have been written or significantly expanded due to news. The Fidel Castro article does not yet contain a substantial amount of information about this event, though I suspect that it soon will. —David Levy 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
But its a very important news. He is relic of the Cold war era and one of the world's longest serving ruler. Maybe such news will divert energy towards improving the article. 13:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gppande (talkcontribs)
ITN is intended to be for the reader, not the editor, and it doesn't matter how important the news is since ITN is not about the news, despite the problematic name Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
This is very, very important in the world, please add it.

-Vulcan, Romulan, and Trill, not HUMAN! (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Please visit Wikinews for a wiki news source. Borisblue (talk)` —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Is there any reason we're still discussing this? It was there at the time of my response and has not been removed since then... His picture wasn't there all the time, but that's a seperate issue... Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Its a good news but lets see and give the decision for the exact situaton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankaj2008 (talkcontribs) 10:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Isn't it time we changed "In the news"? Something that shows that it's about highlighting the *articles* on Wikipedia that have content pertaining to recent events. zoney talk 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Castro Page Vadnalism 2/19/08

HOLY FREAKING BALLS!! Fidel Castro's Page has some major vandalism, so much that you can't reach the edit tab... Fix? Wish I were an admin, or at least knew what to do in that kind of event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fultron89 (talkcontribs) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Hey, someone added porn to the castro page. I don't know how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Somebody fixed it. I can't find it in the page history, so it was probably a transcluded template. Try purging your cache if you still see penises all over the place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
In this instance, the affected template appears to have been {{Cleanup-rewrite}}, although the edit was the same as referenced below. Joe 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I see now. Somebody vandalised Template:Cleanup-rewrite, which is transcluded in Fidel Castro. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Template:Sisterlinkqsc and Template:YouTube were also vandalized. --Agüeybaná 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
This is not the place to report vandalism ladies and gents. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 12:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]

China article is hacked!!!

_ no way it got hacked !!!!!!

China article is hacked. There are some very offensive content on the page. --Abuk78 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Hi. This talk page isn't really the best place to report this-it's supposed to be a place to discuss the Main Page itself.
Anyways, I checked the China article, and it has been fully protected (only editable by administrators) since Friday. I (very quickly) skimmed through the article, and didn't see any blatant problems. I think it would be best if you stated the exact problem on Talk:China. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I believe the OP is referring to vandalism of {{TOClimit}} at 21:36 UTC (reverted 21:37). Algebraist 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I foolishly forgot to check the transcluded stuff. Thanks, Algebraist. I understand the OP now, it must have been quite a shocking view. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[]

What is with people and ruining hard work?Skeletor 0 (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]