Talk:Main Page/Archive 129

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 125 Archive 127 Archive 128 Archive 129 Archive 130 Archive 131 Archive 135
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

Pending minor Main Page update

Barring objections, I intend to update the Main Page with some slightly cleaner code. It's almost entirely removing spaces in strange places or changing things like 0px to 0. Mostly pedantic stuff. A diff of the changes is available here for those interested. There should be no change whatsoever to the visible output of the page. Please let me know if you have any concerns / comments / questions. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Definitely looks more professional and clean. Nice job. J.delanoygabsadds 04:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Personally, I dislike <!--SHOUTING COMMENTS-->, but other than that it's fine. ffm 15:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, the whole point of those things is to be a minor irritant so you'll be distracted into reading it. If you think they're slightly irritating, they're working. Personally, if I think something is worth inserting a comment, I always capitalize it for exactly this reason. Gavia immer (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[]
You should probably leave 0px as such to ensure all browsers (both past and present) interpret the number as a pixel figure and not something else crazy like a em. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 00:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]
0 is 0, regardless of measure 91.105.102.96 (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[]

The name of the page

Why is the name of this page "Main Page" instead of "Main page". General article naming rule says that only the first letter of articles must be capital letter. Bekiroflaz (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]

This is the Main Page. It's a proper noun, and proper nouns are capitalized. Grandmasterka 00:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]
If we find main page proper, then "Village pump", "Recent changes" etc. are proper. Because they are not encyclopedia articles, they are special pages of Wikipedia, like "Main Page". Bekiroflaz (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Incorrect. It's called "Main Page" for the same reason that it's in the article namespace: because it was created in MediaWiki's default location before our naming conventions existed (and all attempts to establish consensus for a new title have failed). —David Levy 05:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]
I used "special" to emphasize that it was not an encyclopedia article. Certainly this page is in article namespace. But eventually the most important page on Wikipedia has an incorrect name according to Wikipedia article naming rules. And an inconsequence on the most important page could discourage some editors (like me). Bekiroflaz (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]
If it's the most important, then, in practice, alternative rules will end up applying to it. I don't think there's any harm in the name being capitalised, as this isn't actually an article, and our naming guidelines have been written for articles. As David Levy has said, this is a hangover from back when the main page was first created. J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]
More importantly, I think this section title needs changing. J Milburn (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Disambiguation problems

Just a wonder, what will happen if someone writes a notable book about Wikipedia, titled Main Page? Domthedude001 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]

The article will be called: "Main Page (book)" - Richfife (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]
This would work to a certain extent. One would use the search box to type in Main Page, but will be redirected to the Wikipedia Main Page, instead of the book. Perhaps Main Page should be taken out of the main space, and into the Wikipedia space, where it belongs. --Domthedude001 03:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Then they will fail the wikipedia-holic test. ffm 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]
I think we would have to seriously consider a very small disambiguation notice, or attempt to get around it in some way. For instance, if there was a book named Main Page, it would probably be subtitled "A Study into Wikipedia Subculture" or something. That way, we could just use the title and subtitle, as we already do on some other articles. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Unlike regular mainspace articles, this is the Main Page, and it shouldn't necessarily have a disambiguation page. Main Page (book) will do, but you will never know what someone means when they're typing Main Page in the search bar, unless you want to have the main page the way it is, and then have: This is the Main Page of Wikipedia. For other uses, see Main Page (disambiguation), which would make the Main Page of Wikipedia whack. However, a very small disambiguation notice maybe would work; the only problem would be where to put it, and if people looking for the book can see it, and people not interested can't. --Domthedude001 03:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]
If someone announces that they are writing a book about Wikipedia titled Main Page, I suggest we indef hard-rangeblock his ISP until agrees to name it something else :-) J.delanoygabsadds 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]
On a more serious note, is there any way to make it so it will be a Copyright problem if they name it that? --Domthedude001 03:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]
No. Titles are generally not copyrightable. The only way they could be 'sueable' is if the name conflicts with another book that would confuse readers into thinking it was the other book. - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Master plan:
  1. Write book, call it main page
  2. Ask WMF to nicely place a WP:OFFICE action forbidding its being mentioned under the regexp /Main Page*./
  3. Sue anybody else who tries to publish a book with this title.
  4. ????
  5. Profit!

ffm 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]


Now en:Wikipedia:Main Page and en:Wikipedia:Main page redirect to en:Main Page. On other Wikipedias it's not that way. For example de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite, es:Wikipedia:Portada and fi:Wikipedia:Etusivu.

Rrupo (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[]


To prevent all disambig. problems whatsoever, is it possible that the Main Page can be in the mainspace, but has no title? The only article in Wikipedia with no title. It would prevent all disambiguation problems:
This would be the URL: http://en.wiki.hereiszyn.com/wiki/
This would be the edit URL: http://en.wiki.hereiszyn.com/w/index.php?title=&action=edit
Talk URL: http://en.wiki.hereiszyn.com/wiki/Talk:
Talk edit URL: http://en.wiki.hereiszyn.com/wiki/Talk:
etc. etc.
When you hit the search bar without typing anything, it will take you in the main page.
The current Main Page article would redirect to homepage, which provides a link to the mainpage. Domthedude001 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]
That could probably work in theory, but why? If there was consensus to move the Main Page, I'm sure you'd find that there are better places to put it. Random89 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]
The reason to keep it unnamed is so it will never face disambiguation problems. eg: if it is renamed to Wikipedia:Main Page, someone could come out with a book with the exact same name (which will also result in a problem with an article being in the Wiki space). This potential problem should be resolved before it occurs. -Domthedude001 19:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Books beginning with Wikipedia: are normally have the colon changed for a dash, so it would be Wikipedia - Main Page. I think putting it in the project space would be the best plan. Dendodge TalkContribs 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Time Zone

Are we running off british time zone? cause i have no idea why we would be but it seems so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talkcontribs) at 04:22, October 30, 2008

Yes. Wikipedia has contributors from all over the world, so we use UTC, which is four hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time. J.delanoygabsadds 04:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Incidentally, UTC (which wikipedia uses) is only the same as British time during the winter Modest Genius talk 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Typos in searches

Thank God. When searching and an incorrect spelling is entered, the software now suggests the correct spelling. Cheers to those repsonsible for the change. OSX (talkcontributions) 06:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]

As far as I'm aware it hasn't been (primarily?) a software problem for a long time. It's been a hardware issue (adding the feature would have added too much load to the servers). In any case, this has nothing to do with the main page Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]
I think he's referring to the drop-down in the search box, since URL-generating searches still don't even spot capitalisation errors. And yes, this isn't relevant to just the main page, although I'm not sure where this discussion should go (VP technical maybe?). Modest Genius talk 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Yeah I know it doesn't belong here, but I din't know where to bring it up. What I am talking about is for example if you search for "Wikpedia" instead of "Wikipedia" ("i" character missing), the software now yeilds: "Did you mean: Wikipedia". OSX (talkcontributions) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes I thought that's what you were referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Kudos to everyone who made this possible, I know I've been wanting this feature for more than 4 years now. Zidel333 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[]

US election candidates on main page

After an extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#November_4a that garnered the support of many Wikipedia contributors (myself included), the featured article director, Raul654 decided to run two featured articles for November 4, John McCain and Barack Obama. Any questions one might have about this may be in the linked discussion.--chaser - t 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Shouldn't Obama's section have a "read more" link like McCain's? - -The Spooky One (talk to me) (Share the Love- Give a Barnstar) 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
It does now. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Very, very nice. Good job on being bold. Looks great! Domthedude001 01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Great idea for today's main page, and well executed. Majoreditor (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The 2 FAs are brilliant! Congrats to the editors of both. We should have these more often.--Pharos (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
2 FAs? BRILLIANT!!! -- Veggy (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
They could do two FAs with amjor cities as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx.IvoryTusks.xx (talkcontribs) 09:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I concur. Good decision; topical and unbiased. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

US Election FAs Discussion

Placement of Portraits

John McCain was above Barack Obama, a fair compromise I would say since Obama had the better placement in the article, then someone moved them. I don't really care where they are placed, but the immaturity of the editors is laughable. I expected more from a Wikipedia Editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

They are now set to swap randomly. Dragons flight (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
This random thing has gotten out of control. What's next, a randomized arrow pointing to who you should vote for? 85.17.148.127 (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Howabout pointing out the fact that Lewis Hamilton looks like Obama's long lost brother?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
QFT, lmao, thought the exact same thing :) 85.81.126.123 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I thought the same thing too, lol. Back on topic, the random thing is a bit silly, but some people with strong opinions will whine. To the people who think Wikipedia is being US-centered, this day only happens one time in four years, so let Wikipedia focus on the US once in four years, and you can't lie that the 2 FAs doesn't look sweet :). -Domthedude001 22:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
You're right, that is next. It follows completely logically. --Cyde Weys 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Not an arrow -- a big blinking kitty. Ceiling Cat (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

US-centric bias

Just because the united states is holding a presidential election doesn't warrant having two featured articles, neither of which can be fully comprehensive as the results of the said election are unknown. How can an article about the next president ever be comprehensive, when his actions as present would be impossible to record until after their term had expired. This is quite frankly ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talkcontribs) 00:07, November 4, 2008

  • I was going to say the exact same thing. If it has never been clear that Wikipedia is American biased then it should be now. NorthernThunder (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Sorry. It's just... our election is more important than yours. Lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.157.155 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

  • What a surprise a comment like that is not signed. NorthernThunder (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
    • But does that make it factually incorrect in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.157.155 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC) <autosigned by SineBot>[]
  • This is wikipedia showing US bias, never before has this happened in wikipedia. And to be honest elections in zimbabwe are more important than an election in the United States, where regardless of the outcome there is still an impending financial meltdown, still wars all over the place and overall still very little change. Therefore i think elections in places where there is likely to be change are far more important than elections that change nothing other than who's going to be sitting in the oval office screwing things up.
  • Would anyone say anything if the Main Page featured candidates for an election in another country? I doubt it... John Reaves 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Psst. Look above you. §hep¡Talk to me! 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Remember, this is the English Wikipedia. A huge proportion of our users are from the US. PretzelsTalk! 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • I agree that this is typical wikipedia bias that is one-sided towards the US. I have no problem with an in the news blip on the US election, but giving it massive front page bias is uncalled for. You have to draw the line with this bias. Right now, Wikipedia might as well fly an American flag behind the logo on the US independence day. 72.184.108.209 (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • IMO, that's not a bad idea! DigitalNinja 02:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Fine, but on Christmas I want a dual FA with Santa AND the abominable snowman. AND i want snow to fall from the top of teh page. AND I want it to make jingle bell sounds. AND I want little reindeer to fly next to your cursor. do we have a deal? 72.184.108.209 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually, thats a little over the top for me :) however, you might try my wife; she plays Christmas music in September and starts decorating in October...ugh. DigitalNinja 04:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
And your from Florida, so why are you pitching such a fit? Playing devils advocate? :)
Awww man, you blew my cover. I had a funny thing going there... =) 72.184.108.209 (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

The point is that the articles are comprehensive to this date. No article about a currently living person ever purports to be complete through the person's death. Date relevance is a common criteria in picking the Featured Articles, and non-US topics are exactly the same as US topics in that they're more likely to be placed on the Main Page for a relevant date. As it happens, November 4 is the most relevant date for these two articles. And of course it's silly to pretend that the US president is only important to US citizens. It'd be silly to pretend the Chinese president is only important to Chinese, the British Prime Minister only important to Britain, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Damn. I bet my brother 20$ that it would take at least 15 minutes until someone complains about "US bias". Damn, I say! >:-( J.delanoygabsadds 00:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
And if you want this for _your_ election, feel free to work up the major candidates' articles to featured status. ffm 00:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Except that Raul has claimed this will be a one time deal, so even if two candidates articles of other elections are brought to FA status he wont feature them, or so he says... 189.104.124.43 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Really? Where did he say that? ffm 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Right here: [1] 189.104.124.43 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I'd say this is the most important English-language election happening today, so on the English-language Wikipedia I think it's fine, and clever. Tempshill (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

And as I suggested during the TFA discussion, I respectfully disagree with Raul on that. If the articles on Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are brought up to FA status by the next British elections, then of course we should outdo this with a threefer. Nor do we need to keep this to politics. What if, on the day of the last World Cup final, we'd had France national football team and Italy national football team up to FA status? We could have done the same thing, and I doubt it would have been as controversial. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Based off the above complaints, I'd like to propose an item for Did You Know...
* ... that if it has never been clear that the British Broadcasting Corporation and The Toronto Star are American biased then it should be now? --JayHenry (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
That is international news coverage. I don't think anyone has a problem with putting the US election in the "in the news" section of the main page, but dominating the page with the dual FAs is a bit over the top. Another point is that this wouldn't happen for any other election. Why should the US get this special treatment? It is biased72.184.108.209 (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I see absolutely no evidence for your theory that this wouldn't have happened if a different country had its main election candidates at FA standard. I, for one, would have supported this for nearly any country in the world. Frankly had this been Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai at FA standard, my support (and I think many others') would have been much stronger. --JayHenry (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The USA is extremely powerful. Whoever wins this election will more or less be the most powerful human being on Earth. It may not be a pleasant thought, but right now we're teetering on the edge of WWIII and it's more or less America's call on whether we go over the edge. Zazaban (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Bah, you're forgetting about the shadow government of evil corpos. ffm 00:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Theirs and that of Russia, China, the UK, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. --81.157.137.228 (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I fully support this inclusion, and am not American. It is relevant, and I applaud Raul for having the balls to run the double-TFA on this date. That being said, this page is gonna be a hell of a mess very quickly, and it will just get worse when Europe wakes up tomorrow morning... Random89 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I find this US-centric bias outrage really ironic in light of the fact that much of the world both bemoans our current president and feels it should also have a voice in our elections... :-) thanks for cool FA main page, though, guys!--210.248.139.34 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Which is why both articles are fullprotected. If complaints become a _major_ problem, feel free to put up a {{NOTICE}} like I did in WP:ERRORS ffm 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
why are there two fas? looks reall ugly.--Navalscene1 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The date was naturally relevant, and we couldn't have one over the other; that would give the impression of bias. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

As a former contributor, admin, and FA writer I must say how impressed I am with the double TFA - it looks very good and was a very good idea. Well done. 91.110.133.193 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]


there is nothing wrong with having current event article as featured article but i must agree that it makes wikipedia look highly US-centric when rules are bent and 2 featured articles are posted only during US events. either post more relevant to the day/2 feautred articles for other countries or keep it random. Wikipedia looked like 911 memorial site on sept 11. now it looks like pro US election. Again there is nothing wrong with it but if u gonna choose days like this u have to do it for other countries too otherwise people will obviously complain...99.237.123.217 (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Complaints arn't a problem. And, by the way, WP:IAR. ffm 00:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
We can make that complaint if there is ever another general election where both leading candidates have featured articles, but don't get the same treatment from Wikipedia. You'd've thought the most likely non-US election to receive the same treatment would be the UK's, but right now neither Gordon Brown nor David Cameron are FAs. I'm not even going to bother looking at the head of state and opposition leader of Indonesia. --81.157.137.228 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Stop pissing your panties, it's just a featured article. OBAMA 08! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.11.53 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I second that! w00t O-8! The obaminator (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]


As stated, they're both FA-status, so it's ok in that regard. Secondly, this is an English language site, and the US is the biggest English-speaking country (by population). If we featured Prince Charles on the day of his coronation, for example, it would be the same sort of thing. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I don't have a problem with the FAs, but why do only native English speakers matter? Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree. Only Barack Obama's article should be featured. ;) 76.191.202.161 (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Damn, we just missed the Canadian election.. I can't wait for the next one though, (probably within the next two years) when we can feature all the candidates! I'm excited!!!

Basser g (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Good luck getting all the candidates up to FA status. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Obama at the bottom?

McCain is trailing in the polls, even Karl Rove predicts that Obama will win. So why the hell is he at the bottom? Fourtyearswhat (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Doesn't matter
Alphabetical order. See the notice at the top. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
We try to be as unbiased as we can be. Thus, today's articles.  Marlith (Talk)  00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Because we're a uber-right-wing cabal. No, seriously, see Talk:Main_Page#Errors_in_the_summary_of_Today.27s_featured_article_on_the_Main_Page. ffm
I knew that whichever one ended up on top, the other's partisans would cry about it. I'm surprized it took 42 minutes. It doesn't matter. Coemgenus 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
From what I read in the lengthy discussion before this decision was made, McCain is above because of alphabetical order and the fact he is a senior senator. Don't panic, I doubt Wikipedia's vertical ordering will swing anyone's vote. ;) PretzelsTalk! 01:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The start page could have had a side-by-side comparison. But to put McCain in the bottom is ridiculous. ms (talk) 10:04, November 4, 2008 (UTC)
It's randomized. Reload the page once or twice and McCain will move to the top. —Angr 10:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Then every one would be complaining 'Why isnt my candidate the one of the left or right?' if the order of a candidate on wiki actually affects the outcome of a presidential election in the US THAT would be major news. Give it a rest OK?--24.12.42.75 (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I hope that, when the next election comes around for one of the "more powerful" nations, that they will adamantly insist their candidates be included on the main page. NorthernThunder (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Hm? ffm 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
At least one and probably both of those candidates won't have FAs on Wikipedia, so that will be a very short discussion. --81.157.137.228 (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
(ec) If the articles about both candidates running for the office are FAs, I don't see why we shouldn't do it. However, since that is extremely unlikely (read: "well-nigh impossible") to happen, I don't think well have to deal with that issue... Thingg 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Agreed. If another country has elections and both candidates' articles are FA status, then I will fully support doing a double TFA for them as well. Kachyna(talk) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Certainly, though most countries don't have two-year political campaigns that give editors ample time to improve articles to FA status. It would take some very motivated editors to work multiple articles on the potential head of state into shape in the short lead time in, for example, parliamentary democracies. Clearly the U.S. Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to bias Wikipedia. - BanyanTree 02:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Heh, I'm surprised someone hasn't said anything about a possible theme with Hamilton and Obama both on the main page at the same time....YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

It's a biracial bias! Wikipedia clearly has a systemic prejudice in favor of miscegenation!!1!1! continues, frothing at the mouthJosiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Hamilton who? I thought it was a picture of Barack Obama when he was 20 years younger. The hair's the same, the ears are the same... —Angr 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Oh!! I see that Wikipedia's main page has now decided to violate WP:BALL and trumpet Lewis Hamilton as the first black PM of the UK in 2028! YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
What is Hamilton's political outlook anyway? Is he a tory, labour, libdem? 72.184.108.209 (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I dunno whether this is the right subsection for this, but what percentage of the US population are going to be coming to Wikipedia today to decide who they're going to vote for? The UK coverage of this election has been going on for months (since 2007, or was it 2006?), so I can't imagine how tedious it must be for everyone who has to suffer it first-hand. Presumably, every candidate will have their own website where they can explain their position, and no doubt there will be one or two local news websites who will provide comparisons too. If someone is coming here to chose between McCain and Obama then they have the facts for both candidates readily to hand, but I find it hard to believe that there are many people who still haven't made up their minds.

I did see some of the discussions about the TFA choice before today, and I wholeheartedly agree: both main candidates have articles at FA status, so both are eligible for the Main Page...but when should they appear? The action chosen is very sensible since it allows the majority of TFA rules to be upheld. As a born-and-bred Englishman I do not regard this action as showing US-bias (although some of the sport articles in ITN are rather more suspect). But I would hope that the same two-article solution would be adopted if appropriate for other situations in the future.

(PS - there is an amazing similarity between Obama and Hamiltion, isn't there?)
-- EdJogg (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Randomization via JavaScript

I added JavaScript to randomize the order of the candidates as displayed on the main page. I figured it was the most fair thing to do. It was good enough for our candidate listings during the WMF Board elections, so why not the US Presidential elections as well? :-P Cyde Weys 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

You know, I'm sure half the press is going to report now that Obama's on top, and the other half that McCain's on top. And a lot of people will write strongly worded letters of complaint on both sides. This should be interesting :)--Pharos (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Excellent! I just sat there refreshing the Main Page like 25 times just to watch them jumping around. (sad, I know...) J.delanoygabsadds 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Bravo, Cyde Weys. priyanath talk 02:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Glad to see I'm not alone in doing that. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure that I like this solution. I'm an Obama supporter, but I was fine with the alphabetical order. This is an encyclopedia, after all.
As most readers will be unaware that the layout is randomly determined via JavaScript, they might not realize that neither candidate is always on top or might assume that administrators are wheel-warring (if they notice one or more swaps).
Also, Obama's picture is on the left (arguably the more prominent location), which helped to balance the previous setup somewhat. With the Obama blurb now receiving the top position 50% of the time, this seems like an unfair advantage. —David Levy 02:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
  • You say the pic on the left is the most prominent location, but I think it isn't: the pic on the right is just in the middle of my screen, and whatever is in the middle of my screen is the most prominent location I think, at least for me. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The whole javascript is things is also just semi-working, because javascript gets cached for 31 days. So it will take up to 31 days before this will work for any of the visitors of the past 31 days. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
If anybody's seriously worried that the flipping will be misunderstood, add a headnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The divs alone are a noop, so the page will simply show in the McCain first/Obama second order if the JS hasn't been updated. That's a shame that the refresh period is 31 days though; looks like we should've come up with this beforehand, at least far enough out to get the change in for display on the relevant day. --Cyde Weys 03:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
TheDJ, if only browser caching worked that well: Most browsers won't cache the JS beyond their session. For example, I started FireFox 2 and visited the page right after Cyde made the change and I picked it up right away. It's unlikely that the cached copy expired properly at just that moment. :) Not everyone will see it, yes, but thats better than not doing it at all. (I dunno why enwp never adopted my dshuf stuff in the past).
I think the wheel warring concern is without merit. Someone who understands the sausage making enough to understand wheel warring will know enough to go look to see if thats what is happening. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Gmaxwell, I know, i'm just stating that for many folks that will be the reality, and any edit to Common.js should always keep that in mind. And enwp probably doesn't have dshuf, because we have never needed it before. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
1. I can't comment on the JavaScript cache issue, but it's been pointed out that the code is active only for logged-in users.
2. I wasn't referring to people familiar with the term "wheel-warring" and the social intricacies surrounding it; I was referring to those with a basic understanding of the fact that the main page is edited strictly by administrators and the observation that the order is switching back and forth. —David Levy 03:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Please don't make the mistake of basing objections on false hearsay. Monobook.js is loaded for every reader except those that have JavaScript disabled, not just those that are logged in. --Cyde Weys 04:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Indeed, I see that the code is active when I'm logged out. My apologies. Next time, I'll test such a claim myself instead of assuming its accuracy.
Now, what about that image issue? —David Levy 05:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Looks like that's been solved now to simply always display them on the left. --Cyde Weys 16:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes, we are an encyclopedia. We're also an electronic encyclopedia, so dynamic ordering is entirely within the realm of our consideration (where it wouldn't be for a static, dead-tree encyclopedia). We also prize ourself on our neutrality, so I do think having no preference over the ordering is the best solution. The alphabetical thing is entirely arbitrary in a short list of only two elements solely as a method of determining ordering. In a long list of many elements, alphabetical sorting helps you find members of the list, but that doesn't confer any advantages here. So I figured, why not get rid of the false arbitrary (going by last name) and going with true arbitrary (actual randomization). --Cyde Weys 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
You didn't address the image issue. Can you correct that? —David Levy 03:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually, I think it is biased against Cain because his pic has fewer pixles, and his description has fewer words. LOLz 72.184.108.209 (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually, McCain's photo is one pixel taller than Obama's. Scandal. Also, on Twitter already: "Even Wikipedia is getting in on the US election". Hear that? Even Wikipedia. Who'd have thought. PretzelsTalk! 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
You are all arguing over trivial matters! BTW, I think the random thing is cheesy. NEWeditorTalk! 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Cyde, you don't work for Diebold, do you :-) priyanath talk 03:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Nah, I work for Premier Election Systems. It's something entirely different, I assure you. --Cyde Weys 03:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
LOL.... priyanath talk 04:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Honestly, with Obama's picture on the left and McCain's on the right, whenever Obama is on top, it looks like a featured article only for him. When McCain is on top, it looks like it's for both of them. 12.203.112.157 (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

well i agree with one thing. it should be right-left...and randomized. instead of top bottom. side by side shows much more neutrality (equal status) than if someone is on top of someone else.99.237.123.217 (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Um, with all these kudos about the random flip-flopping, we don't get that on IE7 (which I believe is the most popular browser), so it's not doing anything. Just Obama on top, FWIW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Works for me in IE7. You must have forgotten to clear your cache (you can do this by holding Ctrl when you hit F5). - Mark 08:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Where can we see the script for the randomization? V-sleeper-cell (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

More explanation, with links to the diffs, is here. Yeah, I'm too lazy to copy-paste all of that again. --Cyde Weys 13:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

The randomisation - bloody good idea. Also, I think it's an excellent arrangment that Obama is on the left and McCain is centre-right, even if that is unintentional. Orpheus (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

The flip flopping script is nothing short of nauseating IMO. The gut wrenching tediousness of such severely polarizing malformations simply insinuates innuendo that one can simply guess on which partisan party responsible; the ultimate in flip flopperism folly. You know who you are ;-D DigitalNinja 23:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Anchor text of election link should read "2008 U.S. presidential election"

...Rather than just "2008 presidential election". Explicit context. — ¾-10 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Even though "United States Senator" nearby is a pretty obvious context clue. — ¾-10 01:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree with you. Changed it. Saying "the 2008 election", even though there's a lot of context, seems a bit too self-important. (to admins: revert me as you please) Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Could you (or another Administrator) also do it to the main article? It's full-protected. --Domthedude001 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
DONE. Obama had already been changed, and I added the text to McCain's article.-Andrew c [talk] 02:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Bias at 3rd Party Candidates

I've never discussed the main page of wikipedia before, but I felt like WP:BB being bold and discussing how in addition to it being US Centric and all that, it diminishes the importance of the third party candidates. By putting only Obama and McCain as the double featured article it makes a political statement that they are the better choice. I mean i assume good faith and all, but by doing this Wikipedia is enodrsing McCain and Obama, but none of the other people running for president, which is bias and partisan. Just Sayin' Scott Oglesby (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia can only re-report what other reliable sources say. ALL reliable sources, without exception, treat this race as McCain vs. Obama, with utterly zero mention of the other candidates. J.delanoygabsadds 04:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes but That statement is sort of general and ambiguous. What specific reliable sources are you referring to? Because the most reliable sources I have seen still report that there are other candidates other than Obama and McCain. The Wikipedia itself reports on other candidates. I just don't think Wikipedia should make these candidates seem like the only candidates, and by putting them on the front page it if not subtly endorses these candidates.

I think that a more Neutral Point of View featured article for today would be United States Presidential Election 2008 because that would be less bias. Catch my drift? Scott Oglesby (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Neither that one nor any of the articles of the other third party candidates are Featured articles, so they wouldn't be able to make it to the front page in this capacity. --Cyde Weys 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Salient Point. Nevertheless, I feel that by placing Obama and McCain in the front page it still is making a political statement endorsing them, which is interferes with the integrity of Wikipedia. And I feel like I should say it just so people can think about how the major party candidates are the only ones anyone ever thinks about. But it is true that they can't be featured if they are not featurable. But then wikipedia should be making no statements at all about candidates in the United States's election day, because then it would appear partisan. If McCain's article was not in Featured Article status and Obama's were, would it be acceptible to have only the Obama article be the featured article? I would say not. Because then people would become upset and call Wikipedia partisan. Therefore I think they should have with featured Basiliscus or something of that nature today and then shown the featured the winner's article tomorrow. Scott Oglesby (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Put bluntly, no credible source says that there is any possibility whatsoever of a third-party candidate winning this year. That's reality. Putting these two guys on the main page is not partisan, or biased, or anything like that. It is simply an example of Wikipedia representing things as they are. -LtNOWIS (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Well I sort of disagree. I suppose Wikipedia is representing reality as it is by having in featured articles. The individual Article themselves are representing things as they are. However putting them both on the main page on election day is not related to representing things as they are. It is a deliberate action to inform Wikipedians of only two candidates. the two major candidates. Also The statement "no credible source" is vague, though i don't suppose you can cite something that is the opposite. If it was all about winning, then you could say that Obama is going to win according to the polls and all that and that McCain is not going to win so his article is not going to be put up. The election, while about winning and losing, should be related to the right that people have to make a choice to vote for any candidate, being Obama, McCain, or some other person.
But also you could say that it is entirely coincidental that these articles are featured, or that these words are meaningless because they can be perceived in entirely different ways and so forth. But realistically i don't think it is. Anyway I think I have a valid opinion even if someone with a boat full of salient points later changes my mind, it is still my opinion now, and it is great that Wikipedia allows for such discussion.Scott Oglesby (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
That is simply wrong. Any credible source will tell you that in addition to Barrack Obama and John McCain, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia Mckinney, and Chuck Baldwin all are on enough state ballots to win a majority in the electoral college. You might argue that Barrack Obama and John McCain are the most likely candidates to win the election. However, as pointed out by Oglesby, John McCain actually has little chance of winning the election.
In addition, the fact that third party candidates are not featured articles is not that relevant. Barrack Obama and John McCain were featured here because they are candidates in the upcoming election, not because they are in featured articles.
It is imperative that, as a neutral source of information, Wikipedia avoids preferring some candidates over others. Ummonk (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
You may believe whatever you wish to believe. Or, you can look at the facts. J.delanoygabsadds 06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

While it is disheartening that the candidate I voted for isn't on the main page, that person's biography isn't a featured article, and these two yahoos' biographies are. We're already bending the rules enough by having two TFAs and by putting Barack Obama on the main page twice. Putting non-featured articles up would really be beyond the pale. —Angr 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Nader Haters?

Ya'll are just Nader Haters. But really, before you bring any of this up, honestly tell me that any of the 3rd party candidates have a chance. --Domthedude001 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I wish:)DigitalNinja 23:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Well I'm glad that day measured by the UTC is over, as is this interesting excercise in Today's Featured Article. But no, Domthedude the third party candidates may not have a chance, but that is not relevant, nore is WP Humor. I am not saying that all the third party candidates should be on the front page, because then it would be TFAs 2 that max, but Wikipedia should not be endorsing some candidates over the others. Maybe the third party candidates don't have chances, but I believe it is because the media doesn't give them a fare chance, and generally disregards them. If they covered them as much then they wouldn't be third party candidates.

But that is all over. I thought it would last until21 minutes from now, but UTC waits not for daylight savings time. Excellent discussion everyone, and I hope my favorite thing in the world, Wikipedia, doesn't do something of that nature again. Peace 76.19.42.233 (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Breaking of TFA rules for this event

Personally I am not that concerned that we have a US election related TFA on the mainpage on the day of the election (makes a change from yet more video game articles), the TFA should always be relevant to the date where possible. I am not even overly concerned over the accusations of US centricity or bias on Wikipedia as we must surely expect some element of that when the largest national group of contributors is from the US. However I am worried about the breaking of two rules of TFA. These being that an article can never be on the mainpage more than once and that only one article is featured at a time. Admittedly the latter is more of a tradition than a rule but I am still concerned. I hope this is not the start of a slippery slope where we will see suggestions for multiple TFAs for more and more trivial occasions (sports events etc) or articles being featured more than once (eg "this article was featured three years ago but it's improved a lot since then so it should get on the main page again"). What happens in another four years when it is the US election again? Will we see (for example) Palin and Obama on the mainpage (with Obama appearing for the third time) because this has set the precedent? What is to stop that from happening?

I would rather see TFA return to its previous format for good and not see a re-run of this style again (not even for the British elections, which are much more important to me!). Anyone else have any opinions on this? - Dumelow (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I honestly wouldn't mind if we started seeing more than one FA on the front page on a regular basis. I don't really see any opposition to it other than resistive inertia. Personally, I think it's a good idea to give coverage to two FAs that are tightly linked on the day of their peak importance. It's the best way to handle the event without giving the appearance of bias by having to select one over the other. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I would support seeing more than one TFA per day, it would help get more FA's noticed. Whether the FA's are linked or completely different it wouldn't matter. At present there are hundreds of FA's that have not been "main paged", it's not like we'd run out of FA's to use. Plus it would help to get more of our FA's noticed by the public. Zunaid 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]


Kudos to Raul

Raul,

I have to give you my kudos to the Obama/McCain double TFA. By giving us the change we need, you've proved yourself a maverick.

Lovelac7 02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I'm J.delanoy and I endorse the above statement. J.delanoygabsadds 02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
…and not only two, but both are full protected articles. I for one welcome this vandalism reduced future. It's nice to be able to have some biographies on the main page without subjecting a couple percent of the many millions of viewers to vicious libel on the persons. Since we're doing this for two well known people who aren't likely to be hurt by Wikipedia vandalism, we'll be extending this courtesy to other more vulnerable people in the future, right? --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Not likely. Those pages are protected because of the US presidential election, and for no other reason. J.delanoygabsadds 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Doesn't look good for us: We'll protect articles where vandalism would be bad for our reputation but mostly harmless for the subjects, but we won't protect more articles on obscure people where the subject is harmed more by vandalism than Wikipedia is. I hope that isn't true. Full protection is a pretty blunt instrument but protection is the only such option while English Wikipedia refuses to adopt revision flagging.--Gmaxwell (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree. Raul did a good job in being bold here. And I was shocked at how fast he grabbed a CSS fix. More of this kind of variation on the main page! PretzelsTalk! 02:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I read that guy saying how the Zimbabwe elections should be FA instead. Now that was funny, especially since the en in en.wiki.hereiszyn.com means English, not African, things important to the Anglo world. There are other Wikis for other places in the world.--69.229.173.135 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

But do remember that Zimbabwe was once a British colony, and both of its presidential candidates, after all, had English first names. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The English language Wikipedia is widely used by the entire world because English is a popular language all over the world, and English language Wikipedia is the most popular and complete.. Traffic from countries where English the the well known primary language is still only a bit more than half the traffic as I recall. Also, the elections in Zimbabwe have impacts far outside of Zimbabwe, though the same is true for the US elections. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
As well as for the fact that English is an official language of Zimbabwe. But the point of the matter is the articles need to be FA quality. Any major election, in an English speaking country or not that has FA quality articles should get featured at least at some point in the election course, whether it follows the same style as todays or not is up for debate. Sven (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I'd argue that today's style, while not objectionable as a one-off, should not become standard. There are more than two candidates in the US election. The readers would probably learn a lot more if any one of the others were featured. We're doing the public disservice by furthering the myopic focus on the two likely winners, though an exceptionally mild one. I think articles on the history of voting, or on voting science make better election day fodder. ::shrugs:: --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Or, to play devil's advocate, would we be injecting a fringe POV by presenting these candidates as anything other than the Don Quixotes that reality shows them to be? The notion that a two-party system is myopic and therefore undesirable is a POV. It's a normative statement about what should be and what shouldn't be. Whereas acknowledgment that two-party government is the de facto system in the United States is an NPOV-observation of the simple reality; reality is no disservice, on the contrary, it's our goal. --JayHenry (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I'd agree if we were talking about candidates which weren't on the ballots in enough states to even have a possible chance of winning, but we're not. There are real participants other than Obama and McCain, and although they have a snowballs chance of winning, they are none the less real. Many of them are more notable than some of the other people we've main paged. They should get a reasonable mention, rather than zero. That could be accomplished by main-paging the election article, which could be expected to give appropriate coverage. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Eh, I was only musing. I'd be lukewarm on third-party candidates with trivial levels of support ie the crop this year (Ross Perot, 1992, would be something different). But I'd easily and wholeheartedly support an election article, voting science, history of voting, history of polls, etc. I'm mostly happy that we tried something outside the box. The outside the box idea that gets implemented is an increasingly endangered species on Wikipedia. --JayHenry (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
We're in complete agreement.--Gmaxwell (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
How on earth can the election article hope to be stable enough to be a FA ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION? Also, I strongly disagree that many of the third party candidates are more noteable then other people who have been on ITN. I presume you are talking about ITN because everything else is irrelevant (notability is of very little concern in TFAs provided the article is notable enough to be on the main page beyond comparative notability of article of a similar type). In any case, we will definitely ITN the presidential election when it's over and we will obviously link to the election article (or results article) then, but as with all elections, we wait until after the election before putting it on ITN. To re-intinerate my point, I, as with most non-Americans (and even I expect most Americans) have no concern about a bunch of idiots in the US election who have no resonable chance of winning, at least as it concerns them running. Now many of them have done more then run in the election, so for that they may be of some interest but not their running in the election. I would much rather read about Pokaemon or Enimen then some dumb American presidential candidates who have no chance of winning and I think anime and rap music is mostly total shit. I'm not saying of couse we should never have them as TFA. Clearly if they are FA standard, then they should be up to consideration as with all other FAs. However they definitely shouldn't get priority just because they were alsorans in a US presidential election. And they will also be of lower priority then more core FAs of the same type (e.g. Obama and McCain, articles on the presidential elections etc) Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
You are absolutely right. You have to be real about it. IvoryTusksChit-chat 09:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Raul - What a pleasant surprise! Excellent job, and the flip-flopping has me refreshing far more often than should be considered healthy. Really, I can't imagine a better way to have done this (well, except maybe add some javascript so that the bottom article's portrait is always on the left), but really, fantastic work. --Grahamdubya (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Agreed. I was very pleased to see this. Breaking new ground. Only thing is, what will you do next time? Can't have an article on the front page twice! :P Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
"Can't have an article on the front page twice!" In fact, this was another of the rules that Raul broke... and I, too, commend him for it. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Credit where credit is due: the original idea for both at once belongs to User:Remember. --Herald Alberich (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Featured Article Protection????

I was under the impression that today's featured article should NOT be fully protected. Why are these two? You cannot have it both ways - either remove the protection or remove them from the main page. Exxolon (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

First, read the above discussions and the discussion they link to. Next, look at Israel's sojourn on the Main Page. Thingg 03:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Protection is invoked when problems arise, not pre-emptively in case there are problems. There is absolutely no reason for these articles to be protected in advance. They should be unprotected and if vandalism becomes an issue THEN we can invoke our standard responses. Exxolon (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, if you really want to, WP:RFPP is that way. But I can almost assure you that there is not an admin on this site who will lower the protection level. J.delanoygabsadds 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
(ec)Just so you are aware, it was decided (with nearly unanimous support I might add) that these pages would be fully-protected today even before it was proposed to use them as TFA. Also, as I mentioned before, the idea of a fully protected TFA has been widely discussed above and at great length on other pages. In addition, it is not without precedent to protect TFA if it is an extremely likely target for vandalism. (for example, Israel). If you don't agree with this, that's fine, but complaining about it now after it has been discussed at length on AN and TFA/R for nearly a week is probably not going to change the decision that was made there. Thingg 03:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I have no issue with the articles either being TFAs OR being fully protected. However the two in combination is not acceptable. Exxolon (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Regardless of what you find acceptable, you will just have to live with it. 76.111.93.119 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]


i dont wanna create another section for this but why is there a republican logo on top right corner of this page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.123.217 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

nvm gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.123.217 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
It's just some doltish vandalism. ... indicative of what would be happening if the featured articles were unprotected. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
There is still huge Republican logo at the center of this page. 89.146.77.127 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Fixed, after wading through several templates. ffm 18:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Thanks, I went looking but couldn't find where it was coming from... Random89 18:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Someone better stop placing Obama above McCain on the front page. It's alphabetical not biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.61.189 (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

There's a javascript code that randomly decides which is put on top. press [Ctrl] + [F5] to refresh the code. Thingg 05:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Wouldn't simple alphabetical order be better? Just saying...it seems a little unencyclopedic to do a random order over alphabetical. -Chrishy 06:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, we originally did that, but there was a lot of complaining and confusion about it (see above). Someone did try some "wikimagic" to get the order to change every 30 seconds, but the code didn't work reliably because of caching. Thingg 06:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Ahh, I see. I still find it kind of funny. But yay for coding work! -Chrishy 06:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I tend to vote Republican, but i absolutly hate the alphabetical order is a fair compromise argument...alphabetical order is a sort of discimination as one is born with thier last name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

The original order could also be seen as representing seniority in the Senate, as well as alphabetical order. You can see the discussion about this (and some proposals for putting the two side by side) in the discussion at WT:TFAR#November 4a. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
How am I meant to know who to vote for if you keep changing the order ? Oh wait, I haven't got a vote. My mistake, sorry. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
LOL, they should stop changig the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.148.127 (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
It's (meant to be) random. Four combinations. Your pick. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Great job with the script, creative way to solve the problem. That and the two FAs were quite graceful ways to avoid "endorsing" either candidate. Scapler (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Unbiased Featured aticles of the day

Very Interesting that before the US presidential election, both candidates are shown as featured articles. Good idea so as to not promote bias. Dumoren (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Last I checked my ballot (in Arizona), there were 5 presidential candidates: Obama, McCain, McKinney, Barr, and Nader. There was even a spot for a write-in. So, why is Wikipedia only focusing on the Republican and Democratic candidates? Oh, and why did you do this at all? What about other countries' elections? Have you placed their candidates on the main page on their election days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.35.152 (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Featured articles?

Featured articles? Since when does TFA do two articles at once? Simply south (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

See the at least three discussions on this further up the page. Algebraist 12:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Sorry why hes first on the page? The page seem to be biased now. The both candidates should be put equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.107.236 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Who is "he"? Try hitting F5. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Read the fskin' discussion page, this has already been talked to death. 76.111.93.119 (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
McCain and Obama switch themselves around, it's all random, determined when you first load the main page. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

The Votes are coming in

See McCain 133.2k visits so far today

Obama 245.2k visits

Well its probably not as accurate as the exit polls! Smallbones (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Lol, esp. since that is world-wide, and not just a USA statistic (Obama is more popular than McCain in the EU). 76.111.93.119 (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Those were for November 3, not November 4. Still fascinating, though. Risker (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Heck, if you believe Nate Silver this stat might be a better indicator than the exit polls. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Keep track, hourly

By the way: You can track those Election 2008 page hits hourly ("live"), see Wikipedia/Template:Popular pages.(history) --- Best regards, Melancholie (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Remember that redirect pages are listed separately on this template. Last hour, three redirects and the main Obama article had over 47,000 hits combined (roughly 780 hits per minute). Risker (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

John McCain Placed Before Barack Obama

718smiley.svg

I think the main page is biased towards John McCain. On the official ballot, Obama is placed before McCain. Therefore, on the main page Obama should also be placed before McCain. Thanks, ~electricRush (T C) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

That varies by at least state. Where I voted, McCain was first.--chaser - t 15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
In any case, the ordering on the Main Page is randomized. SpencerT♦C 16:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
ooh awesome, I didn't notice that :) --86.135.81.173 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
I wonder if less people would complain about this if they were side-by-side instead? I guess having one physically oriented above the other subconsciously gives a sense of superiority? 198.189.249.13 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
People would still complain that one got the cushy left-hand side position. GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Is this the first time there has been a presidential election (or major political election in any country) where both contenders have been featured articles? SGGH speak! 17:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Yep, and the first time that two of any featured articles were on the main page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Does anyone else think it may be too America-centric to have the profiles of the two candiates as featured articles merely because today is U.S. election day? --24.211.242.80 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)(Dpr)[]
No, this is not just major for the USA, it's major for the whole world because of the power the US goverment has. Yowuza Talk 2 me! 19:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Agreed. There have been 399,160 articles indexed by Google News, mentioning both Obama and McCain, in the last 24 hours. Just within Australia, there's 11,022 articles in the last 24 hours, currently. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
In any case, there is nothing abnormal about having a TFA relevant to the day Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

hi can someone teach me how to make a bot that will keep going to one of those pages over and over so it will get high up on that list? just post it below cus i dont want to give out my email. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.17.148.127 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Uh... no. —Vanderdeckenξφ 20:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

For heaven's sake! If a significant number of voters in the US are influenced by the ordering of the candidates names on Wikipedia, then America is already beyond hope! DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I think this theory should be tested next election cycle. Raul654 in 2012! APL (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Lewis Hamilton

can we change lewis hamilton's pic so he does not look like carbon copy of obama. LOL! im sure he got other pics. 209.82.15.17 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Oh my god, it's so true! Same head, hair, ears... 198.189.249.13 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
    • Feel free to suggest an alternative picture at WP:ERRORS. ffm 17:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Early archival

Does anyone have a problem with this megasection being archived at 0100h UTC tomorrow, rather than staying up for another 3 days? It's not too relevent after today, as all this verbage was about the US election. ffm 21:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Nope. §hep¡Talk to me! 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Tomorrow's TFA

Is it true that Tomorrow's (Nov 4th) TFA has yet to be chosen? Aren't these things done well in advance? Justice America (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[]

They are chosen no more than 2 weeks in advance, and no, I have not chosen it yet. Raul654 (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[]
It was the two presidential candidates, btw, in case anybody missed it. ffm 00:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Halloween link

How do I get a link to the Halloween mainpage, to add to this article: Wikipedia:FCDW/October 27, 2008? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Made just for you. I added the 3 different sets of Halloween sets of DYKs, but other than that it should look spot on. §hep¡Talk to me! 21:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Thank you so much :-) I wasn't aware you would have to build it: thought I was just too dumb to find it. Is it OK for me to move that from your userspace to a Dispatch page? Or would you mind moving it to WP:FCDW/Halloween? Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Feel free to move it wherever. When you're done would you mind deleting my subpage? §hep¡Talk to me! 22:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
Moved, thanks again ! I'm not an admin: can you put a {{db-author}} on it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]
 Done, deleted. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Thanks. §hep¡Talk to me! 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Featured sounds on the main page

Signature to disable archiving: ffm 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[]

I believe it's time to move forwards with adding featured sounds to the main page. There are 98 featured sound files, representing 65 distinct compositions (symphonies and such can contain multiple files because of the various movements) Our statistics are reasonably good, with about a dozen per month in the last three months, and October looking good for a strong increase on that.

And, of course, the greater visibility can reasonably be presumed to attract more people to Featured sounds, increasing these numbers.

This will need some set-up time, of course, so I'd suggest that we start by putting in featured sounds in place of the weekend featured pictures in, say, November or December (I have discussed such a move with Howcheng) and plan on starting a daily run of featured sounds in the new year. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[]

What about "featured media" - which would basically be featured sound or video, rather than a picture? Garden. 16:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree with Garden. That sounds a great idea. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[]
I agree with the above editors—given the relative scarcity of featured sounds (which is not a comment on the quality of the selections, of course) and the scarcity of space on the Main Page, folding featured sounds into the current "featured image" selection and calling it "featured media" is probably the way to go. If this is done, the first sound selection needs to be chosen very carefully as a useful introduction to the concept, so I'd advise not going forward until you have a specific selection in mind for it. Of course, that's true even if it's not folded into the featured images, too. Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[]
This seems rather appropriate to kick it off with - an extremely good quality recording of a song everyone already knows. Raul654 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[]
I believe, though, that Featured Pictures is already quite a bit behind. I wouldnt mind blending sounds with video, to take some of the load off FPs, but to add sounds permanently to FPs is just going to push things further and further behind. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[]

I'll support a rename of "Featured Picture" to "Featured Media" and the inclusion of sounds, but only if one sound is chosen per composition (such as the first movement of la primavera) for now. ffm 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[]

I was thinking that, as sounds don't take a lot of space, we could probably fit three or four in without too much trouble. That's enough for all but one multi-part sound, and, frankly, we could just take some samples from that one without much problem. In any case, the multi-part sounds are a distinct minority. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Ok, that's a great idea. ffm 22:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[]

One problem with swapping a Featured Picture out with a Featured Sound is that the FPs currently have about a six-month backlog before appearing on the Main Page. Adding Sounds only increases that backlog. Additionally, there's a lot of technical template work to incorporate sounds, which may or may not be feasibly done. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[]

A six-month backlog is a good problem to have, no? Has any thought been given to having two Featured Pictures each day? I wonder if the current stockpile would accommodate that. Then maybe, some days the second Featured Picture space could go to a Featured Sound, and we'd take out two birds with one stone.--Pharos (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[]
A bust of Ludwig van Beethoven taken from his death mask.
Piano Sonata No. 28 in A Major, Op. 101: manuscript sketch for movement IV.

I like the idea, if it could be implemented, and suggest it begin by pairing this featured sound with either of these featured pictures. (Note that Wikipedia has already done this once on 9/11/2008 when it ran George W. Bush's 9/11/2001 speech (a featured sound) in tandem with a featured picture of the World Trade Center wreckage). Howcheng, you are welcome to push back my featured pictures in the queue in order to mix in featured sounds. That would reduce about 1/3 of the backlog? DurovaCharge! 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[]

I think sound-picture paring would work nicely, as right now a bit of space is wasted on the main page for one item. ffm 22:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Of course, we wouldn't always have such a neat pairing available. =) But yes, whenever possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[]


As I see it, there's a few ways to do this:

  1. 1 Featured media, either FP or FS - this is probably impractical. Too big of an FP queue.
  2. Two featured media every day: I'm a little uncomfortable with this, because it wouldn't really advertise the featured sound project very effectively (since the words "featured sound" would not appear, and it gives no firm schedule for featured sounds.
  3. Featured picture + second FP Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday-Sunday / FS Monday Wednesday Friday - I kind of like this idea better, simply because, with a simple bit of extra code, featured sounds could be named in the title and links on the designated days. Three Featured sounds a week seems quite possible.
  4. 1 or 2 Featured pictures + Featured sound every day: Perhaps in the future!

I would suggest that, whatever we do, that the new inclusion of featured sounds is worth a Wikimedia foundation press release, explicitly encouraging people to submit their sounds. Wikipedia can do sounds very well, which print encyclopedias can't, but we do need to make it known that Wikipedia welcomes and encourages such submissions, or we won't get 'em. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[]

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.241.102 (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[]

The four-month FP promotion rate is around 10.4/week, slightly less than as proposed above. I don't know how things are going over at FS, but what concerns me is that sometimes we have a lull where the rate drops below 7/week for a few consecutive weeks. Maybe a 10/4 partition?

And how thwould e main page look like when we have a panorama, especially at lower resolutions (800 x 600 in particular)? If I did POTD, I would run only one item those days. This would scuttle more than a few designs in the 2008 main page redesign proposal. MER-C 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Featured sounds could probably manage 4/week. Also, figure that some FPs (e.g. that collection of fractals) and multi-part FSes might reasonably take both partitions, and we should be fine, particularly if we set up the code to allow things like panoramas to take up both slots. We'll need to do the extra coding, of course, but if we have the will to move forwards, I don't think that's a huge problem. I'll start setting up a test system, based on the current featured pictures code, using default values to make it backwards compatible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[]
That's a very optimistic number on Shoemaker's part. I suppose this deserves background: for nearly three years featured sounds languished with an average of fewer than one promotion every two months. A small core of people brought the process to life this summer and fall, but it really needs broader exposure to become sustainable. I would gladly sacrifice any and all of my FP work if that's what it takes to get a stable featured sound process. That would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. DurovaCharge! 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[]
We've managed about 3/week for three months running. Presuming a bit more participation, 4 should be possible, particularly given the 60-odd sound backlog that will help fill in the gaps while we build things up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[]

I don't suppose there's any hope for the idea that WP shouldn't try to cram something into every last square inch of its mainpage? The Mozart example above reminds me of this.

While you may have a point about not trying to cram in too much (media overload), it's worth remembering that Google is a search engine and their main page is intended to be a way to access that search engine. Yahoo clearly consider their main page as a portal and similarly our main page is primarily intended to promote our content not to function as a search engine or be a way for people to access our articles (that is part of the purpose but not the primary purpose). You may want to go to Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal where generally too much whitespace is frowned upon and voice your views Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Um, where does anyone mention Mozart? DurovaCharge! 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[]
I meant Beethoven, of course. APL (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Actually we've been working on Mozart too... ;) DurovaCharge! 05:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[]
We're not cramming things into every square inch on the MP - we're just adding something else next to the FP, that won't take up any more space than a panorama. This would be a welcome addition to the project. Dendodge|TalkContribs 08:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[]
I fully support this idea; I trust you'll find a schedule that works. I'd also like to see a Featured List, Portal, or Topic a day.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[]
The main delay is going to be updating all the templates involved. I'm going to have to try and get a small task force together. At the moment, at 4/week, we can last about four and a half months even if we never promote another featured sound (currently 75 featured sounds), so I think that we should be fine. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[]