Talk:Main Page/Archive 138

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 135 Archive 136 Archive 137 Archive 138 Archive 139 Archive 140 Archive 145

Essam Alshawali

Essam Alshawali sports Tunisian born on September 25, 1970, is one of the most prominent sports commentators in the Arab this time, the comment on football matches sports channels, radio and television network of the Arabs. He has a great deal of sports information. Comment gives the game a sense of excitement and fun. Is characterized by a high tone voice, is always chosen to comment on the match strong.

Essam Ahawali selected the best Arabic commentator for the years 2005 and 2006, according to a poll conducted kooora site sports —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalunia2005 (talkcontribs) 07:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Click Essam Alshawali and create an article. You don't need to register an account, but you'll probably find it easier to communicate if you do, and it costs nothing and takes about 2 minutes. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Um you do need to register to create an article... In fact, you need to wait 4 days to be autoconfirmed. You can of course ask at Wikipedia:Articles for creation for one to be created (as your told when you try to create one as an unregistered user) if you say you'll provide the content if you don't want to register and you'll be able to edit it after it's created. Do note that all articles need to meet our WP:Notability requirements which means amongst other things, they need to have WP:Reliable sources (for example newspaper articles) discussing the subject. These can be English or a foreign language. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Oops, of couse, silly me. Sorry. Just one more reason to register an account! --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Claim or fact?

The main page news section says the nuke detonation was just something North Korea "claims", but then the article says everything DID happen, right there in the intro paragraph. Is there some kind of de facto sense of veracity to their claims that's being employed? (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Why a repeated Featured Article?

May 26, 2009: U2

This article for U2 appeared as a Main Page Feature recently. If Wikipedia has over 2,000 feature articles, why would this one be repeated so soon? Ed8r (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[]

When was this? --candlewicke 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[]
U2 has never been on the main page. Majorly talk 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Yes, I too thought this. I've been observing its state of featured articleness for some time, wondering when it would appear, nearly certain it never had... --candlewicke 10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Maybe some U2-related stuff got to be on DYK or OTD or TFP. –Howard the Duck 17:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]
If you don't follow the FA process behind the scenes, it's easy to misunderstand it. I used to be under the impression that 'featured' and 'has been featured on the Main Page' were the same thing - maybe Ed8r saw the U2 article earlier, noted then that it was already a FA, and made the same mistake I did? --GenericBob (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Image Problem

Regarding the featured image- It claims to have been made around 1930 on the main page, but was actually made around 1830. (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]

No, it's right enough. From the image page: Woodblock made ca. 1930 exactly the same way as they were made by artisans ca. 1830. So perhaps they were first made in 1830 but this particular one was made in 1930. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Oh, oops! And there's me, thinking I know this sort of thing! Oh well. (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]
It's alright mate ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

New Supreme Court Justice

Obama just appointed a new Hispanic (fist Hispanic) Supreme Court Justice. I think this should be included in the "In the News" section. World (talkcontributions) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]

It was up for a while, but there's plenty of chat at ITN/C (you will need to scroll down to see it, I probably suck at linking) to explain why it isn't, or won't be, or should be... Feel free to add your input there. (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]
It was deemed not "international" enough. –Howard the Duck 03:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Actually there are plenty of reasons it was rejected including the fact there is no new Supreme Court Justice, as you must know having participated in the discussion Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
There's no new Supreme Court Justice. She still has to be approved Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
There'd be one soon. What the GOP did was like token opposition. The Dems would've nominated Mother Teresa and they'd object. –Howard the Duck 16:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Actually, Obama appointed her, the Senate has to confirm her appointment. Its semantics to say whether there is or there's not a new SC justice. –Howard the Duck 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
What's semantics is arguing over whether approved or confirmed is different. What's not semantics is that she is not a Supreme Court Justice currently and that she could be rejected, as candidates have in the past, or be filibustered by the GOP (until and unless Al Franken takes his seat perhaps or if the Democrats decide to do the nuclear option). And she is not currently allow to serve in the Supreme Court. If it emerges tomorrow that she supports the use of terrorism against American civilians, I doubt she'd be approved by the the Senate even by most Democrats. If and when there is a new Supreme Court justice 'soon' we can add it then not before. If I had a 10 cent coin for the number of times people said something is going to happen 'soon'... I would note I'm not aware of any sources which call her a Supreme Court Justice (funny enough they call here a nominee), nor of any sources which say there is already a new Supreme Court Justice (they may say her confirmation is likely, that's quite difference from saying there's already a new Supreme Court Justice), and WP:RS is in fact what we care about on wikipedia, not the word of Howard the Duck or the word of User:World. I do have to say though it will be kind of funny if she dies, is rejected, rejects the position (has she even said she'll accept it) or otherwise doesn't become an actual Supreme Court Justice and then at some stage later you and others come back and say we need to put someone else up especially because s/he'll be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice when according to you, we've already had a Latino Supreme Court Justice. I guess it's the same as the way we've already had Stone-Campbellite Supreme Court justice, haven't we? [1] Nil Einne (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Oh did you know we had a Catholic marine justice? At least I think so. If someone converts to a religion after they've been nominated and rejected, does that count? Anyway I could look at Category:Rejected nominees to the United States Supreme Court to find out what other wonderful Supreme Court justices we've had (and try to dig up those nominated and who didn't make it but aren't there e.g. because they nomination was withdrawn, the person rejected it, they died, or simply no one added it yet) that no one else knows about but to be honest, I'm bored. Still at least the Supreme Court got Borked justice. Oh and with apologies to Sotomayor I actually kinda hope she somehow doesn't make it, won't that be a laugh... Nil Einne (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[]

GM is done

Probably should be "in the news."--UhOhFeeling (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

WP:ITN/C. –Howard the Duck 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

The courtesy of using the edit button

The top of this discussion (General discussion) has the hidden message: "Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so have the courtesy to use it."

I am aware that the edit button is "important" but what choice does one exactly have? It can either be used or not, I know of no other way to communicate through either courtesy or contempt. Ironically, you can't even see this message unless you attempt to edit and even then it is hidden away in obscurity. If it means something else then it isn't putting its message across very clearly. --candlewicke 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[]
What are you talking about exactly?--Metallurgist (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Seems contradictory. It calls for a courtesy in using the edit button as though not doing so is rude. But then you can't even see the message unless you've already used the edit button in the first place. --candlewicke 11:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]
I believe the point is that it's asking you to use the edit button for the specific section that you're editing, instead of the edit button for the whole general discussion section (except if you are adding a new section, in which case the new section should be placed at the bottom). My understanding is it's important & courteous because it labels the edit summary as to what's being edited. This seemed clear to me, but do you have a suggestion as to how it could be better worded, since it is obviously not clear to everyone? Brainmouse (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Well I would recommend it not to be hidden for a start... --candlewicke 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
I think you're missing the point. The purpose of the message is to discourage those who seem to like to add new messages to the top, which is contrary to wikipedia guidelines and normal practice and confuses the discussion particularly in a page like this which has a transcluded error page at the top and other special things and also to encourage those adding new messages to the bottom to use the edit button or new section as appropriate rather then the edit this tab page. The reason it is hidden is because it's not necessary to be seen unless you are actually one of those people. If you are already using the edit button, then you don't need to see the message. Similarly if you are using the new section tab. It is only if you are one of those people who is trying to add the message to the top (or worse are going to delete the whole page) or perhaps are going to add to the bottom or add to an existing section but are using 'edit this page' is it useful for you to see the message. Hence it being hidden is the correct thing to do. Note that contrary to what you seem to have suggested, you will not in fact see the message if you use the edit button or the new section tab, only if you use the 'edit this page' tab. As I've stated, this should be discouraged even if you do add your comment to the bottom since it's easier for you to accidently remove content, doesn't have a useful edit summary unless you add it manually and also probably more likely to generate edit conflicts. In other words, what we're trying to say is the fact that you've found the 'edit this page' tab is good, but it would be far better if you found the edit button or new section tab as well and learnt to use them. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the edit button and the edit this page tab or something, the difference seem obvious to me particularly if you read the hidden comment but whatever. In any case, I've added mention of the new section tab to avoid any future confusion. Tis true if you can't find the edit button, new section tab or edit this page tab, you won't be able to add new messages, and you won't see anything helping you to find them, but to be blunt with a very big header directing you to places to get help, as well as the tabs and buttons being in somewhat prominent locations, it seems to me if you are really incapable of finding them it may be a good thing you don't edit. In any case, you can't be discourteous by not using the edit button or new section tab if you're not editing Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Bacon booze in DYK?

Is it by coincidence or design that there are two "bacon and alcohol" articles (Bacon Vodka and Bacon Martini) in the curred "Did You Know" section? Isn't it against the ethos of DYK to have hooks for similar topics on the main page at the same time? -- saberwyn 08:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

See Bacon Challenge 2009 and the subsequent discussion at Talk:DYK. You could have seen far more than two bacon items on the update :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 10:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Something is wrong with Portal:Arts

-User:The Transhumanist

Thanks for the warning; temporary fix. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]


Just so you know, Meta-Wiki changed their image, so you might want to update the image under "Wikipedia's sister projects".--Cubs197 (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]

I see the same logo that's been in use since November 2008. —David Levy 02:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Globepage question

With the "first" page of Wikipedia, why, on some computers do several of the language links get superimposed onto the globe? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

I assume you're referring to this page. On most modern browsers (Internet Explorer 7+, Mozilla Firefox 1.5+, Opera 9.0+, Safari 1.0+), the page should appear fine. Any display problems are usually due to a small screen resolution (800x600 or greater should be sufficient, always set your resolution to the maximum possible) or old, incompatible browser version. In future, please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Help Desk. —Vanderdeckenξφ 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Why on earth should someone 'always set your resolution to the maximum possible'? Modest Genius talk 02:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Library terminals are unresettable by users (and often have strange blocking policies). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Because the maximum resolution of TFT LCD (and other types of LCD) monitors is usually their native resolution, what they should be run at to maximise usable screen-space and prevent eye strain. At much lower resolutions the stretching of the image (1 pixel of the image being larger than one pixel on the monitor) causes it to look fuzzy and out of focus (see this image, ignoring the green vertical lines), which causes your eyes strain, besides just not looking so good. For a CRT monitor it makes less difference. Many TFT/LCD screens will tell you their native resolution if you press the Menu button or equivalent on the front. See also [2] and [3]. If you're having problems with reading text at your screen's maximum resolution, then you can easily increase the text size of your operating system (e.g. Windows, Mac OS X) or your browser (e.g. IE, Firefox, Safari) or both. —Vanderdeckenξφ 14:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I don't think it's unheard of that that LCD monitors will be capable of a resolution higher then the native resolution particularly if the native resolution is smaller then say 1920x1080 (since it's resonably common a monitor and especially a TV may choose to support the HDTV 1080p for a variety of reasons), downscaling is not vastly more complex then upscaling and while if your using DVI-D in particular, you will have slightly more stringent requirements, it's not actually that big a deal. And of course for CRTs the maximum resolution will usually be with a 60hz refresh rate or worse an interlaced one. So I would say asking a user to see their resolution to the maximum is at best overtly simiplistic and at worst likely to cause more harm then good. It would be far better to say to set your resolution to the native resolution if using a LCD display or optimal resolution for your eyes and preferences if using a CRT IMHO or perhaps just direct users to a page or site which explains how to find the best resolution whatever your display. Incidentally, despite the attempts by some people to ignore it, the vast majority of wikipedia pages including should be fine with a window size of ~640x480 (since window size is what matters, it doesn't matter if you have a resolution of 100000x100000 if your window size is 100x100) which I still consider the minimum we should support. Of course this doesn't mean you shouldn't use a higher resolution if you can but there's no reason to panic if you can't nor for that matter if you want to use 800x600 but can't or don't want to have a full size window or if you use an even higher resolution but due to poor eyesight have a very large text size. Wikipedia should and generally IMHO does aim to be accessible as possible via good coding instead of solely pandering to those with large displays and good eyesight due to poor coding. Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Smaller text

Why did all the text at Wikipedia suddenly got smaller? (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Hold down Ctrl and move the mouse wheel. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]
That worked for the articles, but the edit text is so small I can berly see it, and the wikipedia logo is smaller. I only have this problem with Wikipedia, no other website. I use firefox. (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I'm still thinking it's a zoom problem... Hm.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Have you tried View > Zoom > Zoom Text Only ? (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Never mind, its fixed now. (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]

In the news

Why is the assault on the Indians in Australia not covered in the "in the news" section? I tried adding it to the section but seems someone removed it. The death toll for the same has reached over 6 and certainly compared to Australian population it is a big deal losing over 6 lives. Also it is a concern as I believe its every humans duty to condemn racism. It would be great if someone could add the same.Bmayuresh (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Sorry, what? Over 6??? --candlewicke 06:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Hey, what do mean by Over 6??? Racism should be condemned in the strongest words. (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]
To be honest Wikipedia is meant to be neutral so it is not out place to codemn or condone the violence. Thus as Candlewicke and others have pointed out this can only be judged on scale and unfortunately six deaths in not enough. If you develop an article that explains the deeper political, economic and social ramifications then maybe it can be considered, but I know that, certainly from my point of view, this is, as of yet, not big enough --Daviessimo (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]

We see your point but unfortunately it has to have international significance (suppossedly) for it to be put up. That or it has to be really big.Willski72 (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Well, it is sending shockwaves in both Australia and India, so there you go. I don't think there's an article on the subject, though. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Perhaps you could update Racism in Australia instead. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Suggestions for items to feature in the "In the News" section should be posted to Wikipedia:In The News Candidates. That's the place set up to discuss whether or not an item meets the criteria posted at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. (For future reference, there are links to each of those pages in the infobox at the top of this discussion page.) -- (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Checkers Speech bias

Did you know...

...that, having never heard of it before, Wikipedian J Milburn now sees references to the Checkers speech all over the main page? J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]

WP:CHECKERSSPEECHCABAL. --Smashvilletalk 21:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]
And now, an Obama speech. Hmmm... J Milburn (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

European Parliament election 2009

I thought that the European Parliament election might be important enough to put somewhere on the mainpage. Maybe someone agree's?--SelfQ (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Yep, it's been discussed over at WP:ITN/C where consensus is to wait until results are announced (which will begin on Sunday night) before posting. It will certainly make it on though - this is the largest trans-national election in the world (electorate of 375 million representing around 500 million people) - Dumelow (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Obama speech

I'm sorry, but are we going to put every speech by every world leader on the main page of Wikipedia as news? Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

  • Concur. And why is it dubbed "highly anticipated"? By whom precisely? Only because the Americans wanted to check out the reaction of the Muslim world to what Mr.Obama has to say, it doesn't mean it was "highly" anticipated. I'm sorry, but it's a typical POV. KNewman (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I agree, I was against this at WP:ITN/C (along with one other person before it was posted). I cannot see what it is about this speech that makes it more notable than any other speech made by a head of state. I am beginning to think that this was posted just because Obama made the speech - Dumelow (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
You got to love that cult of personality he's growing, don't ya? This isn't exactly news; I was under the impression American-Muslim relations were already being improved and worked upon. --PlasmaTwa2 07:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I also agree this should go. Lots of big political news in Britain today- I doubt most of it should get on, but it certainly looks more important than this speech. We're just asking for it, putting this up... J Milburn (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

I would normally agree with this thinking. However, this speeech is front page news in my Irish newspaper today - with a shot of armed and masked Hamas fighters watching it on TV. I think it may be seen in future as a moment of change, when the USA started to reopen communications with the Muslim world. George Bush did incredible harm to the image of the USA in all the rest of the world. However, in particular he created a strong perception that it was heavily opposed to Islam, and sought to destroy it. (PLEASE DON'T FLAME ME. I do not say that perception is correct - only that it is the honest perception of huge numbers of Muslims.) You will see that this may be a watershed moment. Leave it in ITN. Michael of Lucan (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

I think the key here is that it may mark a change in relations - it is just as likely that it may not mark any change. Wikipedia does not deal in speculation on the future. Otherwise we would have to feature almost every speech ever made just in case it does have an effect. All that I are article on the speech says is that he reaffirmed the US's close bond with Israel (hardly shocking news) and recognised the right of Palestinians to aspire to statehood (but did not commit to recognise that state or say that he supported statehood). Note also that our tagline is that "...Barack Obama (pictured) delivers an address to..." seeming to indicate that his mere act of making a speech is newsworthy. My newspaper front pages today are dominated by the hasty reshuffling of Gordon Brown's cabinet, further ministerial resignations and the apparently large number of his own MPs that want him gone, if we are comparing - Dumelow (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I'd like to see it pulled as well: I don't see any objection to an article on the speech, but an ITN piece seems a bit over the top. We'll get a chance to put Barack on there again soon enough, there's no need to pad it out with half-baked stories. I also midly object to the "delivers an address to the Muslim world"—that's pure White House spin! He delivered an address to an invited audience at Cairo University (which somehow made it into the "History" section of our article on this prestigious institution!). Physchim62 (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

I agree, James Purnell resigned yesterday and 'stabbed Gordon Brown in the front' like Hazel Blears has done, but this hasnt been up even though it could lead to the collapse of a government. As interesting as Obama's speech was, unless it leads to Iran stopping uranium production etc it has no significance in itself. We may look back in future and say that that was the turning point, and then again we may not, until we know we can but speculate.Willski72 (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Yep agreed as well, don't think the Brown stuff should be in there yet either, but Obama's speech shouldn't be. Dotty••| 10:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
OK, it's a judgment call, and every country has heavy news today. The real point is how the speech has been covered - was it ignored as just another speech or was it seen as ground-breaking? In communicating with people, perception becomes reality.
We have elections today in Ireland for all local authorities and the European Parliament, and two important bye-elections. There is a huge scandal about national examination papers being revealed. Yet, the Obama speech is the main front page item in in the paper with the second largest circulation, and top right front page in the one with the largest.
It is front page news on al Jazeera, with basically positive comments. (Well, as positive as al Jazeera ever gets!) A quick glance at France and Spain shows the same, while Google News has a ferocious number of hits worldwide for the speech. Something is clearly happening, and it is appropriate to record its passage. Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I see it's gone, so the discussion is over. Majority rules. However, FYI note the Main Page of Arabic Wikipedia - it's the one just below Simple English in the left column. You don't have to read Arabic to understand what one item is - the picture is a hint. I suspect that (normally justified) fear of Anglo-centrism has actually caused a wrong assessment here. Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I don't want to besmirch the work of the ITN team at the Arabic Wikipedia (as I am not aware of their policies) but their news section doesn't strike me as representative of world news. They have the Obama address and items about Palestine, Israel, Ethiopia, Mauritania and Pakistan - all items (barring Ethiopia) relating to the Arab or Muslim worlds. I do see your point though, this story is being covered in a lot of places - Dumelow (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
How many hits a particular speech gets on sites or how it shows up in newspapers is irrelevant if every speech from the person has same effect. In canada Obama getting his dog was featured on front page right above our own damn elections. I am gonna speculate here and say that Obama has a huge PR team that works hard on making sure everything he does becomes notable in entire world. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. so what goes on ITN should not be chosen by how famous a speech got in media. thats why we have WP:ITN/C section where we can discuss all this. Good to see that it was taken down. I opposed to it once before it was posted anyways. Ashishg55 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Jeez, sure are a lot of self-important assholes on here. Guess you guys wish you got to decide what's news, huh? At least the rest of the world has acknowledged the vast importance of this speech, much more than some nobody politician getting shot. (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I believe the correct spelling is arseholes :o --Daviessimo (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Visual edible baloney.

No no, i think he does mean to call us all donkey holes. It is still my great ambition to buy a donkey and stand in New York with it telling everyone to kiss my ass!Willski72 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

What a load of pony... pony and trap... --candlewicke 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Will they be actually allowed to kiss your ass, if they are inclined that way, or is it just an expression? I am curious because in my native culture the phrase kiss my ass will be interpreted quite literally. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Yes... my donkey will be smothered in kisses. Unhygenic perphaps but hey ho!Willski72 (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Just get him vaccinated and buy him a gas mask beforehand and he'll be ok... --candlewicke 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]


Is it my imagination, or is it at least the fourth time in one week that the "did you know..." section has an entry about bacon, and at least the second that it is the only illustrated one? Is it International Bacon Week or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Complainer (talkcontribs) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

No, it's not your imagination, but a project being run by a few bacon-loving editors. Take a look at User:ChildofMidnight/Baconchallenge2009 Modest Genius talk 23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]
(edit conflict) Bacon fetishists recently gathered in a dark room, thrashed about some wild fantasies concerning their favourite topic and vomited the contents of their minds and stomachs onto the Main Page... this is no porkie pie. --candlewicke 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Oh that is giving me some really nasty thoughts!!!Willski72 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Featured Article

Is it me or is West Bengal not move protected? M.H.True Romance iS Dead 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]

No, it's protected. J.delanoygabsadds 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]
It was protected more than a year ago: [4]. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]

More color.

Can we get more color? More color on the front page. For the aesthetic factor. It may delve into the general discussion of the theme, but I tend to think of it for the front page. e.g. a bit of friendly yellow and happy cyan in the mix to give it a more harmonious touch. --AaThinker (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

How about colours that most match the main news event, such as red for the bankruptcy of GM etc.Willski72 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Lesson #672 of Wikipedia: there is ALWAYS a Main Page redesign proposal in progress. The most recent one just died a horrible death here a couple of months ago, no doubt a new one will start soon. However, constantly changing colours are not appropriate, especially as items/colours may mean different things to different people of different cultures, not to mention that changing them would be nightmare for the section editors and admins. —Vanderdeckenξφ 13:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]
No, I meant it truly only limited in colors and strictly presentation. I probably though go more into the realm of themes (for wikipedia overall) so I won't continue it here. --AaThinker (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Nah, having red colors for the news item about Detroit will be anti-Penguin bias. –Howard the Duck 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Ha! Who would have guessed it could have more than one meaning!Willski72 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Why, the penguins presumably! :) --candlewicke 23:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

These creatures are getting cleverer, they can swim, walk, almost fly AND play hockey!!! The world is at their feet!!!Willski72 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Yes i agree (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Please clarify, and address my penguin-phobia - are you saying penguins can almost play hockey? 'cause hockey-playing penguins would be terrifying, but I can copy with penguins that can almost fly and almost play hockey... Also, don't forget that these birds of evil invented their own operating system, then blamed it on a human. I use Linux just to placate the penguins... Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Im afraid they can play hockey. Even as we speak they are practicing their evil plans to woo all humans with hockey while secretly attempting to dive-bomb them while they're distracted. But not being able to because they can only almost fly....Willski72 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Yes, they can do many amazing things, but they have a weak spot, as they can be caught in a trap Random89 19:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Roger Federer In The News?

Hello, Admins why and what has taken you this long to put this in the news box when Federer won the Career Grand Slam and Record Tying Grand Slam. TennisAuthority 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]

ITN always adds Grand Slam events, does it? –Howard the Duck 17:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]
there's only few admins that work on ITN regularly? and its up now. Ashishg55 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Thanks! Good JOB! TennisAuthority 18:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]
It has been posted far quicker than the typical ITN... --candlewicke 19:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Ugh, things like this annoy me greatly. If you were in a restaurant and order, and in ten minutes are waiting for your food, do you storm into the kitchen and demand "why and what has taken you this long"? Probably not. Please actually read the box at the top of the page and remember that admins aren't psychic. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]
TennisAuthority's complaint is particularly perplexing, given the fact that the item was added one hour, fifty-two minutes earlier. —David Levy 22:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Parliament expenses row

I hate to be pedantic but it says the British Parliament, i know that that's what it's normally called by most people but technically it is the UK Parliament as Northern Irish MPs sit there as well. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know im being pedantic but it would give me peace of mind if it was changed and i cant do it myself being no good at these things!Willski72 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Thankyou!Willski72 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Although, equally if not more pedanticly, "British" is the adjectival form of "United Kingdom", there being no "Unitedkingdomish". "Britain" is ambiguous and may or may not be considered to include Northern Ireland. The change, though, cleared things up nicely. Bazza (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[]

You can see why they left it at British cant you, "UnitedKingdomish" would take far to long to say! Dont ask me why because i cant tell you but for some reason Northern Ireland is not part of "Britain" (UK instead) but the people in Northern Ireland are "British", even if they dont want to be!Willski72 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[]

"Britain" is the island; it's been known as that for an awful lot longer than the United Kingdom has existed. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Correct but Northern Ireland is not on the island of Britain (or Britannia as it was called by the Romans) it is on the island of Ireland. They are both in the British Isles though. Northern Irish people are called British by convention and because it is easier and simpler (and many see themselves as such).Willski72 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I doubt all of the Northern Irish would self-identify as British! I wasn't sure if you realised, as you said "Dont ask me why because i cant tell you". J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I know they arent, in fact its probably (very rough figures) 60% would call themselves British 40% would call themselves Irish. The point of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was to unite all the kingdoms of the British Isles together which was done in the Act of Union at the beginning of the 19th Century. Mainland Britain had been united 100 years before that as Britain. It all got complicated in Ireland with the fight for Independance etc and it was decided that Ulster (Northern Ireland) would stay part of the United Kingdom while the rest of Ireland would form its own Republic. The Republic of Ireland is within the British Isles but is no longer part of the United Kingdom (they would call themselves Irish), by contrast Northern Ireland is still part and its now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Everyone on the British mainland is British, there is no word for "UnitedKingdomish" and yet Northern Ireland is linked with that MORE than with Ireland. So the general consensus (not everyone agrees) is to call them British as well (even if a large minority dont wont to be!)Willski72 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[]

  • (Cough!) *Great* Britain. The island is Great Britain. There are other, lesser, Britains. I think Willski72's point about the British Isles is pertinent; it's why the Northern Irish can be called "British" despite not living on Great Britain. And of course, they can also be called Irish, but Ireland is another potential mine-field for Wikidrama. And on that note, I'll slink off before I get embroiled in any drama. Cheers! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Alright let me put it slightly differently. The people in Northern Ireland are seen in international circles as British, even if they dont want to be. I later pointed out the very rough and simplified percentages of agree and disagree. I see your point and i apologise for not elaborating more clearly on the point.Willski72 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[]

You might be right. I don't tend to get involved in this type of drama either. However, do you possess a reliable source for all of these statements which are potentially questionable? Or even a source? "Probably" doesn't really work very well here for anything... --candlewicke 22:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Youre quite right and the main problem with pretty much anything to do with British constitutional matters is that there are virtually no sources that could not be argued against, especially in obscure matters such as this. Its quite funny really when you look how obscure this argument has become, it was originally only about the name of the parliament at Westminster! It then descended into a conversation that i am struggling to keep up with! I propose, with the agreement of others of course, that this somewhat confusing and in depth argument be stopped before it turns into a full blown article of its own! Considering that the reason for the section in the first place has gone, i think this is probably a good place to stop (in a good, solid, no decision made position); we could continue this argument for many year with no decision actually being reached!.Willski72 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I'm not really arguing so it's fine with me. :) --candlewicke 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Phew! Hopefully thats the end and we can all go home.... (cue the hand through the ground, twitch of body, eye opening etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talkcontribs) 08:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[]

DAMIT! Ruined the effect by forgetting to sign! Looks like im the one opening the eye, sticking my hand through the earth and twitching!Willski72 (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Hand through the ground? Is that a thinly veiled reference to Britain retaking Ireland... oh no, wait, everybody is supposed to go home now, right. ;) --candlewicke 06:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[]

An interesting idea! I was thinking more along the lines of a random user coming along and starting the argument again... but it looks like were OK on that front.....Willski72 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[]

So far so good. --candlewicke 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[]
I would like to argue further about the {Noise of User being wrestled to the floor, keyboard smashing, loud shouting. Silence falls.} Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Anyone else want to try!!!!Willski72 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I think they've all gone home... --candlewicke 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I think they have! Its amazing! I think they got the hint after we got rid of Michael of Lucan....Willski72 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Got rid of him? That's a little bit confrontational... what did you do to him? That loud shouting followed by the prolonged silence is rather worrying... --candlewicke 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Arguments and abuse, eh?
Man looking for an argument: "Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!"
Abuser: "OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse."
M: "Oh, I see, well, that explains it."
A: "Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor....(Stupid git!)"
This joke would have been far easier if wikiquote has more content...
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Ah yes, room 12A... is that where we go to solve the mystery of the loud shouting and prolonged silence? --candlewicke 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Maybe.... Look he had it coming i did warn him!Willski72 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Eh ... hello... why am I lying here surrounded by a crowd of people? Did something fall on me? I just wanted to discuss the [There is a sound of heavy footsteps, and a strange crunching sound. Silence falls.} Michael of Lucan (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Yes Michael, something did fall on you. It keeps falling on you at the end of your sentences. Silence. I wonder if we'll ever find the source of that strange crunching sound though... will that answer be in 12A too? --candlewicke 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Someones deleted the fact that Michael of Lucan is actually "{Muffled talking along the lines of 'we warned you' followed by a piercing scream and a heavy thud.}"Willski72 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Yes, there is no such thing as censorship on Wikipedia. As I said, I am L----------------------. So now you know. It's out in the open. Michael of Lucan (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Sorry about that, walked into the talking doors again. It seems their going to extraodinary lengths to stop even Michael of Lucan from admitting his true identity as {a loud bang rings out and a groan of pain is heard.}Willski72 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[]

British Isles is the correct term for all the "Islands" that includes Ireland and the United Kingdom. --Spacepostman (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[]
I think you've misunderstood. We've agreed to put aside our differences on this and are instead preoccupying ourselves with such topics as censorship, falling, reward money and the contents of a mysterious room called 12A. We've discovered that this is much more fun - and there's money involved!!! (well, maybe). Now back to the main business - you are L... Lindsay Lohan? --candlewicke 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! That was funny! No hes really Lo{ choking sound followed by a faint hissing noise and the crunch of a plastic bag.}Willski72 (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. I had to cover my ears, there was an awful hiss crunch sound there. --candlewicke 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Oh really? Sorry about that, my hot air ballon had a whole in it and it fell on a plastic bag which made me choke with laughter.... Anyway Michael of Lucan told me that he was actually Lordi from Eurovision song Contest a couple of years back, all of them! Would you believe it! {whispering in the background along the lines of "what the....?}Willski72 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Hallelujah and many congratulations! Everybody happy now that we've made our minds up about who we are (or have we)? Adding further voice to this fairytale, what is that light shining in my eyes now? Love? you say? Hold me now, I believe I wanna go for a bathroom break everyway that I canWhy me? (Etc...) --candlewicke 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[]

It would be so much easier if someone could just come up with a term to describe people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Something a little easier to say than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland-ish. UKOGBANIish? (pronounced: You-cog-banish). I can picture it now: "An expenses row forces the resignation of several Youcogbanish MP's". (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[]
UKOGBANI would do I think. The double I of "Ireland" and "ish" doesn't work too well. Several Ukogbani MPs are removed from power following a row over money. --candlewicke 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[]
If only we had an encyclopedia handy, so we could look up Alternative names for the British...-gadfium 02:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Why not UKists but only pronounce the U, like UkistsWillski72 (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Several John Bulls, some pegs and some MPs from Wales and Northern Ireland are embroiled in a controversy over expenses? No, the alternatives don't really work I'm afraid... --candlewicke 16:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[]

John Bull would of had more honour than to claim expenses in the same way that some of them have! Roast Beef isnt that expensive and he can pay for his own tudor beams, moat and duck house!Willski72 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Um... MPs as farm animals? Is that an appropriate use of valuable Wikipedia paper? Please think of the trees! --candlewicke 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[]

No the duck house (which is in the mock tudor style) is for his ducks, which are protected from duck thieves by a moat.Willski72 (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Wait, you mean the guy with the moat was trying to protect his ducks?! :-O --candlewicke 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Ducks are a valuable commodity highly prized in certain circles. They can swim AND fly AND walk, why they have not yet taken over the world is beyond me....Willski72 (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]

You don't think... no, it couldn't be possible... but... no... yet, could it be that the ducks were behind that claim or even all of the claims?! I was thinking those politicians were looking a bit clueless when it came to trying to work out what was going on... --candlewicke 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Oh yes its very clever, the politicians are merely a front for our duck overlords! The politicians are paid £64,000 a year for this smokescreen while the UK Council of ducks is made up of 646 ducks who live off these puppet MPs expenses (on average about £140,000 a year). They can therefore afford to live in their mock tudor duck houses, protected from prying eyes by their moats!Willski72 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Quick - someone call The Daily Telegraph! They might be able to squeeze this astonishing revelation into their front page for tomorrow! --candlewicke 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I tried, they wouldnt listen, not even when i offered to swim across the moat to capture one of the ducks mock tudor houses.Willski72 (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

But what can you do? You know what ducks are like for fowl play!Willski72 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Cacık, a Turkish cold appetiser yoghurt variety.
In rugby union, the player pursues his opponent through levitation, an art which only the very best have mastered.
It's a neigh-on clucking disgrace at this stage - those quacks moove out of baadness if you ask me... barking mad the lot of them... some of them are right bad eggs, thinking they're the cream of the crop when in truth they're out to save their own bacon after milking the system and scrambling the small fry, but they'll end up with yoghurt on their faces yet... --candlewicke 16:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[] yes, thats just what i was going to say!Willski72 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Looks like I got there before you... --candlewicke 16:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I hadnt quite finished writing them all down yet! I'll get some of that yoghurt, stand outside Parliament after Prime Ministers Question Time and wait for them all to come pouring out. They'll think its world war 3.... with yoghurt!!!Willski72 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Normal usage is that Britain means UK & is therefore, illogically, bigger than Great Britain. Peter jackson (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[]

What about abnormal usage? --candlewicke 03:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Or indeed ignormal usage?Willski72 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I think you meant ignoble? But we'll not give you any grief over it... --candlewicke 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

My mistake! Very kind of you! Levitating ducks may be a match for our duck overlords some day!Willski72 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Speaking of levitation. --candlewicke 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Looks like he's going to swing off the pitch!Willski72 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Might be a painful landing... --candlewicke 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]

But funny to watch!Willski72 (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Oh, don't be so cruel!!! :) :) :) --candlewicke 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]

AH hes had worse....Willski72 (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Don't you think it's ironic that the reason for starting this, i.e. British political expenses and resignations, is back in the news and might soon be back In the news... --candlewicke 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

They say history repeats itself.... but generally not quite this fast! We've done a very good job keeping this on the talk page since the 13th May, using the clever tactic of talking about some very very strange things. Nearly a month!Willski72 (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Yes, sometimes I "forget" to rush my replies thus prolonging this painful agony... --candlewicke 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

To think Purnell, Blears, Flint and Hutton (but Hutton doesnt count!) The original argument seems pretty petty now! To think its been less than a month since this whole thing blew up in the politicians faces, doesnt time fly when your having fun!Willski72 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Why doesn't Hutton count? I think you did that deliberately so that I'd have to reply! Tut tut... :) --candlewicke 03:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Ooh, the suspense is a killer... :) --candlewicke 11:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Because............ he declared that he was supporting Brown when he stood down. He was leaving politics altogether, Brown had nothing to do with it (so he says anyway).Willski72 (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]

And there was me thinking they were all engaged in a plot to bring down their own Prime Minister... --candlewicke 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[]

If I contribute to this conversation, I guess I'll soon have tens of thousands of edits too. How many times will I have to contribute to get administrator rights on Wikipedia? ;-) Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Gosh, I never thought of that... what a wonderful way of adding talk page edits... --candlewicke 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Nails can be hammered or shot into materials such as wood.
Different types of nails

Wow! You've hit the nail on the head there! Lets all start typing random things (no change there then!) so that we can become administrators!Willski72 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[]

What's a nail? --candlewicke 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Indeed it could also be said, what is a hammer? And why is the hammer being so violent to the nail? All these questions need anwering.Willski72 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Why is the nail getting smaller and smaller and why are little bits falling from the wall? --candlewicke 02:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Why are the nail and hammer working together to harm what is being hammer and nailed? Should we be trying to stop them? 04redsox07 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]
And what if the hammer is being used to hammer a nail into the handle of another hammer?? :s Its like one of those optical illusions where the stairs go on forever --Daviessimo (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]
And do either the nail or the hammer feel the pain of being banged against a wall or the pleasure of being the cause of this unwarranted penetration? --candlewicke 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]

I sincerely hope not!!! But you just never know....Willski72 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]

All those poor little nails screaming for mercy with their inaudible-to-the-human-ear voices... shudder... --candlewicke 16:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Well, as long as its inaudible to the human ear.... but what if the pets can hear it!? Or indeed if the nails suddenly mutate in order to implement their revenge on the human race!?Willski72 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]

What I want to know is what is more humane (or nail-ane if you will) - hitting a nail with a hammer or firing it out of a gun?--Daviessimo (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Firing it out of a gun. Compare - hitting a human with a giant flyswatter or firing a human out of a cannon. --candlewicke 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]

It depends what type of gun, for example if the gun uses an explosion to fire (like cannons) then you are likely to get a burnt backside, which could hurt more than simply being hit with a giant flyswatter.Willski72 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[]

"In association football, FC Barcelona defeat Manchester United..."

Why does the purity talibans of Wikipedia persist calling football or soccer a term nobody else is using? Like the kibibyte silliness, this is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

That's what the article is called. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
I dont understand the problem here. u want to call football, soccer? when most of the world actually calls it football. Ashishg55 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
There are ~300,000,000 English speakers who would not call it Football. J.delanoygabsadds 18:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

URGENT NOTE I think it is important to point out quickly that there are scores of pages of discussion on the subject of what this game should be called - see discussion at the article Association Football. Angry people should read the previous half million pages there. We all know it's a US/Rest of the world issue, which will never be resolved, unless we get together and nuke the Yanks. Our User team in North Korea is working on this, and hopes to have results shortly. Have patience, comrades. Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

lol J.delanoygabsadds 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Well i know this has been discussed quite a bit before. But here is the thing. entire India calls it football. thats 1.1 billion people. That alone should be enough of an argument against the 300 mil from US. Just because US decided to create their own local game and call it football because they suck at the real one, does not mean entire world now needs to change the name. Ashishg55 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
As much as I agree with you, India aren't brilliant at football neither ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
How many of those 1.1B are native english speakers? I understand that India is technically bilingual, but I was under the understanding that large portions of the population spoke Hindi only. However, even if all 1.1B speak the Queen's English, there's no excuse for making a sentence confusing to 300+ Million people, and nearly unintelligible to a large portion of that 300+ Million. APL (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Before someone corrects me, I know I said scores of pages of discussion, then a half million pages. In estimating the pages of actual discussion, naturally I have excluded from the half million the totally unreasonable arguments of those based in the United States (which no one else agrees with, of course). However, to save space I also omitted all the utterly fair and reasonable comments abusing them viciously for being unreasonable. :-) Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Ashishg55, I don't have a problem with Wikipedia choosing one or the other term ("football" or "soccer"). After all, both terms are widely used. I do have a problem with Wikipedia using the term "association football" - a term nobody is using. Hence my comparison to "kibibyte", another term nobody is using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talkcontribs) 18:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

The point is clarity. "Football" on its own is ambiguous and confuses people in USA. "Soccer" on its own is unambiguous but virtually unused by non-USA readers. (Does it confuse them? Or just offend them? I'm not sure. Either way not good.)
"Association Football" is clear to everyone involved, just as "American Football" is clear to everyone involved even though no one in America ever spells it out like that. APL (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Ya i dont mind association football either since it is proper term anyways. And for my indian argument - India may not be 100% english speaking being developing country and all but they do use football to refer to the sport (and i know they suck too lol). And even if u were to exclude non-english speaking population (ones who do not understand english at all). Even then the number would be a lot higher than 300 million. So making a 300 mil argument is useless comparatively. Ashishg55 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
As has been every single time this sport has appeared on the Main Page, "soccer" is not just restricted to the USA; Canada and Australia also use the term to distinguish it from other sports called "football". howcheng {chat} 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Is soccer just a made up word to replace football because Americans couldnt be bothered to think of a name for their own game? Which was there first? Who knows!Willski72 (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Wiktionary says : "Colloquial abbreviation for Association football." That's a rather unsatisfying answer, though. A commenter on the talk page claims the abbreviation was started by students at Oxford. There isn't a cite for either. APL (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
See Football (word). howcheng {chat} 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Thankyou, one question answered!Willski72 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Neat. Wikipedia does have an article on everything! APL (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]
Take a look at everything Modest Genius talk 23:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

It would appear so!Willski72 (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[]

In rugby union, the player pursues his opponent through levitation, an art which only the very best have mastered.
  • Just 'Football' should have been the term used. In football (soccer) the players use their foot to kick the ball. In American football they use their arms to carry an egg.--These girls should eat less bisquits... (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]
So in rugby they do what? –Howard the Duck 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I dont want to know!Willski72 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Famously, rugby players do it with odd-shaped balls. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[]
The better quotation is "Rugby is played by men with odd-shaped balls". Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

As I said in my Urgent Note at the start of this, this is essentially a conflict between the US and the Rest of the World. The US has an odd local game. It's a bit like Rugby, but it is only played by wimps who wear armour in case they might hurt themselves. Unlike Rugby, it's played almost entirely with the hands, but they do use an egg-shaped ball. Logically, they should call it Handegg but they insist on calling it "Football".

The Rest of the World can see the absurdity of this, but Americans always had difficulties in using English properly. All we can do is keep referring to "Handegg" until they get the point, or start playing a real man's game.

At this point, maybe we should just be practical. Let's nuke 'em and solve the problem. Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Wimps? We were playing without pads and people were getting killed until President Theodore Roosevelt intervened in 1905. [1][2][3] Even with today's equipment, people still get seriously hurt. So go up to Mike Utley and call him a wimp, and you'll do the Original Research on the differences between a quad and a paraplegic. MMetro (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[]
  1. ^ Student Handbook, The Southwestern Company (Nashville, TN), 1981, p.167
  2. ^ Lewis, Guy M. (1969). "Teddy Roosevelt's Role in the 1905 Football Controversy". The Research Quarterly 40: 717–724.
  3. ^ Bennett, Tom (1976). The Pro Style: The Complete Guide to Understanding National Football League Strategy. Los Angeles: National Football League Properties, Inc., Creative Services Division, p.20
I think there's a fella called Kim something or other, who lives in one of those pesky communist countries, who maybe able to help us with that --Daviessimo (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
But does he have one of these? ("That's not a nuclear football, that's a nuclear rugby ball! No, it's a nuclear American football!") ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
File:Superbowl Trophy Crop.jpg
The Vince Lombardy Trophy depicts the football as it is about to be kicked.
American football is not played "almost entirely with the hands". I'd reckon it and rugby have the same number of instances where the ball is kicked; in American football's case after every the point after touchdown and most of the time during the fourth down. –Howard the Duck 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
We must agree to differ. However, I gather that you accept that Handegg players are wimps, who wear armour in case they get hurt. Real men play Rugby, of course. They only get substituted if the blood makes the ball slippery, or when important bits of them are falling off. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I'm pretty sure that they are secretly wearing full body Boxing Gloves to improve the chance of causing long term damage rather than the superficial, egg-lubricating injuries found in rugby. (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
If we're into real sports, nothing beats ice hockey since they hit each other with sticks, chase a "puck", play back-to-back games, and play in igloos (see "more color" section below.) –Howard the Duck 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
As noted above, Australians and Canadians have joined the sons and daughters of freedom in rejecting this legacy of British imperialism. (As a side note, does it ever concern the British that most of their former empire (aside from Ireland) has not done well at international soccer, and in fact seem to prefer either cricket (India, Pakistan), rugby (South Africa, New Zealand) or homegrown variants of whatever forgotten original soccer evolved from (US, Australia, Canada)? Hell, out of those countries the US is (I think) the only one whose soccer team has ever advanced past the first elimination round in a World Cup).

I can see from this thread that I'll have to create an article on Stefan Markovits's Offside (excellent book looking into why soccer never caught on in the US (short version: had a chance in the late 1920s but blew it due to infighting between the dominant league of the time and the national federation (which, it may be of interest, insisted on calling itself the U.S. Football Federation until 1947)). Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Pardon me, Daniel, but I moved your post down from the middle of my earlier post. Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Well, note that both the one true sport and that excuse to eat strawberries are both British inventions. Personally, I'm concerned that New Zealand has stopped calling soccer "soccer" and is now insisting it's called "football". On the subject of real-men sports, Murderball is the original name for Wheelchair rugby, which in theory is rugby for athletes with a disability, and in practice is a sport for people who think ice hockey is a game for wimps. I believe that having a disability isn't compulsory, since you'll almost certainly have one after playing murderball. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Which pretty much confirms that ITN is not North American (U.S.)-centric, at least on sports, with 4 recurring sports items as opposed to the aforemention British inventions with 8, plus a few more such as snooker "world" championship. I didn't include the original subject of this thread since everyone plays it. –Howard the Duck 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I don't know whether Ireland was included in the "only one whose soccer team has ever advanced past the first elimination round in a World Cup" but it would appear that checking Wikipedia ought to confirm that it has surpassed the record of the US since 1990. The US (with all its world might) seems to have managed only quarter-final appearance and a second round appearance (in 1994 when they were hosting the tournament) whereas Ireland already had a run of one quarter-final and two second round appearances in the four World Cups before 2006 (the length of time it took the US to get to get to the quarter finals for the first time since when exactly?) Also, if anything, there seems to be more armour used in ice-hockey than the other sports mentioned - one wonders how these pampered players would cope in a proper death match like Gaelic football or hurling... no doubt they'd demand a pay rise too... --candlewicke 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I said "aside from Ireland". Read it again.

Actually, I think that ice hockey has rather moderate padding ... certainly the shoulder pads I wore playing football are a lot bulkier than their hockey counterparts (which, in turn, are bulky compared to lacrosse shoulder pads). And you can blame the NHL for mandating that players under contract since after 1979 or so wear helmets ... it's certainly reduced injuries but I do miss watching players like Bob Nystrom skate down the ice with his blonde mane bouncing around. Granted, the elbow and knee padding are kind of thick compared to what football players wear (and elbow pads are optional in football; many players don't wear them, at least when playing on grass), but then again in football you're not putting those elbows and knees down on ice. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[]

So does that mean that... gasp... basketball is the toughest sport? They do wear tank tops and shorts only, though. –Howard the Duck 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Wait, sumo wrestling MUST take the cake on being the toughest sport ever. –Howard the Duck 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

You're all forgetting Bowls, now that can get vicious! (Not bowling for anyone getting confused!)Willski72 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Basketball... course it's tough - they're not afraid of getting an elbow in the face. And, speaking of bowls, the next World Bowls Championships will be held in Adelaide, Australia from 24 November – 9 December 2012. Any objection to me adding it to WP:ITNR? Once every four years only so we missed last year's... --candlewicke 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Hmmm... Isn't everyone glad Barcelona won (that was a not so entirely random football related comment that was needed to keep this thread going) --Daviessimo (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Do we need to run a sport and politics thread for months together? (came the reply, perfectly aware of the irony that the reply was also keeping the thread going...) Perhaps they should have separate areas of the Main Page, like WP:ERRORS... --candlewicke 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[]
ITs quite amazing how we can turn discussion of "association football" vs "football" into a debate that results in basketball being declared a tough sport. Go Leafs Go Ashishg55 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[]
This basketball team has the best team name in all of sport. Better than Total Network Solutions F.C.Howard the Duck 14:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]
If you want funny team names you can't beat these guys, although that may only be funny to the British. Alternatively you have this lot or this lot --Daviessimo (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]
It's important to point out that those "giants" refer to hot dogs. Tender Juicy Hotdogs. Yum. –Howard the Duck 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Dont forget bowls......Willski72 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[]

featured content

how on earth is the fetured content approved please inlighten this subject. i have seen no voting devices or calenders of events to comprehend the featured content at any given time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Featured material is chosen through featured article candidates, featured picture candidates, featured portal candidates, featured sound candidates, featured list candidates and featured topic candidates. For more information, see Portal:Featured content. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Also, good article candidates if you want to help and valued pictures for more content approval. Plus the procedures for Did you know and In the news on the Main Page. --candlewicke 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Collectively, articles that successfully go through the above process are referred to as "audited content", although some argue that DYK and ITN articles don't qualify as such. Also note that good topics are a sublevel of featured topics. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I could be wrong but I think the OP also (or even primarily or solely) wants to know how content is chosen to appear on the main page at any specific date/time. Firstly, and obviously, any featured content must be made featured via the processes described above. Once an article is featured it is chosen to appear on the main page by the featured article director User:Raul654 as described at Wikipedia:Today's featured article. People can make requests and vote on a some candidates at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests but Raul654 has the final say. Wikipedia:Featured pictures appear basically in order of promotion and are usually handled by User:Howcheng who you could say is the unofficial director. He does make exceptions for special events etc. The other content is not really featured content, at least not in the way we mean on wikipedia. Wikipedia:Did you know highlights recently created articles and stubs that have been significantly expanded. Several editors work on selecting which hooks appear and anyone is welcome to get involved. "In the news mentions and links to entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event—rather than conventional news items". Again several editors work on this and anyone is welcome to be involved. (In both cases admins of course have final control although they should not overide consensus.) Selected anniversaries and On this day doesn't need so much editing only maintanence and doesn't have much central discussion but before they are due to appear on the main page all days are editable so again any editor is welcome to get involved. With these 3 (DYK, ITN, SA/OTD) although the content is not featured, we still expect resonable quality if the item is to appear on the main page which means it should not have any significant problems. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[]
To be more accurate, I'm just the TFP/POTD scheduler; I don't participate much in the Featured Picture promotion process. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[]