Talk:Main Page/Archive 73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 80

New interesting article

Hey I just created Americans of French descent, also available on List of French Americans. I worked my ass off and i thought it would be great to have a very small link on the main page for a day please. let me know Abdelkweli 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

"Last updated"

Main page says "This page was last modified 20:50, 25 May 2006." This seems grossly misleading, as it's really updated several times a day, even if we only count the major edits (new featured article, picture, DYK, etc.). --zenohockey 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[]

See, that is an automated notice. The Main Page is rarely edited, but rather, the templates on the main page are. So, the notice means that the page itself was last edited on May 25 2006.--Ac1983fan (talkcontribs) 17:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Which is misleading, as zenohockey pointed out. We may know, but not all readers will. --Nelson Ricardo 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Well, yes, but there's nothing we can do about it.--Ac1983fan (talkcontribs) 18:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm sure there is. violet/riga (t) 19:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[]
~~~~~This user is on strike until the main page timestamp is made accurate.
I refuse to continue on at this site until this grave mistake is remedied! For anyone else who agrees, please add this userbox to your user page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-18 19:31
</sarcasm> — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-19 07:07
I attempted to remove the text from the main page via ParserFunctions, but it appears that such code is incompatible with this type of message. Perhaps it's possible to apply the same type of code that suppresses the "Main Page" heading in most skins. —David Levy 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I suggest submitting a request to Bugzilla. I don't see why the "last updated" timestamp can't take into consideration all the transcluded templates. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[]
That would be undesirable on most pages. It would make far more sense to simply remove the message from the main page. —David Levy 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Easy enough to do - the last modified text has an id, #lastmod, and can be hidden in the exact same way the 'Main Page' header is (a little javascript). If I had admin rights, I'd add it in. — ceejayoz talk 00:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Please post the code somewhere, and I (or another sysop) will insert it. —David Levy 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[]
In MediaWiki:Monobook.js, change the line:
document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');
document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #lastmod, #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');
Cheers! — ceejayoz talk 13:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I've inserted the code. Thanks! —David Levy 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[]

In the news....

You have the crest of the italian royal family (or whatever) as the picture, however it still says that the hawiian maraine reserve is pictured. Harley peters 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[]


Noboy mentions Juneteenth in the day section. Some Southerners celebrate it, at least in the U.S. It's a pretty minor holiday, but with more observers than World Press Freedom Day.

Added. —Cuiviénen 04:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[]

1,200,000 + articles

So, wikipedia now has 1,200,000+ articles, but on the front page, when you enter it says 1,193,000+ articles. I know that's not the main page, but there's no discussion page for that page, so I put it on this one. Anyway, I think that should be updated to say "1,200,000+ articles." Lastofthetribe 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[]

You mean the multilingual portal at don't you? You would think that would be updated more often, but it seems not. Apparently most users (including me) go straight to the wikipedia for their language, and don't use the multilingual portal. Carcharoth 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Yes, that's what i mean Lastofthetribe 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Stanley Cup?

Carolina Hurricanes won the Stanley Cup, 4-1 over Edmonton Oilers. Please post this on the main page. Thanks.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Not a single one of these sporting events will be mentioned in the history books 100 years from now. Why even bother?

<Sigh>... Why should this be on the Main Page? The league is less and less relevant in the U.S. and Canada all the time. This seems pretty irrelevant. We have arguments about whether to include the goddamn Super Bowl in the 2006 page... Why would something like this be on the main page? Grandmasterka 05:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
"National Hockey League fans returned in record numbers in the 2005-06 regular season. A total of 20,854,169 and per-game average of 16,955 attended the 1,230 games, 2.4% ahead of the 2003-04 figures (20,356,199 and 16,550) and 1.2% ahead of the previous record season of 2001-02 (20,614,613 and 16,760). In all, NHL teams played to 91.7% of capacity." [1] If NHL hockey was as irrelevent as you seem to think, their arenas would be empty. Punctured Bicycle 07:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
It's a bit of a stretch. It is the final of a major sporting even for a sizeable part of the world. The final of the Super Bowl was up, the final of the French Open was up, and the final final of the World Cup will up. I think I remember a Commonwealth Cricket tournment being up a few months ago. Since it's the final, I don't personally have a problem with it, but, I must admit, if it gets taken down, I won't object. Preston 05:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

 *comical sigh* The popularity of an event shouldn't matter much on Wikipedia, other than the usual judgment of notability that articles undergo at AfDs. The reason an article should be nominated for ITN is if it has been updated or created with recent notable events. The results of the final round (the penultimate final not the semis) could qualify it for that. But not just the scores; there needs to be a reasonable addition to said article beyond the results.

The sad thing is the FIFA articles on Wikipedia have up to the minute 'news' whereas the Wikinews entries have obvious lag. Perhaps some of those editors need to consider what project they should be contributing such information to? --Monotonehell 07:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I'm not a big sports fan, but it seems to me that "the penultimate final" is synonymous with "the semis." What distinction are you drawing? —David Levy 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

The championship of one of the oldest sports championships in North America (over 110 years and counting)? The first major-league championship for North Carolina? An event that has even caused many public disturbances (and mini-riots) in Edmonton? I think that is pretty damn notable... -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 07:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Also, I just did a quick check of some papers' online versions -- the Stanley Cup result is front-page news on most of the Canadian newspapers. If that doesn't assert notability, I don't know what does... -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 07:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Will people please stop arguing whether such and such is notable or not. This is not the issue. Again I reiterate what the In The News section is for: Wikipedia is not a news service. ITN highlights articles that have been recently created or updated with current events. Whether something is notable or not has nothing to do with its inclusion in ITN. If the article is not notable is should be deleted. If there has been recent developments beyond the day to day running of a sporting event then, yes, it can be nominated. Wikipedia is not a news service. --Monotonehell 08:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Actually, if you check the ITN inclusion criteria you will see that notability (of a sort) IS an issue (at least in a way)- stories must be 'of international importance, or at least interest'. I personally am happy for the Stanley Cup result to go up- PROVIDED that the obvious corrollary of this (that virtually any major national level sporting competition likely to interest those in other countries- that means, for example, the Italian, English, German, Spanish and South American football champions, winners of cycling competitions, various cricket champions in England, Australia, the Caribbean, India etc, rugby winners in the major nations, golf major winners, winners of major horse races, F1 and Indy race winners, big athletics results etc) are also included. PS- I don't believe there is a Commonwealth cricket tournament btw- I'm not sure what you're referring to? Badgerpatrol 08:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Since apparently the (second?) largest sporting event in the WORLD isn't noteworthy enough to be on the main page, this surely isn't either. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 09:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
In fairness to the World Cup exclusionists, I think no-one (or hardly anyone, anyway) objected to having the result of the final on the main page. From a look at Stanley Cup, it seems that this tournament is actually a series of 7 games, of which this one was the decider. I agree that people would (rightly) have been having aneurysms had any other SC results appeared on the main page, given recent events. Badgerpatrol 09:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Just to clarify - the current entry for the Stanley Cup IMO is perfectly fine. It hits the criteria I mentioned above. But to argue about relative noteworthyness of any sporting events is so subjective that the whole argument becomes moot. Any article is potentialy of "international interest"; one reader may not be interested in this but another may, and so on. So that guideline is a bit redundant. --Monotonehell 09:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I guess that you find it impossible to measure noteworthyness of a sporting event; what about the fact it (the FIFA World Cup) has been noted to be the most widely-viewed and followed sporting event in the world, exceeding even the Olympic Games? —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I agree to an extent, although I think that most disinterested observers would probably be fairly consistent in picking stories that actually are of 'international importance'- it's just that the guideline is basically often ignored or inconsistently invoked. I agree that having the ice hockey result is OK up there, but sadly I suspect there would be an uproar (regardless of the update state of the articles in question) if someone tried to add results from most of the other events I mention above (horseracing, cricket, national football champions etc) that constitute stories of at least as much, if not more, international interest as the Stanley Cup. It sticks in the throat, but that's the way of things, unfortunately. Badgerpatrol 13:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Ah, no, I don't think there'd be complaining if horseracing or cricket results were posted. They are the highest honours in their own sports, as is Lord Stanley's Cup. National football champions, however, are national. The NHL (National Hockey League) is in the US and Canada, and it includes players from Canada, the US, Czech Republic, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belarus, Latvia, Kazakhstan, and Poland. And yes, it is the last of seven games in the final round, a round preceeded by three other rounds, and by a 70-game long season. The Hurricanes and Oilers, the final teams, played around 100 games each for the title. -- Zanimum 14:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
So there are separate American and Canadian leagues with separate champions who then play each other after becoming champions of their own nation's leagues, a la the European Cup, Copa Libertadores or Heineken Cup? Badgerpatrol 14:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
From a quick look at the ice hockey pages, it seems that this is not so, and that in fact there are only 5 Canadian teams in the NHL, each of which plays against American opposition during the regular season. There are no separate American and Canadian champions, from what I can find. The Stanley Cup is not therefore an international competition, rather it is a competition with teams from two nations competing in it. This happens regularly in sports leagues around the world- some English teams play in the Scottish football league; Welsh teams play in England; Monégasque teams play in France; the situation is similar in other sports also. I counted only 14 nationalities listed in your response above; if this is a complete list then it pales in comparision to the dozens of nationalities likely to be found in any major national football league. In many cases, people in other countries have a direct interest in who does or does not do well in neighbouring countries' football and rugby leagues, since their own teams will have to play against them in international competitions the next year. Almost every European country shows league football games from other countries on major national TV networks, often prominantly. I fail to see the difference between (what is effectively) the North American 'national' ice hockey champs and any national champion in any major sport which is likely to arouse 'international interest'. Badgerpatrol 14:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Which is completely besides the point. Just because something is "international" doesn't automatically make it more "notable" than something else. The U.S. has a population of ~300 million (and comprises the majority of our readers). Monaco and Liechtenstein have a combined population of less than 100,000. Going by your logic, a match between Monaco and Liechtenstein would be more "notable" than the NBA finals, which is, frankly, absurd. Note that I don't mean to say that the SC is "more" notable than the World Cup, just that they are both significant, and deserve mention. The World Cup is already receiving more than its due by having its progress mentioned without the final match having taken place.
I agree, more or less. I was specifically responding to Zanimum's points about the comparision between the Stanley Cup (as a national level sports competition) and e.g. the Italian, Spanish, English, German national football championships. I agree that the Stanley Cup is up there, but if it is, then so should a lot of other things. It isn't clear to me that the 260-odd million Americans actually ARE the biggest users of Wikipedia, but even if they are, this encyclopaedia is an international project and no one country's interests should automatically have dominion. To make this so would be to ruin the project. In any case, this is not another tired nationalistic argument- I am just making the reasonable point that the Stanley Cup should go up, but by the same logic should many, many other sporting events. I can't help think that if someone tried to add e.g. the Serie A or La Liga champs to ITN, then it would quickly be reverted. That is not fair. Badgerpatrol 22:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I think that perhaps you're all still missing my point because you're all still arguing "this event is more important than that event". User:Msikma: it's not that I "...find it impossible to measure noteworthyness of a sporting event." It's that any such discussions are pointless as one man's meat is another's poison. It's all subjectve. Noteworthyness is such a subjective idea that WP has no actual guidline regarding it (Wikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:Notability/Essay,Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal,Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles,Wikipedia:Importance). And as such it's difficult to draw a line between sports results that can make the jump from Current sports events to ITN and those that can't. Someone sitting in Toronto (Canada) would see the Stanley Cup as the biggest thing, eclipsing the FIFA finals. Someone sitting in Sydney (Australia) would think that the NRL is the biggest thing and yet someone sitting in Melbourne (Australia) only a few hundred kilometres away would see the AFL more important. Unless that person were from the Melbourne Greek community then they may be rioting in the streets over the latest FIFA results. It's all so subjective. --Monotonehell 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

This is the most ridiculous POV ever. So by your standards, I might as well make a topic about my dog because I find my dog noteworthy? Or, if we stay inside this discussion's context, may I suggest that my dog's birthday is included in the ITN? No! Of course not! But a sporting event of which the cumulative audience is estimated to be 28.8 billion (World Cup 2002 [2])? Not noteworthy because "someone might not think that it is so"? Or because "someone might hate sport"? Ridiculous! Please take your POV someplace else. This is the very best example of notability, statistically proven. And yet, you feel like it still shouldn't be in the ITN (or at least not as well-documented as other sporting events that have been in there) because some people might not like it? Absolutely and totally ridiculous. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 15:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Agreed. And don't forget those poor people who either hate sport, or do not have an all-consuming interest in it. They would all regard these sports headlines as "uninteresting". What I value about Wikipedia is its diversity and the unexpected things that I come across. I now know what the Stanley Cup is, when I didn't before. Now this isn't a case for turning ITN or any of the other featured context into a random selection, or a more exotic selection, but just a plea for people to remember that diversity of content, and balance of content, is a good thing, and it will sometimes surprise you, but that is part of the experience. Having Wikipedia reflect only your own interests and opinions would be failing to make the most of its breadth and diversity. This can be summed up by: "visit Wikipedia intending to learn something new every day, not just to catch up on the latest news or dive into your own little area of interest". Carcharoth 17:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I agree by a mathematically improbable 101% Badgerpatrol 22:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I have a question for you all. Would the Super 14 final be included? How about the NRL final? They are similar to the Stanley Cup in that they are not international fixtures, but have competing teams from 3 and 2 (respectively) countries.

How about a random userpage link?

Hello, I think we should have a random userpage link in the navigation box because it is quite hard to find good userpages and with that link, we would easily find some great people. People would also comment to good users, therefore increasing community spirit and friendliness in the wikipedia community. Thanks. Jam 08:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Just hold on until the Wikipedia Dating Service is launched in a few months. Jellypuzzle | Talk 09:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
How would that find good userpages? I think a better way to find good editors is by their contributions. If you want community hang out in the BBSs or join one of the project teams that tickles your fancy. --Monotonehell 09:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
This feature already exists. Type "Special:Random/User" into the Search box, or click this link: Special:Random/UserGurch 10:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I tried that — it gave me this. 'Nuff said, I think. Bazza 12:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Is that not improper usage of Wikipedia server space? Although I appreciate their openness and honesty, I guess. The user never did any useful edit. Does something have to be done about it? Piet 13:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Abodes. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Misleading news on Catalonia

This is the head line today:

"Catalonia votes to adopt a new Statute of Autonomy, including a provision defining Catalonia as a nation."

This head line is misleading. It makes people read that Catalonia has become an autonomous nation, it is missinforming, as can be apreciated by the talk page with people asking about details of the new independence.

I suggest some words added to the head line in oder to be truthful. Something like:

"Catalonia votes to adopt a new Statute of Autonomy, not granting independence but including a provision defining Catalonia as a nation."

Maybe this is not so much "news" but it is giving true information to readers.


The article it points to (Statute_of_Autonomy_of_Catalonia) does not explain anything about "including a provision defining Catalonia as a nation" besides (only place the word "nation" is written):

"On January 21, 2006, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and Catalan Leader of the Opposition Artur Mas arrived at a pre-agreement about nation definition and financing in the current project of statute."

but here it is not explained what "nation definition" came to, and its significance.

It is perfectly clear that this new statue does not bring about independence. It perfects and expands the areas of autonomous government.

I am personally in favour of self-government or straight independence, but I am against misleading people, or nearly lying.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pablo2garcia (talkcontribs) 13:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC).[]

Try Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. -- 17:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

War Crimes

Hi. I received a message from Wikipedia saying that I had vandalised the "List of War Criminals" page by adding the names of all of the postwar U.S. Presidents, which is factually correct when using the website's definition of a war crime. Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding war crimes when committed by American Presidents? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. And just to humor your inanity, check out WP:NOR. If you can find a credible source listing them as war criminals, it might be considered. Now go away and listen to Green Day or something. -Elmer Clark 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Just because I'm interested in seeing this argument on the talk page of said article... ""If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged" - Noam Chomsky, circa 1990. (Note: I'm not the original Green Day fanboy poster :-P) Preston 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Please don't bite the newcomers. Thanks. —Cuiviénen 02:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]
And why is it always Green Day? You could say just about anyone, eg: The Clash or The Sex Pistols Cryomaniac 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]


It says I have new messages on the Main Page but nowhere else. What's goin' on? GangstaEB EA (comments welcome!) 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Never mind. IE messed up (I have IE and Firefox). GangstaEB EA (comments welcome!) 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Time frame in "Did You Know" entries.

I find that the DYN almost never have a date associated with them, despite the fact that most of them are of a historical nature. It would be very useful to have a year mentioned, to enable the casual reader to have some reference to when the events mentioned actually took place. Five of the six notes for today could be much more informative if they included a simple " 510 BCE..." or " ... the 1908...". It would be better to have the information in the blurb, instead of forcing them to go to the article, just to put it in perspective. --Nekura 22:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • I've been trying to add more context to the entries, which often lack any to begin with. The problem is giving them all the necessary context without making them overly long. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 00:57
    • As well as historical context, geographical context would also be good. But this is basic stuff when writing short soundbites like this, and should be (and probably is) in the guidelines for writing ITN items. See also my comment below. Carcharoth 09:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Isn't the idea to provide just a teaser to encourage the reader to click the link to read more? If so then providing a balance between too much and not enough context is a fine line to tread. --Monotonehell 10:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I think the balance should err on the side of providing enough context to give people an idea of what they are reading about. If they don't understand the relevance or interest in what they are reading, then they will either click through to one of the articles, or they will not bother at all and just move on. If they find it interesting, they will click through anyway, regardless of whether the context is there or not, but if it is not there, more people are likely to lose interest. Also, readers could feel annoyed if the item was misleading and they had to click through to discover that the item had been written from a US/North America-centric point of view. Carcharoth 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]

A dubious featured article first?

Is the first time we've had the featured article of the day not have an associated picture? I really hope this doesn't happen again. Can the people behind the article agree on something, anything? What's wrong with that graph that leads the article?

And I'm sure, after we made glacial retreat a Main Pager, we're going to be accused of having an agenda.

Nevertheless, I don't think that's anything compared to the flak we'll take for tomorrow's (as someone who worked on it during the FA nom, I well remember the reaction we got to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion — "Why are you promoting this stuff? What's worth featuring about it? It is antisemitic (insert invective here)" Much less from the far-right wing types who I fully expected to try to raise POV claims over the article's very forthright statement that they're fake. Daniel Case 03:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I see a space where a picture should be, but it's entirely transparent. Image error? — ceejayoz talk 04:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Graphs makes poor main page images. So do maps, for that matter (thumbnailed maps are generally meaningless blobs of color) but this image (a world shown in shades of orange and red) captures the point rather nicely. Raul654 04:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Wikimania message

Who decides that this Wikimania message has to be on top of my screen? I hate it. Does it have to be on every ******* page? A message in the Community Portal would be more than enough to announce something I suppose. What is the policy on this? Where should I go to complain? How can I remove it? Questions, questions.... Piet 07:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

For god's sake, it just changed! Someone is conducting experiments with the whole encyclopedia at once! Piet 07:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Just add the following line to your Special:Mypage/monobook.css:

#sitenotice { display: none; }

Then save the page, and press CTRL+F5 to refresh that file. — ;BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 07:14

Thanks. That's for all notices I guess. I will do that, but who decides that there should be a notice on every page? I really don't think it's a good idea. Piet 07:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]
There are notices like that every now and then, and yes, it's terrible. It should be floated and given a proper margin to the right side of the screen. That way, the content isn't pushed down by the message. Where can I propose such things? —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 08:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]
You might want to do
#wikimania2006 { display: none; }
instead. That will just hide this message, so if another site notice (that you might be interested in) comes along, you'll be able to see it. Icey 00:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]

The end is nigh!

Why is the exploding Wachmann^2 comet not featured on the front page? Media is full of it, sectarians are proclaiming end of the world on the streets. This is big news like the Halley! 07:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Some links: Schwassmann-Wachmann_2, [3], [4] , [5] , [6] [7]. I can't find anything from this month about it though. Jellypuzzle | Talk 10:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Update the page first to reflect the new information, then ask for it to be added to the Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. Piet 10:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

How is it big news? Or even new news? It happened back in May, and there is no threat of any of the pieces hitting us (since they're now nowhere near us, and won't be passing near us). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 15:51

73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann is the correct article. The pass by the Earth's orbit happened last month, so this is not timely -- the next time the comet and fragments cross our orbit is 2022. Better timing next time! --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Geographical context in "In the news"

Partially copied from Template talk:In the news#Geographical context and Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news, as no response at the latter page which then says to raise other problems here. The template talk comment is more for future items, this comment on the Main Page talk is to see if people think anything should be done now for the items currently on the Main Page.

Is it possible for ITN items to make the geographical context clearer? The current top two items are:

In these cases, the only clue as to where these sports events are taking place is the names of the teams. Not everyone (especially outside North America) will know where Dallas, Miami, Carolina and Edmonton are. It would be much better if the terms "USA" and "North America" (for the Stanley Cup) were used. This should even apply for the expensive painting item that gives the geographical context as "New York", though in this case more of an argument can be made for people being more likely to know where New York is, and the use of US $ also makes it clear.

I suggest the following amendments for the two sports items:

The one about the Anglican Communion should also say which country Katharine Jefferts Schori is from (the USA, as it turns out), and the Catalonia item should make clear that Catalonia is an autonomous region of Spain.

Suggested changes to add geographical and historical context:

Carcharoth 10:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I support this, if only because Carcharoth has not only put forward a well-worded suggestion, but has gone to the effort of crafted some nice examples to illustrate it. Bazza 12:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I suggest these item are not included at all. How are theses relevant world events. No-one outside America could give a = you know what about these. It's highlights the over Americanisation of Wikipedia. If you have these you should have the FA Cup winners the Premier League winners from England aswell as France Germany Italy Spain etc and other sports aswell rugby golf F1 tennis etc. Only World Cup winner should be included as a news item. Football world cup, Rugby, major tennis championships ie the Grand slams, the golf Majors etc not these Amercia only events. Jimmmmmmmmm 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Endless discussion, not worth spending more time on it. Funny though that you mention rugby as a world-wide sport. NBA has much more worldwide relevance than rugby, which is a 10 nations sport. Same with golf. Endless discussion, we should open a separate page for this. Or a separate wiki: 21:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

It probably is an endless discussion so this is my last piont here. I mention Rugby only in the context of World Champions. These events are not World Championship events, they are American events. Like I say are we to included every major football honour on the front page? It is the most watched sport on the planet after all. No of course we won't becaue a) it's not relevant as a World event and b) it's not the most popular sport in the US so it won't get on the front page. Only World Champions should get mentioned simple as. Or I expect to come back here in May and find the English Premier League Champions on there the FA Cup winners the French Cup and League Winners the German and Spanish along wioth the Italians and of course the American and Brazilians along with every other nation. Also all the Rugby Cup winners and I'll expect all the Tennis Majors to get mention to. No didn't think so. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Umm... ITN has included the results of the Champions League final and various Rugby league finals over the past few months.
(See Champions League, Heineken Cup (rugby), Cricket World Cup)
In other words, I don't see this so-called North American bias....

--Madchester 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

These are inter-continental events. Was Chelsea winning the Premiership included. It's a national championship just like the NBA. It's also the most watch football league in the world but as it's only national champions it shouldn't be on ITN and same goes for Miami Heat etc. If you read my comment I never mention the Champions League. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Not world events? First, the United States and Canada are members of the world; they aren't magically excluded. Second, ever hear of Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitzki, Tony Parker, or any of the other 82 international players currently playing in the NBA (roughly 18% of the league), many of whom are stars? [8] Third, in 2005-06 the NBA was broadcast in 215 countries in 43 different languages, and given that the sport of basketball is one of the most popular in the world I find it hard to believe that only Americans care about the NBA championship. [9] For these same reasons I think that adding the "U.S." qualifier as originally suggested is misleading.Punctured Bicycle 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]
You are missing my point, which is that many, many people who read the ITN items will not recognise the term NBA or even the expanded name of National Basketball Association. They will not realise its international composition, or that it is geographically national, and they will ask what nation the National Basketball Association is based in. This is basic stuff. Why do people persist in failing to realise the need for geographical (and historical) context when writing for an international audience. Carcharoth 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Your proposed rewording, as is, is awkward/misleading to me. "The 2006 US National Basketball Association Finals are won by Miami Heat who defeated the Dallas Mavericks." suggests that "US" is part of the name and/or that there is a non-US National Basketball Association Finals (hence the need to distinguish this one as US), neither of which is true. Also keep in mind that the NBA is not limited to the USA even geographically, as there exists the Toronto Raptors. If you want to establish geographic context in this particular instance, it should say "In the U.S., the Miami Heat defeat the Dallas Mavericks to win the 2006 National Basketball Association Finals." Punctured Bicycle 05:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]
OK, I now agree that my placing of the US qualifier was misleading, and that your version of the news item is better. But I still don't see any sign of anyone making any of these changes, which is rather disappointing. See my new comment below. Carcharoth 09:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]

OK. The two sporting items in question in this discussion have been on the Main Page in a clearly US/North America-centric form for at least a day now, and for one of them, for over two days. The ice hockey item has been there since 03:07 on 20 June (see here), and the basketball item has been there since 04:04 on 21 June (see here). I first raised this issue at 09:54 on 20 June at the "Main Page errors page" here, and subsequently raised it at 09:14 on 21 June at the template talk for "In the news" here, and then at 09:37 on 21 June on this page (Talk Main Page) here, and then made this summary at 09:44 on 22 June. So my question is, if something like this gets little response, is there anywhere else I can raise issues like this so they can be either dealt with or rejected before the whole issue becomes redundant when the items drop off the page? If there is a reason for lagging response times (I've noticed that this sometimes happens when there is some big discussion going on somewhere else in Wikipedia), then that would be handy to know. Carcharoth 09:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]

See my comments on this issue above re the Stanley Cup. Sadly, there IS a North American bias here, as elegantly demonstrated by Madchester, North American (or, in the case of the NBA, basically just US) sporting events are conflated with e.g. European-level international tournaments elsewhere. I don't object to the NBA champions or the ice hockey champions on the main page- but if these go up, so should e.g. the English, German, Italian, Spanish etc etc football champions, and many, many other events besides. I don't recall seeing e.g. 'Chelsea retain Premier League title' (note the lack of a geographic descriptor!) appearing on the main page (although if it has and someone can supply the diff I'd be much obliged), and I suspect we are unlikely to see it in the future either. All the same arguments apply to many foreign national champions as do to US national-level champions. There is an obvious double standard operating here. Despite the fact that I find it useful and informative, I am increasingly leaning towards the stance of getting rid of ITN entirely. Badgerpatrol 13:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]
The problem as far as I can see is that the North American sports industry works quite differently to the rest of the world's. This leads to North American editors failing to understand why other editors criticize their "bias". For instance, the pinnacle for the major North American sports of baseball, (American) football, basketball and ice hockey actually is the domestic North American competitions in these sports! Hence the comment that I could hardly stop myself laughing at: the world cares about basketball, so it cares about the NBA, how is that a U.S. bias!? Of course, my first thought was: absolutely, and because the world cares about basketball so much, let's also feature the Lithuanian and Italian champions too! ;-) But in a peculiar sense, that American editor is right, since the NBA (although only a domestic competition) is basketball's top prize. It's little wonder that North American editors are thoroughly confused by the Soccer World Cup, when what they are used to would be equivalent to "the world's top soccer team is the Major League Soccer champion". American editors are not really used to the idea of "Team USA" in the same way as editors from other nations. For most sports and sports fans around the world, the games that really matter are the internationals, in which the very best players from that country compete against the very best players from another country, the country team is seen as more important than the club team, and in which the World Cup or World Championship (depending on the sport) is the top prize. That works in the world's two most popular sports (soccer and cricket) and a host of others including rugby and field hockey. Americans are simply not used to this, and therefore it's no surprise that the idea that their club-centric, domestic title-centric approach could be seen as geographically biased is alien to them. Because they are not so used to the sports leagues of other countries, the fact that international players play in the North American domestic leagues can be mistaken for international relevance. Of course, how many foreigners play in the soccer teams of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Seria A or the Premiership? I suspect a far greater proportion than in the NBA, given that many soccer teams field teams in which there are more international players than domestic ones. But I don't see that this argument will get those championship results posted onto ITN. I fear the best advice I can offer to readers outside North America is to try to be patient and understanding to those editors; the world can seem a very different place when you are inside a bubble so large. All this of course is irrelevant to Carcharoth's proposal, which I find excellent.TheGrappler 17:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Why, thank-you. In return, may I say that I find your explanation of the "North American bias" to be very illuminating. Please do keep telling people this, and maybe they will eventually understand. Just one further point, the club vs country issue is not unique to the USA. There are many countries (including England) in which you will find people who care more about the results of their football club, than the results of the national team. But this is different from the US attitude in basketball, which sometimes seems to be that the national team is a bit irrelevant, just something to win Olympic medals with (well, it was until they failed to even do that). Carcharoth 11:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]
And another thing, I hope when you're joking when calling soccer and cricket the two most popular sports. I'm growing weary of people accusing Americans of not understanding sports in the rest of the world, and then without hesitation calling cricket and rugby worldwide sports. Rugby is played in 10 countries. Cricket is played in England and its former colonies. The NBA is MUCH more important and has MUCH more worldwide significance than all cricket competitions put together. If you fail to see that, don't accuse other people of bias. Piet 08:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Well, this isn't a peeing contest to decide which sport is 'better' than any other, it's a discussion about policy and protocol. Cricket and basketball are probably similar in their reach; cricket is probably played by more people, basketball is probably played in more countries. Their relative international significance is probably broadly similar, although this does seem to be changing in favour of basketball. Anyway, this whole discussion (and the tangentially related one re the World Cup scores on the main page) now provides two new precedents: 1) Global sports tournaments (e.g. the Olympics, World Cup, Commonwealth Games) are NOT to have their (ongoing) results listed on the main page; 2) But it IS OK for national-level sports champions to be listed on ITN, with or without geographic descriptor, provided they are linking to an updated page, as per the (rarely adhered to) ITN guidelines. So long as these two new precedents are enforced fairly and without prejudice, everyone will be happy! Badgerpatrol 13:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

On the players from differnet nations making a world event I totally agree with the Grappler. Just because nationa represent doesn't make it world news. In the English Football (soccer to all you Yanks) Premier League we have English, Scottich Welsh Irish player obviously plus players from France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Austria, Poland, Ukraine, Belerus, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Brazil, USA, Canada, Australia, Ghana, Togo, South Africa, Switzerland, China, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey, Ecuador, Serbia, Czech Republic, Senegal, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Uraguay, Israel, Slovakia, Jamaica, Belgium, Morocco, Columbia, Trinidad and Tobago, Bulgaria, Congo, New Zealand, Zambian, Russia, Peru, Oman, Mali, India, Hungrey, Granada, Georgia, Eygpt, Craotia and Zimbabwe. Now that my American friend is a truely International League and surely then the Premier League, FA Cup and League Cup winner from England deserve a mention on ITN when the trophy is won. Well by puntured bycycles reckoning anyway. Jimmmmmmmmm 20:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]

And a final comment: now that these news items have dropped off the ITN template, I think it is time to end this discussion, but I will just record, again, my disappointment that nothing actually got done about my suggested tweaks to to give geographical context to the ITN items. I realise that there is not a lot of room, but compact writing to include as much relevant information as possible, though a skill, is still possible. Carcharoth 11:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I advise Jimmmmmmmmm to be careful with the use Yank, as it could be taken as an insult to us Southerners. Tennis Dynamite 21:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Yank is a term used in Britain to refer to all Americans and not in derogatory way it's just a nickname like the Aussie call us Pommies. But please don't just pull that out that from the message and take the valid point I'm actually making. Jimmmmmmmmm 09:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Accessibility issues

Hello. All the wikitables used in the main page are layout tables and not data tables. Therefore, for accessibility reasons, no caption, row, or column headers shoud be used. Currently, the only needed change is to replace ! with | (I've tested it in Firefox, and at first sight it seems equal). Thanks! --surueña 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Global warning featured article misses some pictures

The featured article about Golbal warning is the first featured article i've ever seen without a picture.It would be best to keep that tradition and add a picture to this featured article on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Agreed. Its freaking me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrockley (talkcontribs)
The picture, a map/diagram, is perfectly suitable to help illustrate the article. It does so effectively. You can see the yellow-red colors that show the predicted effect of global warming across various parts of the world. In particular, you can see all the dark red around the North pole, which is expected to experience the greatest effects. A photograph cannot illustrate this near as well as the diagram/map. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

In that case , why isn't anybody , any admins putting a picture yet . The main picture of the article seems fine to illustrate the golbal warming effect

There is a picture up. It shows a map of the world with the predicted effects of global warming. Do you not see this picture? —Cuiviénen 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

-Actually no , I dont see any picture in place.

There is an image. Why you don't see it, I don't know. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 16:32

-Hmm it's strange , i don't see any picture , i think the problem is only restricted to me than

I just purged the main page, to clear the server cache. Maybe that helps? You might also try hitting "F5" on your keyboard to refresh the page. What browser and version are you using? -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

-mozilla firefox version

Press CTRL+F5 on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 16:46

It refreshes but the picture doesn't appear.I tried with explorer , i doesn't work either . I rebooted my computer and the result is the same , i think the problem comes from my firewall , zonealarm.

Can you see the image here: Image:Global_Warming_Predictions_Map.jpg -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Ok i see the link to an image, but when i follow that link , all i see is a picture of white and grey dots. This picture seems to be invisible to my computer for some reason.

Bizarre. I don't know what else to suggest. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Ok i can see it , but it was by removing my firewall and ad-watch . Whatever it did prevented me from seeing the picture Now i get it . I was the ad-blocking feature of zonealarm that blocked the picture as if it was an ad. Nice picture by the way

Good to hear that you found the problem. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Looking at the image properties, the problem is that the URL of the thumbnail happens to have "/ad/" in it. My Firefox adblocker is blocking it too. Redquark 17:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]
LOL... ridiculous. Perhaps someone should fire off an email to the people who write the addblocker to get Wikipedia and its sister sites whitelisted. Raul654 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I've reuploaded the image to work around the problem, so it should display now. I think there's an existing bug report for MediaWiki relating to this as well. — sjorford++ 18:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[]


Does putting a link to an Ogrish video in a wikipedia article violate anything? Ogrish does have permission to have the video, so is it ok to link it via wikipedia article? I hope somebody can answer. Thanks TripleH1976 Wed, 19:39 p.m., 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is, but please do make sure there's some kind of warning of gore or heavy violence if the video is about that. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Scholarships to U of WM

Regarding WikiMania 2006, the top of several pages say Scholarships are available; applications are due by June 28. Scholarships??? From the scholarship article:

A scholarship is an award of access to an institution or a financial aid award for an individual (a "scholar") for the purposes of furthering their education.

I understand that WikiMania may be an enlightening and perhaps educational experience. But seriously; is this the University of WikiMania? Perhaps financial assistance would sound less... uh... scholarly. joturner 14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]

"Financial assistance" sounds like something that everyone/anyone is entitled to. A "scholarship" implies not an entitlement, but a merit/needs-based award that only some people will receive. -Aude (talk contribs) 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I agree -- this is in line with American usage for non-academic conferences (which are usually considered "educational" in a resume sense). I don't find the word "scholarship" remarkable.--Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Keyboard Focus - Cursor Position

I would really, really like it if the keyboard focus was set to the "search" field when the Main Page loads. You have to click there with your mouse before you can type a search term.

There doesn't appear to be any other entries to type anything into on the Main Page - so why not have the focus go right to the search box?

See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google? - BT 23:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Maybe we could have it as an option in our preferences? That would be a good comprimise. Also alot more people are using scrollwheels on their mouse, making the rationale in the faq increasingly irrelevant. 07:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Try searching BugZilla: to see if this request has already been made and, if not, go ahead and make a request of the developers. - BT 13:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]

OK, fair enough. But how about designating the search field as the first tab-stop? The current behavior prevents you from even tabbing your cursor into the search field (in a reasonable amount of key-presses).

It almost feels like searches are being discouraged.

Picture to go with ICC

Does a picture of Sadam Hussain go with the ICC discussion? It seems out of place.

No, it doesn't. It goes with the 'Khamis al-Obeidi, a chief defence lawyer for Saddam Hussein (pictured), is assassinated in Baghdad.' news item. Preston 04:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I would like to change the picture to this one of Jacques Rogge, but seem to be blocked from editing. This picture makes much mores sense as the second item is not even about Hussein himself. The Olympic rings in the background are also really illustrative. Thanks for any assistance. gidonb 15:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]

We don't use fair use images on {{In the news}}, so this picture won't work. -Aude (talk contribs) 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]
View on Sotsji from black sea.jpg

Ok, how about this beautiful picture of Sochi in the public domain? gidonb 16:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • It doesn't work so well as a small thumbnail, and doesn't really have much to do with the news entry. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:15

It's a candidate city. gidonb 17:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]

It's unfair to the other cities that are candidates, sends the message that Wikipedia supports Sochi and not the others, in my opinion. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 18:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Its only the first city for which we happen to have a picture. We have pics of Salzberg as well. Some of them do really good as thumbnails. Otherswise new items will come along. What do I need to do to edit the news again? gidonb 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Image:jaques_rogge.jpg was removed from this page since it fell under fair use. joturner 06:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

CSS classes?

Weren't the styles on the main page going to be implemented as CSS classes after the voting was completed? I'm trying to style the Main Page in my user CSS and it's rather frustrating without them. æ² 2006-06-23t18:04z

June 23rd, "On This Day..."

Why hasn't the Battle of Banockburn been included? It's one of the most famous battles in Scottish History, yet it has been excluded. English censorship, is the most likely reason im afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossph1 (talkcontribs)

Im very sorry. I didnt see that it was coming up tomorrow. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossph1 (talkcontribs)
Regardless, there are always more anniversaries than can reasonably be included on the Main Page. The editors should try to rotate the events that do appear on a given date. The point is to expose articles to more readers. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I can assure you, we English oppressors have got far more important things to worry about than censoring Scottish history. — sjorford++ 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]
You should probably spell it right. ;-) Battle of Bannockburnceejayoz talk 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Sjorford, that was beautiful. =p - Kookykman|(t)e 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]


I'm sure there's a page for this (I'm pretty sure I've seen it) but has anyone else noticed the layout of the French Wikipedia Main Page? I think it looks a little more streamlined, although the article of the day is a little far down ion my opinion. EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I think the FA is what really attracts people to Wikipedia in the first place. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I see boxes like that and a search box I automatically assume it's one of those generic search engines. Hello! Saturday, June 24, 2006, 06:34 (UTC)
I personally grealy prefer the Dutch and Hebrew Wikipedias. They have very nice main page designs. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 15:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]


Main page "on this day" says: "First known sighting of UFOs: Kenneth Arnold saw nine luminous disks in the form of saucers flying above the U.S. state of Washington."

But the first part of the sentence is not true, and is refuted by the UFO and Kenneth Arnold articles. It was not the "first known sighting of UFO's". It was the first widely reported post-WWII UFO sighting and the origin of the term "flying saucer". There are lots of UFO sightings prior to Arnold's in 1947.Derek Balsam 13:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]


No one interested? Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page#Proposal for restructuring ITN Oh well then. --Monotonehell 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Front Page notice

It is regarding this:

Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
1,210,396 articles in English

I believe the "anyone can edit" should have disclaimer that source must be verifiable, useful, and bunch of other stuff that people usually not read through. Many users and editors do not even read the bottom Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. --Dooly00000 18:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • I don't think it's going to make much difference regardless of where we put it, unless it's a check box that needs to be checked before the edit can be accepted. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:50
    Sure it does, whevener people click edit they view the "disclaimer". ;) --Cat out 23:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Add language Nepali in Languages list of main page

Nepali language missing Somebody in Admin could please add Nepali in the list of Languages in the main page. As languages list are kept, Nepal should be included and should be present

The Main Page includes only languages with more than 1,000 articles. The Nepali Wikipedia only has 76 at the moment, and thus isn't included. It does appear on the complete list. — ceejayoz talk 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Anyone consider in cherokee?

The Cherokee language and its alphabet should be tried out. The language has been revived across the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The Cherokee syllabary is one of the few Native American alphabets in existence. Hundreds of small language versions already exist and hundreds of regional dialects are used on wikipedia. Cherokee is one of the many Native American languages in part of the effort for preservation and it's taught in public schools in the region around Tahlequah, OK. can be helpful to celebrate diversity of languages native to North America. I appreciate wikipedia for reading this as I share my concern on adding another language to the wikipedia main page. + 08:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

There seems to already be one at , although it only has a handful of articles at present, so it also doesn't appear in the list on the Main Page. If you'd like to contribute, just jump right in and start creating articles - there doesn't seem to be much of a community there at the moment though. You might like to read m:Help:How to start a new Wikipedia if you're interested in helping to build up the Cherokee edition. — sjorford++ 11:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Usage of templates

Is it really allowed for templates on the main page to be used on userpages? User:Sigh 14 for instance has an identical copy of main on his userpage. This should be something we should avoid. Just redirect your userpage to main if you really want to... --Cat out 23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I guess it's not really harmful, but it's a bit pointless, as you say. -- Mithent 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Why should it be avoided?? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 05:03
What harm could it possibly do? — ceejayoz talk 07:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Possibly the user in question is investigating how things work and wants to play around with the main page code? I know I've done similar when I was looking at how things work. The sandbox disapears too quickly to do any long term messing around. --Monotonehell 10:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

When I have been on the run to look for Star Wars books on the net, I often come across They have been copying text from Wikipedia. Here is one of them. [10] Compare it to tis article Boba Fett: Pursuit. Are they allowed to copy and paste text from the English Wiki to its own site? Tell me about it on my talk page. Weirdy 23:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC).[]

Yes, they are allowed to copy as all text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (See Copyrights for details).--Clawed 23:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Yes, is a mirror of Wikipedia. (see method for more details)--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

On this day...

The second entry is in the present tense, while the others are in the past tense. Eixo 13:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Canderson7 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Hey, what else would we anally retentive do with our time? Eixo 14:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

FA blurbs

Why can't they all be as short as today's Uma Thurman one? Noone is going to read through the ones that are usually twice this length.--Pharos 16:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Based on... what exactly? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 18:14
    • Well... myself, for lack of a better metric, and the observation that people are generally distracted by big blocks of text. Personally, on a day for day basis, I'm actually more likely to read the entire FA article than the whole main page blurb. I can't speak for the personal experiences of others, but remember that non-Wikipedians are likely be be quite a bit more "casual" about this. Have others shared by perception?--Pharos 18:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
      • It's over stubby. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
      • Which people are distracted by big blocks of text? You... and who else? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 18:43
        • Me. If I may say, you have a tendency to come across as a little bit confrontational in these kind of discussions Brian- Do you think you might try and moderate your tone a little bit? Badgerpatrol 18:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
          • How do you suggest I reword those questions to seem less confrontational? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:24
            • Ah Brian- if you need me to tell you, you'll never learn! A good start would be to attempt to be less abrupt in your manner. Different people express themselves in different ways, it's not a big deal. Badgerpatrol 21:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
          • Ok, Pharos and Badgerpatrol. Two people find blocks of text distracting. Anyone else? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:24
  • My first thought was that it looked too short today. We usually have a good blurb length, and I have to disagree that todays is better. violet/riga (t) 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
    • I agree with Violetriga. I've seen summaries that were too long, but this one is too short. —David Levy 19:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
    • I concur. — ceejayoz talk 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
    • That's exactly what I thought. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:26
      • Are you sure this isn't just a reaction to the unusualness of an FA blurb of this length? I think what we need is an assessment independent of established practice. What do you think, objectively, should be included in the Thurman blurb that isn't there now?--Pharos 20:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
        • Established practice is how most processes work on the site. Guidelines and policies are simply explanations of how the community tends to do things. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:26
          • I view the FA blurb as being a bit like a book jacket- a short blurb to entice the reader in, if they wish to read further. In terms of length and style, these wouldn't be bad analogues to refer to. Today's blurb seems to my reading to establish pretty much the basics of Thurman's career and of the article, whilst still preserving brevity, although the sentences are a bit staccato and I might add a clause here and there. Longer is not necessarily better (in this context, anyway) ;-) Badgerpatrol 21:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

How about the quality of the intro? It says that she started acting in 1988, then later down we can read that 'She is best known for her films released in the 1990s and 2000s'. Right, that should correct the automatic assumption that her movies made in 1988/89 provide the basis for her fame... Eixo 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Quality's even more important than quantity, I agree. I must admit, I thought there were a few similar rickets in there when I took a look at the article, maybe a few too many for an FA, although I must confess I didn't study it in detail. The editor may have been trying to make the point that she is known for her acting rather than modeling, although it isn't at all clear and is certainly a bit laboured. Badgerpatrol 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
  • I've thought for some time that it would be better if these blurbs were approved as part of the FAC process, where they would be subject to a little bit of review beforehand. One "real paragraph" like today would I think be effective in a book jacket sort-of-way.--Pharos 23:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Actually, that's what the first paragraph of the intro is for, definition+context, no non-crucial details. We should make sure article intros are properly written and then just reuse the text we already have. Zocky | picture popups 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]

The Today's Featured Article picture

this is a much nicer picture of Uma Thurman, can someone put it up please? It's CC-AT-SA, so it shouldn't be a problem. Oskar 18:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • I find it frightening. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:22
    • I think the one on the main page now is horrible, and that one is the only non-copyrighted alternative. It's fairly nice, alot better than the other one, so can someone please change the main page? Oskar 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
      • I'd have to agree. A pity the best photos of her are copyrighted - the free ones don't do her justice. — ceejayoz talk 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
        • I'm gonna have to go with Brian on this one. I don't know if I'm gonna be able to sleep tonight...Eixo 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
          • ....It looks like she's squinting at something..... 23:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]
            • The one currently up there is not a great pic by any means, but I still wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers. The 'one eye much bigger than the other' thing would admittedly take some getting used to, however. Badgerpatrol 00:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

On this day

"Statehood Day" is a red link. SCHZMO 23:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Thanks; the matter has been taken care of. joturner 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I'm impressed.

I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised that noone has come onto here in the past few days to accuse Wikipedia of racism, bias, or has tried to suggest that the featured articles chosen shouldn't have appeared, especially given the usual reactions when articles on popular actors or controversial organisations are featured on the Main Page. GeeJo (t)(c) • 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Popular actors aren't a problem- I think it's when the absolute nobodies get up there that people find fault, rightly or wrongly. Badgerpatrol 23:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

KaDee Strickland??? That's not even a great article...I mean, its ok as far as a celebrity bio goes, but I had never heard of her until I saw it on the front page either. Yeah I'm surprised that there haven't been any detractors in recent days either...maybe they finally realised what open-source meant. Antimatter 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Actually the Main Page FA selections of the last couple of weeks have been very good. Since, say, June 11, almost all of them have been interesting subjects. Well there was Phil Collins of course, but let's forget about him (I actually had until he showed up on the Main Page). Piet 06:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Featured Article

I, myself, was not aware that "Kolkata" and "Calcutta" were the same city. In the article itself it says parenthetically "(formerly Calcutta)". Perhaps we could show this on the front page, too. AdamBiswanger1 01:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Agreed. I just made the same realisation Nfitz 15:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Speaking of the featured article on Kolkata, it seems that clicking on the word 'More' at the end of the blurb on the front page leads to yesterday's featured article on Uma Thurman, instead of the Kolkata article. Is this a mistake? Mn1 02:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Fixed. Raul654 02:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

The Kolkata article was recently corrected to reflect that Kolkata is now the 3rs larges agglomeration in India, not the 2nd. Therefore, the main page is inconsistant with the article. See the talk page for Kolkata. Dgies 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

There's a typo in the first sentence (in the parenthetic phrase). It's formerly, not formely. --Ttownfeen 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Already reported on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors & Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 26, 2006 with no response from any admins yet. Well, the day is almost over. Let it be ..... -- 23:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Now it's fixed. -- 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

On this day, June 26

"1409 - Western Schism: The Catholic church is led into a double schism as Petros Philargos is crowned Pope Alexander V after the Council of Pisa, joining Pope Gregory XII in Rome and Avignon Pope Benedict XIII in Avignon." Is the redundant use of Avignon necessary? Resolute 03:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Warren Buffet story - It's more than one Charity.

Just a small note. The article on Wikipedia states Warren Buffet will give to a single charity, that is incorrect. According to the news he will actually be donating to *several* charities *and* organisations. The Bill Gates Foundation is one is one of them (yes) it is supposed to get the lion share, however it is not the only one to receive a donation. Just something to keep in mind. (Letters from Warren E. Buffett Regarding Pledges to Make Gifts of Berkshire Stock) CaribDigita 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Um.. Conflicting reports as to the amount. The bbc have 37 bn. [11] Kaushik twin 09:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
In having worked for a publishing company myself there will be conflicting reports. The thing is, Buffet is giving away his fund's stock- according to the letters on his websites. Stocks that wil change in value from day to day- and possibly at different times of the day. Compound to that, most mediahouses round to either the nearest million or possibly billion. To further complicate the whole thing, the BBC may also be rounding by the current $USD to British £ exchange rate which again fluctuates at different times of the day. CaribDigita 14:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
BBC, ABC, and Fortune (the original reporter of the news) ALL put the figure at $37bn (USD). ~ clearthought 02:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Today is the CN Tower's 30th Birthday

CN Tower

The CN Tower (pictured right), the tallest freestanding structure on land, was opened to the public on June 26, 1976. Can this be mentioned in the On this day section, please ? -- 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Well, for the 30th anniversary, why not? Posted.--Pharos 07:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Thanks for posting, Pharos. -- 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

wikipedia fa are not for poor people

i dont have any money to spend and to get a featured article you need to spend like $1000 on books. what a rip Krein 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

uh... wha? - Adolphus79 05:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Actually most Wikipedian steal their books from little-known but spawling government warehouses. Then, if they return them in a couple of weeks, the well-trained but underpaid armed guards are none the wiser.--Pharos 06:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
ROFL, armed librarians... - Adolphus79 06:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Amen to that. Goverment Warehouses, I would love to have a sense of humor that good. (Subtle jokes like that are my fav.)Dislexsick 10:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
LOL. Or you could just do it the old fashioned way: go to the library. And, since you have shown you have internet access, you could also do a Google on the topic to do your research. Lastly, there are many other people with many resources that would help you with your article and peer-edit it. That is the spirit of Wikipedia. ~ clearthought 16:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
That was beautiful. I salute you! — ceejayoz talk 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Also, if you are using Wikipedia you are presumably connected to the internet. Try Google Scholar, JSTOR, Web of Knowledge etc; they are awesome for Wikipedia research. Batmanand | Talk 09:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Totally hilarious! (sarcasm) Skinnyweed 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]


Is there any way I can add an article to my watchlist without watching the accompanying talk page? This main page only changes occasionally, being protected, but this talk page gets updated daily. --Tivedshambo (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Not in my knowledge. But what's wrong with adding both; you can just ignore that which you don't want to watch.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 08:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Also the main page changes so rarely and the changes are usually not significant, so I don't see why you would watch it. Are you interested in the changing information? Because the actual information is on other pages that are included. The main page itself contains layout only and has not changed in a whole month. Piet 08:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm interested in the technical aspect of it - which templates are used, etc. --Tivedshambo (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
For that you can just click on the "edit this page" or "view source" button depending on whether you're an admin or not. If you're trying to keep track of the changes to the templates on the Main Page, then rest assured that they are most likely to never be changed on the Main Page itself, though their content changes in their respective pages.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 10:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm not an admin - I'm relative newbie (about 2 months), but exploring how templates are used. I was aware of how to view source - though it seems to have changed to "how to view source" now. Thanks for your help. --Tivedshambo (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Did you know?

Under the Luis Da Silva "did you know..." it mentions his research "motivated a special answer-like report by two of the most prestigious scientists of the time: Jean-Antoine Chaptal and Joseph-Louis Gay-Lussac?"

What is an "answer-like report?" That doesn't sound like a scientific term.

  • I don't know why some DYK updaters don't proofread these things before submitting. I'm always correcting mistakes or nonsense like that. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 14:11

Image Flip Request

I'd hate to edit a photo, and I'm not sure if that's really allowed, but can we get that picture of Marí Alkatiri flipped? I know we're not going to be putting a screenshot of the Main Page into the Louvre, but it seems like bad composition to have the man staring off the edge of the screen. And, for clarification, I meant flipped horizontally. joturner 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I think you should keep the authenticity of the photograph as is.-- 18:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Joturner, you may want to crop and upload instead of "flipping". Wikimedia Commons can take both the pre-crop and cropped versions as two different files. -- 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Edit the article to put the picture on the left?--Tivedshambo (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Wimbledon 2006

2006 Wimbledon Championships, the major tennis event of the year, has started and I think we need to publicise this. Skinnyweed 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]

And the FIFA World Cup the biggest sprting event in the world is going on and people didn't want it showing at.

Jimmmmmmmmm 19:07 26 June 2006

Tighten your seatbelts for July 9; the Wimbledon Finals and the World Cup Finals will be on the same day. If only the Tour de France could end earlier... Regarding Skinnyweed's request, I think we should wait until a bit later (like ~July 9). joturner 18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Plus is Wimbledon is one 4 Opens so technically is no bigger than the other 3. It's only huge in Britain because the tennis season is so short here it only last about 3 weeks. Jimmmmmmmmm 19:17 26 June 2006
WP's purpose is an encyclopedia, not as a publicity vehicle. Do you mean the article you linked? There's nothing of encyclopedic value in that article. It's just a list of players, there's bearly any prose. If, however, anyone would like to make something of it and it becomes an article of encylopedic value then it could be nominated for FA status or to be included ITN. Sorry if I misunderstand your intent. --Monotonehell 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Yea.. It'll be on ITN once the tournament ends. Sasquatch t|c 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
If you guys are interested in news why not consider contributing to wikinews in addition to contributing to WP? (Nb. I'm not telling you to "go away" but to support our sister project instead of treading on WN's toes) --Monotonehell 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I would rather see people concentrate on creating thorough coverage in the encyclopedia, where it will be of permanent value. Many media organisations will produce detailed coverage over the next two weeks and I see little point in duplicating their work, but they don't aim to provide a resource for posterity. Chicheley 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Well certainly, but only after the fact. WP:V --Monotonehell 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Awkward usage in the anniversaries section

It would be much better to say "in Enfield Town" than "in the London Borough of Enfield. The former is only a small part of the borough, and it is what the article itself is linked to. London boroughs are rather artificial things, each of them formed of several communities, of which only one appears in the name (or in a few cases either none or two). It is the districts which are real communities that people relate to. Chicheley 00:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree, so I've changed it. — sjorford++ 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]

New York Times leak?

I've seen this reported on and investigated much more by people and the media and stirring up much more controversy than any of the other news titles on the main page. This item is big, it can quite possibly qualify as treasonous activity. It's being critisized for ruining a "working intelligence project" which has "caught terrorists and hasn't affected innocents" while being praised for revealing the US Government's "secretive and overly inquisitive" acts. I know wikipedia isn't a news hub but this seems bigger than much of the pieces already on the main page. Should there be a link?--Exander 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Big outside the US? In anything other than national-level media? We don't report on controversy and criticism. If/when NYT goes to court, then we will report on it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-27 05:04
It's really only big on Fox News and late night MSNBC. Not ITN worth. Preston 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Treason? For telling terrorists the NSA might be keeping an eye on them? Next we'll be yelling treason when someone tells terrorists bombs go boom. — ceejayoz talk 20:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]
The only question relevant here is "Does Wikipedia have a good, up-to-date article to highlight?" Otherwise, there is little point to an ITN blurb. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Well theres isolated, internal incidents such as France's iTunes ruling and the capture of an Israeli soldier on there so whats the problem? And im saying to mention the controversial Times article, not criticisms of it. Theres no opinion to this.--Exander 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Main page creep

We're again having bad mainpage creep. We have a very long FA blurb, 6 DYK items, 7 ITN items, and 8 anniversaries. This is entirely too much for smaller screens, and makes it look too busy and messy on any screen. Can we try to keep it down to standard 1-2 short paragraphs for the FA blurb and 4-5 items for other features? Zocky | picture popups 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • I agree strongly. See the section Talk:Main Page#FA blurbs I started above. We just have to write things more concisely, and not try to cover every single detail in the blurb. A (relatively small) part of this problem also comes from the recent switching of the anniversaries and Did you know, which also messed up our aesthetic contrapposto.--Pharos 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]


Though maybe it is not global enough, I would say that the failed Flag-burning constitutional amendment is pretty big news. --Michael WhiteT·C 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[]

US only. We get accused of being US-centric often enough. —Cuiviénen 01:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I think it'd be big news if it passed. But since it didn't, I don't think the Congress doing nothing really constitutes news. Preston 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Current states outright banning flag-burning include: China, Iran, and North Korea. CaribDigita 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]
You forgot New Zealand (although the only attempt to enforce it failed). But ITN is not a news service, but rather to highlight changes to Wikipedia articles based on current events. --Midnighttonight 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
That's odd, really. I'd think that something called "In The News" would actually have news. Not that I'm supporting mention of the flag-burning amendment. I'm just noticing a logic flaw. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]
It's in the news, not actually the news if you get the difference. Just thought I would update this little thing. Tame Iti was just convicted of shooting the New Zealand flag, but for firearm offenses, not for damaging the flag (which is illegal here). --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 02:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]

On This Day

Is there any chance that the articles could be something other than US court cases for once? Every day there seems to be something related to USA law which isn't particularly interesting to people from other nations. Eraysor 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]

US law is also the law that governs what is and is not legal for Wikipedia to do, so I would think it is of at least some interest to foreigners. --maru (talk) contribs 00:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I agree in theory, but we don't want to stray into the realm of being exclusively U.S.-related. Wikipedia is a global collaboration. ~ clearthought 01:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Personally I thought the Tyson-Holyfield boxing match would be more interesting to the general public. Eraysor 09:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Totally agree about Tyson-Holyfield. Plus is just the fact that it's two US court cases on the same day. Different days not so bad. There are many many many morethigs could have filled that gap that would have been more relivant and interesting. Tyson-Holyfield, Queen Victoia's corination, capture of Seoul, Treaty of Versailles signed.

Jimmmmmmmmm 10:10 28 June 2006

Unnecessary Case Citation

Do we really need to put 438 US 265 1978, the case citation for Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in the Selected Anniversary item for the case? It's redundant (as it's the reference number for the common name) and rather unnecessary for the Main Page. (Note: I didn't put this at WP:ERRORS because it's not really an error.) Thanks in advance. joturner 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Actually, the case cite is formated incorrectly. "438 US 265 1978" should be formated
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). The periods and especially the paranthesis are considered imporant parts of proper legal citation used in law. Not using it looks embarrasing --like it was tacked on by someone who doesn't know better and its on the main page for heaven's sake. --Bobak 17:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I think the point that the guy is trying to make is that that info doesn't have to appear on the main page. It's not an article just a summary and this info would be in the main article. I any case there are many more important and relevant events that have occured in history today that deserve a place on the front page, so not sure it should even be there. -- Jimmmmmmmmm 19:02 28 June 2006

Punctuation deleted

One administrator just deleted some punctuation.

Old version: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

New version: Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Please change it back. Thanks! SupaStarGirl 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I second the motion. --Howard the Duck 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
This issue was discussed during and immediately following the redesign, and it was decided to keep the punctuation. As no apparent discussion has occurred since then (and there's no evidence that this change reflects consensus), I've reverted. —David Levy 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Yay! Thanks. --Howard the Duck 08:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Sorry. I must have missed this. I just thought it looked cleaner without the punctuation. -- Psy guy Talk 14:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Edit Mode (read only)

Is there some edit war going on amongst admin> The "view source" option on protected pages (like this one) seems to be changing daily. It's currently "edit mode (read only)", the other day it was "how to view source", and I'm sure it was something else again yesterday. Any reason for the changes? --Tivedshambo (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I was just going to scroll down and start a discussion on this when I saw you already had, so thanks. But who changes these tabs? How do you edit them? It's been "view source" for a while but now its what the above user said. TeckWizTalkContribsGuestbook 23:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]
TeckWiz: Any admin can edit the text for the edit button on protected pages, which is located here. See the talk page for a discussion of the changes.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Flag pictured

Am I the only one who thinks the (flag pictured) should go before the full stop to read ...the United Nations (flag pictured). ? I'm nitpicking here, but I feel that reduces the ambiguity as to whether the flag is Montenegro's or the UN's. - Cribananda 23:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I somewhat agree with you, and I think the flag of Montenegro should be pictured not the UN. Pseudoanonymous 00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

That would definitely be the best solution! - Cribananda 00:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I thought it meant Montenegro's flag on first read. :-( -Kinst 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree. The emphasis should be that Montengro is joining the UN, not the UN itself; the image should be changed to reflect that. - jibegod 12:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Thanks for the change. - Cribananda 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

vertical justification

How did you get the boxes to be exactly the same height so there is no gap on either side above the featured picture box? On my portals the two columns are always different heights so there is some whitespace. Ideogram 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Hmm, is it the "vertical-align:top;" in the style? Ideogram 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • No. It's because they put the tables inside one table. So the left column is a table, and the right column is a table, and they're both inside one large table. There's probably something else to it... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-29 00:30

featured picture function is broke

Somethings gone horribly wrong!! I use Firefox1.5 and under this browser the featured article is stuck on that of the 28th of June. IE6 seems to show it fine however. Someone needs to fix this - Jak (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Please try bypassing your cache. —David Levy 01:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Ok, thankyou, it worked after a delay. There are other problems however; the (more...) button leads to the wrong article, see Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#.28More....29 - Jak (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

how to remove "Main Page" heading

English version has the main heading - Main Page removed (unlike on many other language wikis), which I think is great -- it used precious space on the visible window, and is kind of redundant (it is already mentioned on the tab). I'd like to do the same for Georgian wiki new proposed mainpage (see one version here თავფურცელი). Anyone knows how? If it had been discussed somewhere, would appreciate the link. gmadlobt. Alsandro 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

The "Main Page" H1 heading is still there in the html, but I believe it's being overwritten with css trickery in the monobook skin. In the classic skin you still see the heading. I'd say m:Help:User style is the place to learn more, but maybe a post on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) could give you a more specific response from someone in the know about these things. Shanes 04:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
The following code in MediaWiki:monobook.js hides the Main Page title:
// hide the Main Page title

var mpTitle = "Main Page";
var isMainPage = (document.title.substr(0, document.title.lastIndexOf(" - ")) == mpTitle);
var isDiff = ( && ("diff=") != -1 ||"oldid=") != -1));
if (isMainPage && !isDiff) {
document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');
ceejayoz talk 11:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

In the News...

Shouldn't the headline about Montenegro's acceptance to the UN have a picture of the Montenegro flag and not the UN flag?

Terrible Mainpage

Hello! The Mainpage is very terrible, i think. On the top, it is OK, but down is not goog, because, it´s too big. Greetings -- 08:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Football Portal link

What happened to the deatails link to the Football portal from the Worldcup news item? Loom91 11:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I've added it back in. -Aude (talk contribs) 23:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Holy Day of Obligation SS Peter and Paul

Could this be added to 'On this day' please?

29th June - St Peter and St Paul apostles, feast day

Thanks in advance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CatholicNick89 (talkcontribs) .


Dear Wikipedia,

I have witnessed a strange turn of events lately. First, my IP Address is User: Then, one day, I got a message from someone, and my talk page said User talk: User:! I got used to it, then another day, I got a message, and I found that my IP Address is User:! Is someone playing tricks on me? I would like you to investigate this matter. Thanks.

It is likely that you are accessing Wikipedia from a dynamic IP (for example if you use AOL), or that you are accessing from different computers. This means you can recieve messages that were intended for other users of the IP. You can solve this by registering with Wikipedia, which hides your IP address, and means you only recieve messages intended for you (as long as you are always logged-in). Ian¹³/t 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I am too young to register for an account, and even if I did try, my Username and Password would be invalid.

Too young, so put in a false age, I used to do it all the time--BoyoJonesJr 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

You don't need to give an age at all. You don't even need an email, and you can use whatever username and password you want, there's no reason why it would be invalid. Are you trying to create an account from the login page, maybe? The correct signup page is here. -- 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Oops, signed out to get the 'create account' link and forgot to sign back in before I left the comment. Sorry! -- Vary | Talk 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Debate about what goes into the News Section

As some observers have already recognized before, a abnormally high number of comments were made on the discussion page about a current event: The mens FIFA World Cup. Later some more active people in the Wikipedia universe had arguments, shared their opinions about pro & contra of listing the results in the News Section on the main page of . To me this seemed a heated debate of only a few people then. After some weeks I feel like all of this needs to be discussed in a broader sense, with more people important for Wikipedia's development getting involved (I wish my post is the starting point for that). Clearly I want to lessen my passion for the World Cup and just talk about the facts there are:

FIFA World Cup is the world's biggest sports event by the amount of people watching it on TV (it can by no means be compared to any national tournament, so please stop talking about your favorite tournaments seeing them in the same league as the football world cup!)

FIFA World Cup does not only bring the players of all the qualified nations together, it also attracts millions of visitor's to the hosting country, which thus makes a huge impact on international understanding on Earth.

Football is - like any other popular team-sport - a form of culture. It can thus not only be seen as "just a sport" - like some do claim, that don't like/do sports themselves. Along with the fact of binding many people, that play for their countries and thereby also representing their countries, (few) special games have made a major influence on the nation's politics but also on their nation-communities' identity, sometimes even that their peoples do remember certain sports events much more in their nation's histories than anything else.

This is my opinion: If the Wikipedia does not give enough credit to this World Cup - which should be more than just one line that "..the World Cup continues" -, but instead informs visitors about political decisions in some countries which they mostly are not interested in at all, shows the Wikipedia in a bad light, as it does not highlight on global events but on local ones, not on those that affect the biggest amount of people in the world, but instead focus on those which claim themselves to be of high importance (like politicians usually do). Alright, one can say Wikipedia is not a news feeder, Wikipedia doesn't want to give news only about those things that the masses care about (as the masses often care about things that can be laughable and are not worth being paid attention to in a serious portal), but I say: If the Wikipedia wants to stick to its philosophy, if it truely wants to show what it stands for - as a world wide movement where everybody can participate - then it absolutely needs to give credit about those events that bind so many ethnic groups together and that transport the ideas of peace and tolerance among the world's citizens not building up more barriers than there are already.

In the end I want to make myself clear: This is not just about FIFA World Cup, it's about the News section in general, what goes in and what not. And I really feel that the criterias should be worked out more clear, in order to plan for the next time when controversy pops up.

  • Those political decisions that you don't care about only remain in the News Section for a week, usually. The World Cup entry has been in the section for a month now. I say that's more than fair for something that is ultimately a form of diversion. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-29 16:48
I agree with Brian. For the sake of argument, let's say I conceed every point you made, and admit that they are all correct. As they are correct, and as you have theoretically won the argument, the World Cup has been duly mentioned every day for almost a month, and that mention includes a link to retrieve more information on the World Cup. Congratulations... you won. Is this not enough? Preston 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
If you want scores, check out Wikinews. They have scores on their main page. -Aude (talk contribs) 21:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]
What is the purpose of ITN? Is it to be a news service? Or is it to highlight article changes as a result of world events? It clearly isn't the first, as Wikinews does that. Furthermore, while you can argue that the Soccer World Cup can have other implications (there was after all a war due to a game of soccer), so too can other 'minor' sports, for instance Rugby union (1981 Springbok Tour and the 1976 Summer Olympics). The current format is acceptable, it links to a page with more information, while not acting as a news service. Just as all the other ITN items do. That is the format that should be adopted for major sports events while they are on (minor ones should just highlight the final). --Midnighttonight 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Just my two cents here: I don't see why Wikipedia shoud keep listing it like that. It's in effect, promoting an organization. And why this organization? Why not others? What did FIFA do to deserve more attention than, I don't know, the Indian Ocean Earthquake of 2004? It also feels like it's promoting a herd mentality: "Hey, everyone else likes this sport, so you should think it's important too." Those are just some of the reasons, but it really gets on my nerves. MrVoluntarist 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Not the case- does the link to the United Nations article promote the UN? Clearly not. Anyway, this debate has been and gone, I wouldn't characterise the discussion as heated or argumentative, everyone had their say and the current situation (link to the portal, but no scores) came out of it. This would appear to be pretty much equally unacceptable to everyone, which sounds like a fairly good definition of a compromise to me. So long as future sports tournaments (e.g. the Olympics) are treated in the same way (and to be fair there is nothing at the moment to suggest that they won't be) then all is good. I wouldn't necessarily be averse to a general reform of ITN though. Badgerpatrol 02:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Um... what does the UN have to do with this? I'm objecting to the month-long linking of the ongoing World Cup events. If you want to say the World Cup started, in the news section, that's fine. But you're keeping it there for a month. What UN-sponsored event got a special spot like that? MrVoluntarist 16:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

The link to FIFA World Cup is in the main page for like a month already! (lol). Also, if football is a world culture, then why don't i see it on the headline on my local newspaper? So if basketball is a culture on my country then it should be in the main page too if the argument will be followed. --Howard the Duck 06:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

So what about the Olympics then? Will they be covered with the latest results on the main page in the future? unsigned comment by 11:47 30 June 2006

Well maybe they will. We did have daily updates on the Winter Olympics which is a smaller occasion than both the World Cup and Sumer Olypmpics. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:15 30 June 2006
The Summer Olympics is always a bigger occasion than the World Cup Finals. --Howard the Duck 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]
The Summer Olympics should get the same treatment as the Soccer World Cup. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 02:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Which should get the same treatment as the NFL Playoffs. Preston 04:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
ahhh, no it shouldn't. The NFL is an American sporting event, while the world cup (not just soccer) and the olympics are between different countries. Put it this way, the NFL is probably equivilent to the National Provincial Championship in New Zealand. So would the final result of the NPC be on the main page? How about that of the Super 14? --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 05:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Indeed, minus the fallacy in your logic. You are correct to point out that the NFL is an American sport, but that fact runs against the rest of your argument. It would seem you place an equal value on American sporting leagues and New Zealand sporting leagues. Such equality is unjustified. Sporting matches between such insignificant nations as Germany and Argentina, a la World Cup/Olympics, are roughly equal in terms of importance/exposure/etc. to a match between, say, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Seattle, Washington. As the sole super-power, it is unfair to the US to consider the nature and importance of the nation state to be universal. Comparing a national level American sport to a non-American national sport is simply wrong. To deny American exeptionalism, and to simply cite the US as another country, equal in importance to any other country, is to deny world history and a common sense understanding of the current geopolitical status quo. The US, for all intents and purposes, should be considered a continent in and of itself, one superior in size, population, economy, etc., to any other continent. Based on size and viewership, an American league would be much better compared to a Trans-European league, which would (and does if one exists) merit ITN note. In short, America über alles. PS: Work on your essay. Preston 06:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
A bit American-centric are we? Honestly, arguments like that just piss the rest of the world off. Honestly, your nationalism/patriotism just annoys us. There are around 6 billion people in the world, America accounts for about 300 million of those. Are those people any more important that 300 million people elsewhere? Is an American more valued than a Englishman? An Australian? A Kiwi? A South African? An Iraqi? A Palestinian? An Indian? Etc. etc. (apologies to those I couldn't include). I mean China has 1.25 billion people. Do we report Chinese sports in ITN? No. How about Indian cricket tournaments? Yet they are probably the most followed internal sporting event in the world. In my view, only the top few sports events in the world deserve ITN treatment. fullstop. A lot of significant events occur and are never mentioned in ITN (I mean the King of Tonga's official residence in New Zealand being attacked for instance!!!). I don't see why sports should take such an exception. Furthermore, sports tend to be 'planned' more, in that they are set to occur and so on (obviously not the results, but that a final will take place). I have come to the conclusion that ITN needs to be re-thought. Some one inform me when there is an actual discussion that will lead somewhere (i.e. a policy, poll etc.) --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 09:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
If you actually read what I wrote, and considered it to be a serious enough argument to reply to, then I feel very sorry for you. Preston 16:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I really don't get what the inclusionists want. For God's sake, the World Cup has been on the Main Page for over a month already! Even the Yahoo! page (although it is not comparable to Wikipedia), does not include the scores, just a link to the main site. I really don't get what the fuss is about. Hey, if the Super Bowl or NBA Finals would be at the ITN, then we should include the results of this, which is the equivalent of the NBA Finals. However, I do not agree Super Bowl=World Cup, for me the World Cup is higher than the Super Bowl (a national championship), but is lower than the Olympics (the WC only has one sport, no matter how rabid the English fans are). --Howard the Duck 06:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
But not half as rabid as the fans from most of the rest of the world, which is kind of the point here- since that one sport is just about the only one that everybody (or almost everybody) plays. The current situation is not ideal, but so long as it is accepted that this is the new precedent for future sports events of a similar magnitude (ie the Summer Olympics et al.) then there is no problem. It is disappointing that there does seem to be a bias towards North America with regard to the inclusion of some items on ITN, but we can see how this develops in the future. I must confess, it (and some other recent events) don't set a great example of the impartiality of the encyclopaedia. Anyway, we now have two precedents that should be followed; a) no results (ie medal tables, individual event finals etc) on the front page; b) national-level sporting finals are considered important enough for inclusion. I don't see a major problem, so long as these new guidelines are stuck to. I suggest everyone just ignores the more obvious trolling and wait and see what happens, it isn't necessary to get into nationalistic arguments and it doesn't help matters. What is interesting in this discussion is not the opinion of the bad-faith trolls, it is the fact that the two contingents (even those (the vast majority) who are acting totally in good faith) genuinely just do not see each others point of view. I personally think that resolving these kind of dilemmas and bridging these cultural barriers is really one of the major plus points of this whole project. Anyway, in short, the debate seems to be done for now and there is little point in continuing it at present. Let's all just show good faith and wait and see what happens. Badgerpatrol 12:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Most of the rest of the world? The three of the four most populous countries in the world are not represented in the World Cup Finals. People's Republic of China, India and Indonesia. Even Americans seem to don't care. Again, not because your neighbors play it does it mean that other people of the world plays it, right?--Howard the Duck 01:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I still don't see it. Wikipedia should not be promoting soccer. By having it on the front page for a month, you're doing that. It's simply not true that it's something "everyone plays". I don't play it. I don't care about it. Most people don't care about it. At all. The ones that do, just go overboard. Why not just have the World Cup sponsors on the front page, too? MrVoluntarist 00:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I think it is not promoting soccer but including the scores of each and every match in the World Cup Finals. All other sporting events have their results posted right after a winner is determined, even the Olympics and the Commonwealh Games (now should Wiki do that for the Asian Games?). They'd want to make an exceptation for the World Cup because they claim for it is the biggest sporting event in the world. So what's next, a county-by-county tabulation of the United States presidential election, 2008, because the United States is the sole remaining superpower? --Howard the Duck 01:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Regarding the comment about Indonesia not playing in WC, yes, that's true. But that doesn't change the fact that WC is still being followed by millions of its population. In fact, the major headline today (Sunday) on Indonesia's largest paper, Kompas, is about yesterdays' match between England and Portugal. There are two other news in the main page that's also about World Cup. Hayabusa future 12:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Note that I said Indonesia is not represented. The "don't care" part refers to Americans. --Howard the Duck 12:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
China, India and Indonesia all entered. They didn't qualify for the finals, but they were part of the World Cup through the continental qualifications. If they were better, they would have gotten in. It doesn't mean that the Finals aren't important to the people from those countries. I'm Irish, and I've watched almost every match. Ireland failed miserably to qualify. Apologies to Americans that people think the most popular event of the most popular sport in the world deserves ongoing coverage. Karlusss 01:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]
This is what I said:
The three of the four most populous countries in the world are not represented in the World Cup Finals. (re-emphasized the world Finals)
Although the World Cup can either mean the whole tournament (even the qualifying rounds and the intercontinental playoffs) or the final stages (the one held at Germany). Well, it would subside now since England is now eliminated. And don't worry, ITN would include the result of the Final match, although I'd also want the ITN to include the result of the 3rd place match. --Howard the Duck 08:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Howard, I understand that you want to share your love of soccer with others, but you need to understand, that's really not what Wikipedia is for. MrVoluntarist 19:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Note that I'm against having the scores posted on the main page, too. However, having it linked at the main page during the duration of the tournament is good enough. It is not everyday that we have a world cup, isn't it? --Howard the Duck 06:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Apologies to people who want to use Wikipedia to promote their favorite sporting event. That's not what Wikipedia is for. No news event justifies this kind of coverage on the front page. I bet even 9/11 didn't stay there for a month. MrVoluntarist 02:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]
9/11 was an American-specific event. It didn't warrant ITN coverage (if someone takes that comment seriously too, I will lose all faith in humanity). Preston 17:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]
There many non-Americans who were casulties during the attacks. SO WC2006 is a Germany-only event? --Howard the Duck 06:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Indeed. And, as Nathan's_Hot_Dog_Eating_Contest is an American sport, featuring a Japanese champion, and, is thus an international sport, and of far more importance (to Americans) than the World Cup, I fully anticipate and expect it's results to be displayed In The News for at least 5 weeks. Preston 16:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]


To be encyclopedic, the caption should describe (1) What bog we're looking at, (2) the time of year, and (3) the major plants seen. Melchoir 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree, there's a tendency for the POTD captions to overdescribe the general article rather than the image itself. Not a huge problem though, since i'm generally too busy looking at the picture to read the text :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

...hey, that's better! I guess we don't know what the plants are, though? Melchoir 06:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Kuwait women vote for the first time today!

This is news, good news methinks. It is nice to see some good news once in a while.

MEdical pictures

Following the discussion (transferred to Bad Jokes... p 48 - and can the various similarly named pages be redirected to the main list) on the featured article "medical image" that has been: perhaps a diagram showing the contrast would have be more appropriate for the main page. I know such things are a matter of taste but perhaps 'matters medical involving poking bits of bodies around and/or blood etc' should not be included on the main page. Jackiespeel 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Wikipedia isn't censored for the easily offended. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-30 15:43
  • My only comment on this is that by putting it on the front page you bypass a sensitive user's choice to view or avoid that particualr kind of content. I know when I saw that conical eyeball the other week I was creeped out a bit. :) Rob Banzai 23:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]
    • Nobody is forcing anyone to view anything on the site. Nobody's choice is being bypassed. If images freak them out, they can always disable image downloads in their browser. Censoring the site because a vocal minority's only argument is "I'm offended" is nonsensical. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-01 00:02
    • What happens when they click through to the article, then? — ceejayoz talk 01:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
      • *gasp* We'll simply have to remove it from the article as well!... but, they could still come across it on Google... we'll just have to delete it from the entire site. We can't take the chance that someone will accidentally choose to expose themselves to something that offends them. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-01 04:26
        • Oh don't be so silly. No one is talking about censorship. Just about not putting possibly disturbing images on the main page. That's all. No one wants to remove any of it from Wikipedia, just maybe not have it on the Main Page. A minor comment unworthy of such a hostile reaction. Rob Banzai 05:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
          • Actively removing images from a page because a vocal minority's only rationale is "I'm offended" is censorship and nonsense. Now, if they had some legitimate rationale, I would hear their arguments.— BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-01 05:38
            • No, it's not. Censorship is preventing access from it, not forcing people to look at it. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 05:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
              • Did I say that censorship is "forcing people to look at it"? That doesn't even make sense. Regardless of what we define "censorship" to be, read the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Profanity:
                "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
              As the thorough debate about the eyeball image showed, it was the best possible choice for the topic. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-01 05:41
                  • (after edit conflict) You misunderstood my comment, it could have been clearer. My point was that having any medical picture on the frontpage is pretty much forcing it at people. Medical images (and other such images) should only be on article pages. Usually for the main page, diagrams would be much better anyway. But, of course, images of such a nature should be included in articles when it fits within the rules. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 05:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
                    • How is placing it on the main page any more forceful than placing it on any other page? Neither are forceful; nobody is being forced to look at anything. Medical images and any other images that Wikipedians claim offend them can be used wherever they are the most useful, and where an equally-informative but non-offensive image does not exist, as in the case of the eyeball. This is directly from Wikipedia:Profanity. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-01 05:58
                      • People come to the mainpage as a basic starting point on which to then travel deeper into Wikipedia. You know when you go on to a page about heart surgery that there may well be images of heart surgery on it. But, you don't when you go on to the main page. I suppose its a surprise factor. While Wikipedia:Profanity does point out policy, it still doesn't mean that such images need to be on the main page. I would prefer diagrams. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 09:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
                        • Yes, but they don't have to come through the main page. I might understand if everyone had to go through one common page before they could access anything on the site, but that is not the case. You still have yet to show how anyone is being forced to see or do anything, as was your original assertion. The image that is most informative to the subject should be used. That rationale makes perfect sense, whereas "I'm offended" makes no sense and can't possibly lead to anything constructive. It's an ultimatum, and as such should generally be ignored. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-01 17:47

Sloppy ITN Writing

"The controversial DADVSI copyright bill is finally voted in France (Coat of Arms pictured). Opponents contend it could significantly curtail free software." The writing here is not clear enough. Has the bill been voted in in France, so it's in effect, or is it now being voted on? 19:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Yeah. I rewrote it (I'm not the original author). Possbily I chose slightly over-excited language, but it was difficult to make it sound interesting in one sentence! -Splash - tk 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[]

On this day:St Louis Olympics

1904 - The first Olympic Games in North America opened in St. Louis, Missouri.

Why is this worthy of a place on the front page 'On this day' section? Surely more interesting thing have occured on this day is the past. And why is the first Olympics in North America or the USA which I think is really the point this is making, note worthy?

Jimmmmmmmmm 13:17 1 July 2006

P.S it doesn't even make it on the day page. If you click July 1 it's not there so in a way proves it not noteworthy. Oh and shouldn't it say Canada day next to the date. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:22 1 July 2006

It proves that nobody bothered to list that fact under that date, and nothing more. All date pages are very incomplete. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-01 17:43

I don't think there's any purpose to having a hard-and-fast rule about what gets linked in OTD. It should vary from year to year anyway, otherwise certain days would just be the four or five most historic events of that day forevermore. What's wrong with digging into the pile a little every now and then? --Dhartung | Talk 02:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]


Can a sysop PLEASE put "We have 6,396,215 in English."? If so thank you. GangstaEB (talkcontribscountice slides) 13:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I don't really see a point to it. dposse 16:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Agreed, there wasn't isn't a large grammatical problem. -- Zanimum 17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
It makes more since to me. GangstaEB (talkcontribscountice slides) 18:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Actually, I sympathize. The current version abruptly transitions from a declarative sentence to a fragment:

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
6,396,215 articles in English

Even with a newline and a font size reduction, there is clearly meant to be a continuity between the first and second lines, but if you go on to read the third line without a break, it doesn't make sense. Now, I don't think the stat has to be made into a sentence, but how about a decoration that sets it off from the preceding thought? As in:

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
6,396,215 articles in English—

Melchoir 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]

What do you mean, continuity? The first sentence has a period. That means it has ended. - Mgm|(talk) 08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I think we had that previously, and it was removed for aesthetic reasons. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
No kidding! Hmm... I actually like the aesthetic; it's got a kind of old-school newspaper headline feel. Well, whatever. Melchoir 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I support Melchior's suggestion. It does reduce the jarring sentence-fragment transition. Carcharoth 20:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I strongly support Melchior's suggestion - aesthetically pleasant, quite a nice "feel" to it, and the transition jars far less.TheGrappler 14:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Fair Use Image on Main Page

Image:Knox Johnston Golden Globe.jpg falls under fair use, and so theoretically, it should not be on the Main Page or the dozens of user pages which transclude the Main Page. Perhaps a free image, like Image:Joshua001.jpg...


...should replace it. joturner 16:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Changed. -- Zanimum 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Am I missing something? The image hasn't been changed. joturner 17:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Now, it's done.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 18:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Alright; thanks, although it would be a good idea to protect it and add {{mprotected}}. joturner 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Fair Use Image 2

The Lindsay Lohan pic (Image:Lohanspeak.PNG) is fair use and should be replaced ASAP! --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 05:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Unless you can find and upload a free alternative (there is currently not one on Wikipedia to my knowledge) than a fair use will have to do. That is really the only exception in allowing a fair use image on the main page: if the FA of the day has no free alternative. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
    • Find someone to draw a sketch of her... or pass her picture through enough Photoshop filters to claim it as new art. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-02 06:23

Newest articles

Vote question: Should Newest articles link to Special:Newpages again?

  • Support - seems more logical. Luka Jačov 11:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support - me too. --TheFEARgod 11:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support - but should this be brought up it another page? --Howard the Duck 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - This proposal was previously discussed on the Did you know discussion page, where no consensus was found either way. GeeJo (t)(c) • 15:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
    • What do you mean "no consensus"? The 4 people in the discussion who gave an opinion (all people who are constant participants of DYK) argued that it made more sense to link to WP:RA, which is the DYK archive, and not to the editor-oriented Special:Newpages. It was that discussion that led to the link being changed to WP:RA. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-02 17:29
  • Comment I can imagine the issue is solved, but I don't think it's a good idea to link to everything that shows up on New pages, it's better to link to articles that were new and we are proud of. Yanksox 15:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this vote isn't valid. Straw polls can only be used to see where users who have been active in discussion currently stand on the issue, and only after there has been discussion on the matter--you can't just pop in and throw up a binding vote whenever you desire, and certainly not based on the random votes of random visitors. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-02 17:17

But I'm not "voting," I was stating a "comment" from an outside opinion. That is why I placed a comment outside of my statement. I was not participating in the poll, but dropping an opinion and wasn't being asked to be acknowledged or anything else like that. I am sorry if that was how it rubbed off. Thanks! Yanksox 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to the whole vote. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-02 18:57
Oh. :P Well, I still am sorry. Thanks. :) Yanksox 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia:Recent_additions is linked to twice - shouldn't the 'Newest Articles' link to Special:Newpages and 'Archive' link to Wikipedia:Recent_additions ? Robmods 18:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Is there anything wrong with linking to it twice? I think it comes as a result of the DYK section having an introductory explanation ("From Wikipedia's newest articles"), which none of the other sections have. If they had introductory explanations as well, they would likely link to the same thing twice. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-02 18:55
Wikipedia:Recent_additions is not ideal for the link, but it's better than Special:Newpages which is usually a lottery in terms of quality. Go there at any time and select the first three articles you find, repeat 2 or 3 times. I don't think that's really what we want to expose brand new readers to. There are often good articles in there as well, but there's too much dross and inconsistency. Suggestions to eliminate the double link welcome, of course. 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Agreed. The special page is not only editor-oriented (when we want to be reader-oriented), but gives us a bad image, since most of those articles are unsourced, copyvios, or substubs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-02 18:52

Mexican Elections

I've removed the news piece about the Mexican elections because said elections haven;t actually occurred yet. The results of the elections, which will come in tonight, would be a much better thing to have at ITN; polls mean little. —Cuiviénen 19:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Entry on this is missing a "be", the line currently reading "...will closely contested." 20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The end is nigh! Mankind must confess its sins!

Not quite, but the sizeable 2004 XP14 asteroid will pass quite clos May be worth the WP frontpage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:32, 2 July 2006

Yes if the article's been updated recently (looks like it has). Why not suggest it? --Monotonehell 09:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Pope Pius XII pic

I think the picture of the featured article should be one of him being the Pope already, since that title is included in the name of the article...Cloviz 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The current choice was made to be safe on copyright stuff. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]


"popes" doesn't need to be capitalized. My bad. Someone else fixed it in the article. Can some administrator fix this on the main page? savidan(talk) (e@) 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]