Talk:Main Page/Archive 74

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 70 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 80

Pope Pius XII

It says that! Pope Pius was "one of few popes in recent history to exercise his papal infallibility". But the dogma of papal infallibility was only defined at the First Vatican Council of 1870, so isn't "recent history" redundant? Eixo 10:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The declaration says the popes were and are and will be always infallible on ceremonically declared matters of faith and morals, starting with Peter the fisherman. Therefore, popes must be careful not to dig themselves into too big a hole, so they avoid invoking magisterium power on priestly celibate, for example, because sooner or later catholic priests must be allowed to marry or there won't be any priests in 40 or 50 years.
That's not why priestly celibacy has not been declared ex cathedra (infallibly). It's because celibacy is only a discipline, not a dogma. It is practiced in the latin rite but not in the eastern one. It would not be sinful or impossible for priests to be allowed to marry at some time in the future if the church declared it, which is why it has not been declared infallibly to be true. Polyhymnia

Shouldn't the summary on Main Page first introduce his actual name before using it? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Agreed, this confused me as well. Isopropyl 12:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Growing up Irish Catholic and trained by the Jesuit priests, it was such a simple concept. The pope decision on things was considered infallible so people wouldn't endless argue stupid things forever and the Church could remain unified. It is not unlike the umpire at a major league sport, who is right, even if super slow motion from nine angles shows him wrong. Without the umpire being infallible, sports couldn't go on. The pope was used as a sort of umpire in many non-religious conflicts just for this reason. This has gone on far longer than the 1870's. In the United States, the Supreme Court is considered more or less infallible, as the decisions are followed, even to the contested appointing of a presidential winner, because without such, there would be no unified nation. There is no reason to believe any pope could make a decision that could not be changed by a later pope. The pope's decision being infallible is also not related to the belief that a crooked pope will still have to answer to God. And with this, I'll return the discussion to the never ending trivia maniacs who will continue to argue, most of whom probably aren't even religious. Bptdude 07:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

History of New Jersey FA

"However, the Dutch colony of New Netherland was seized by the British in 1664." - It was not seized by the British as the "British" did not exist until the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. Also British there links to United Kingdom, which did not exist until 1801. It should read "However, the Dutch colony of New Netherland was seized by the English in 1664." which it was. an Siarach

Speedy response to the above, cheers! An Siarach
Reading the article, though, it was less of a seize than a take-over. Bazza 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Interesting, the majority of American history books might have to correct the term "British". Before 1707, it was England and the original name for the 13 American colonies was the "English" colonies. The Northern half of them are called "New England" and the regional name survives to this day. The Dutch were not the only ones in colonial efforts in the new world, the Swedes had a brief period of rule in New Sweden of present-day Delaware, U.S. from 1579 to 1626, when the Dutch took over New Sweden and in turn, went to the English in 1664. I believe the boundaries of French Canada (New France) extended abit more southward to present-day Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, all U.S. states. However, the unofficial boundaries of both English and French colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries are disputed, which in turn brought on the French and Indian War of 1756 to 1763, and the British (well after 1707) defeated France to obtain their colonies. --Mike D 26 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

This is funny. The Britains were an ancient Celtic people living on islands. The Romans didn't create the name, but took it from the people who lived there. The Roman geographer Ptolemy called the larger island Megale Brettania (Great Britain). The name of the Roman province became Britannia. Spelling can vary, if you want to get overly picky. That's a Celtic pun, by the way. Living with the Brit's, were the Picts and the Scots. The American colonists certainly used the term British, so changing American history books idea had to have come from a "Brit". *smiles* Bptdude 07:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

...and first place goes to... Google July 4 and see WP's position! --hydnjo talk 21:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Google seems to have more personalized results these days, first result is not Wikipedia for me, but I suspect you must click a lot of WP links from Google. Ziggur 21:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Ummm, no, but what's a lot. Cleared my cache again and searched July 4. Google came back with this assortment. --hydnjo talk 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]
July 4 and July 4th are two different phrases. --Nelson Ricardo 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
July 4th is used as the fourth day. July 4 is just used in any other form. Dure 03:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Ruining the results of the World Cup

Why is the result of the Italy Germany game on the front page of wikipedia? I was looking something up for work, and had this game ruined for me. Please take any results down from the main page, as had been the policy previously... I will not be able to use wikipedia for the next week if it keeps results up like this. This is a terrible oversite. RyanEberhart 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Try not to go to any of the other million or so webpages with news content; they all have the score also. --Descendall 23:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I didn't go to any other news site. I thought wikipedia would be alright since previously they just had a message about "2006 world cup continues in germany". I don't see anything wrong with that, or perhaps having the headline something like "germany/italy match decides first contender for the champion". RyanEberhart 23:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]

C'mon Ryan. Do you really believe our In The News facility should not carry the news? Moriori 23:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]
It's like saying we should just say "something has happened in Asia" as a teaser for television news. Silliness! Karlusss 23:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Why don't you just set your watchlist as your homepage? It's a very simple solution. --Madchester 00:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

A better idea would be not using Wikipedia to promote soccer, but I guess we already threw that principle out the window, didin't we? MrVoluntarist 00:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Well, at work we aren't supposed to change our homepage from the company's intranet page. I guess I can just go to And I never said not to carry the news, as indicated by my suggestion of giving the article a title that didn't give away the ending. There are plenty of people who work when these games are going on, I don't think it's that difficult to not give away the ending whenever people want to look up some information. Sure, I know now that I could have just gone to something other than the main page, but I don't really bother to think of that when I'm looking something up, as I'm sure is true for many others. RyanEberhart 00:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It's pretty hard to avoid the result of such an important match; you could just hear it in your way back home. The inclution of this score in the news section is a hot topic; but we should refrain of comparing the football world cup with other sport competitions.Cloviz 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Support – Let's put a big spoiler warning on the ITN section. I wanted to see the results of the North Korean missiles at home but now Wikipedia has spoiled it for me. Piet 14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I would agree that even the third place match result be displayed, but the semi-final? No. --Howard the Duck 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Third match place is a joke, nobody cares. Semi-final is way more important. Piet 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Somebody does care. Theoretically, the third place match should be the second-most important match, behind the final. But that's another story. --Howard the Duck 12:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The result of the third-place match should be there. Please revert the edit to display it. 23:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]

World Cup Entry in ITN section

King of Hearts removed this entry (with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not a scoreboard"). I considered reverting (because the determination of the final-round teams seems rather significant), but then I noticed that the 2006 FIFA World Cup article has not been updated beyond the standings tables (and contains absolutely no prose pertaining to the match in question.) Meanwhile, Italy national football team and Germany national football team each contain two-sentence updates.

Once again, I'll remind everyone that ITN is not a news ticker. It's a means of highlighting articles that have been written or substantially updated because of a major event. The inclusion criteria should not be ignored for the World Cup, the death of a world leader, or the invasion of Earth by Martians.

If someone would care to improve the encyclopedia by writing a decent summary of the game in question, I'll personally restore the entry (unless the prevailing opinion is that this is an undesirable spoiler). —David Levy 01:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

David: "Italy defeats Germany in the first semifinal match of the 2006 FIFA World Cup." Titoxd(?!?) 01:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Obviously, I'm requesting a reasonably detailed account of the match (not merely its outcome). Something similar to what was written about Super Bowl XL before and during its ITN inclusion would more than suffice.
Numerous users have stressed these games' importance (some claiming that even the individual first-round matches were more important than the Super Bowl), but few are willing to author encyclopedic coverage. Instead, they believe that the tournament's importance alone is enough to automatically justify a prominent spot on our main page (which they evidently confuse with a news site). I'm sorry, but this simply isn't so. —David Levy 03:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Funny thing that. People see a section on the main page which says "In the news" and they think it should contain news. How silly of them. Moriori 04:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The section serves as a gateway to articles that have been written or updated to reflect topics in the news. It is not a rundown of the top headlines.
I don't blame people for their initial misunderstanding (and I've advocated changing the section's name), but many choose to reject explanations of the inclusion criteria (because "this is the World Cup"). —David Levy 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
David, I am trying to not be unfriendly, but there is a question you need to answer here -- who appointed you the authority to say that in the news should not include news. I'm beginning to think you have an incomprehensible bias against the most watched sporting contest in history. Moriori 08:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I understood that In the news highlighted articles that had been recently updated to include information about what the rest of the world calls "news". I (and others) have suggested in the past that the section title is misleading people into thinking it's something it isn't which, from the discussions above, seems to be true. The section title really ought to be changed to eliminate these arguments about what should be in it or not. Bazza 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Morori, I draw your attention to the notice on the In the News main page: "In the news mentions and links to entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event—rather than conventional news items". David has not 'decided' anything; this note has been there since May. Raven4x4x 10:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
(undented) The main page is where the problem is and an explanation on another page is not solving it. I agree with Moriori's previous comment that In the news is heading that people see and news is what they therefore expect. Bazza 11:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The page I linked to is not 'another page'. It is a template, and that template is what appears on the main page. The page I linked to is the In The News section of the main page, and the words in the notice certainly apply. Raven4x4x 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
We're at cross-purposes, I think. I'm talking about what you see on the main page — there is nothing there to say what In the news really is. Bazza 13:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm losing track of what the problem is here. You say that people expect the "In the news" section to contain news - well, it does. It just doesn't include all news. I think if it was just titled "News", you might have a point, but "In the news" to me clearly means "(here are some things that are) in the news". It makes to claims to completeness and people should not expect that. What they should expect is that links in the ITN section go to articles that are up to date, and on the whole they do. At the end of the day there is only a very limited amount of space on the Main Page, so the section cannot contain all news; and at the same time it needs a short and snappy title, and "In the news" fits well enough. You're welcome to suggest another, better, title if you wish. But if you're expecting a whole explanation of ITN's purpose right there on the Main Page, you can think again - there just isn't room. — sjorford++ 14:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm expecting no explanation at all — it would be silly, as you say. The problem is that what is perceived as a news service (because of its title) in the main page mismatches to a varying degree what most major news services are delivering. I understand why; but the number of comments over time about "why isn't xxx in ITN" indicates that many don't. You can't tell people what to expect — they will create their own expectations on their experiences, in this case seeing something called "In the news" and expecting it to contain the same major news items as CNN, BBC or whatever. "In the news" is very snappy, but apparently not precise enough. If an alternative comes to mind, I'll suggest it. Bazza 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Well, ProhibitOnions restored the entry. I reverted (and attempted to explain that this issue doesn't revolve around the mention of the score), and Violetriga reverted back. I posted a message on Violetriga's talk page, and I received the following reply: "I don't think that the game needs something writing about it in order to have the item included in ITN."

Wow. —David Levy 17:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I'd like everyone to compare the effort put into German vs Italy to the effort put into Super Bowl XXX, and then just end this endless nonsense, and follow policy. -- Zanimum

Do you guys realize that the world cup is the most watched sporting event in the entire world! We should ditch the main page and instead have an up to the minute update of scores, complete with javascript tickers and so forth. All this encyclopedia nonsense is fine and all, but lets try to keep perspective on what's really important! Did I mention that the world cup is the most watched event in the entire world, right on par with American Idol and other matters of worldwide importance! I say screw whatever policies we have to concentrate on the stuff that matters.

Why so confusing! =[

So I decided I would sign up here and help add some stuff to wiki but there is so much stuff, so many links, I'm having a very hard time finding my way around. I have great knowledge of a subject that is not covered very much on wiki. I was hoping to find a wiki forum but couldn't.

If anyone can help me get started, shoot me an email to b34nzzz[at]

I am going to keep looking around and playing with stuff to see if I get the hang of things. Thanks! -Barry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B34nz (talkcontribs) .

Try Getting started, or Help desk for questions. It's really not that hard once you get started. Good luck! 13:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The way I started was to look at the source 'edit this page' of a really good article, and then use the syntax from there. Maybe that is one way to go --Ade1982 14:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Blocked image

FYI, my version of Symantec firewall is ad blocking the thumbnail associated with the current featured article. I checked and it is not in a /ad/ directory, so I have no idea why it is doing so, though I have occasionally noticed it blocking random seeming things before. Dragons flight 08:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Is it possible to check the full list of keywords that Symantec blocks? One possibility is that it is finding the string "ad" in "" along with some other string in the filename, and is blocking because of that. Image:Flag of the Czech Republic.svg Flag of the Czech Republic.svg suffers from this with some adblockers, because of the strings "ad" and "public" in the filename. — sjorford++ 12:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Well I can see the flag. It is also only the case that it is blocking the thumbnail and not the full sized image with the featured article pic, so it must be something about how thumbs are stored. I've looked at the ruleset before (which is quite long and complicated) without being able to discern what it is triggering against. Dragons flight 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Kenneth Lay

Kenneth Lay, the founder of Enron, died today. Is this front page worthy? Sertman 15:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It doesn't appear to fall under the relevant guidelines. Deaths in 2006 has already been updated. - BT 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Nope, though it should be added to Recent Deaths, if it hasn't been already. GeeJo (t)(c) • 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Exactly. On the other hand, if you want to put the scores for every World Cup elimination game on the front page, that's perfectly acceptable. Sports are very, very important. MrVoluntarist 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I believe Lay's death does conform to the criteria for relevant guidelines: he was a "key figure" in his area of expertise and his death was unexpected. J. Van Meter 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It's the fact that his indictment and conviction are now nonexistent (legally clearing his record of any wrongdoing) that makes this front page worthy. We had an entry on the front page when he was convicted; why wouldn't we have one when his conviction is voided? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 21:20

Is that TRUE? Does the fact that a convicted criminal dies before receiving his actual sentencing actually overturn the work of the jury, judge, legal process? Terraflora 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Following one footnote, I do find that it doesn't have to do with sentencing, as infered, but the appeal ("when a defendant dies before appellate review of the conviction..."). Still suspicious. Terraflora 21:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Did you read the linked references? If someone dies before appealing, the whole indictment/conviction/etc is "extinguished", as if he was never indicted or convicted. Or, do you doubt the opinion of a law professor? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 22:34
Brian - I apologize for not thoroughly reading the linked reference first. I was stunned. But after leaving my query here I proceded to read, read, read. Sorry for the inappropriate, jump-the-gun (deer in the headlamps) disbelief. It won't happen again. Until next time. Terraflora 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

We've also had several deaths in the news section that weren't about national leaders, or even political leaders. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 21:21

Can we get a cite in the article on the voiding of his conviction? The main page mentions it, but the article doesn't seem to currently. — ceejayoz talk 22:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The voiding of Lay's conviction is disputed. See WP:ERRORS. -- 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

There was also the death of an Enron witness that testified against Lay. Not sure of the persons name but I heard in on NPA radio. Found dead in a pakt in England, died right after Lay (coincidence?)Pieces3

Ken Lay's conviction "voided"?

How can Ken Lay's conviction be "voided"? Is that a legal truism, or is the paragraph simply trying to convey the idea that the conviction is now moot? AFAIK convictions are not "voided" when the subject dies - it's just that there is obviously no sentence and no punishment. "Voided" implies that death somehow expurges one's criminal record, which I don't think is the case. Not that that matters to the perpetrator, of course, but it might to his descendants in some cases.

The voiding of Lay's conviction is disputed. See WP:ERRORS. -- 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]
  • See this explanation here. "Under the Fifth Circuit's law of abatement of a criminal conviction when a defendant dies before appellate review of the conviction, 'It is well established in this circuit that the death of a criminal defendant pending an appeal of his or her case abates, ab initio, the entire criminal proceeding.' ... the law no longer recognizes there having been any criminal case initiated against him." That's all we suggest in the news section, so it's correct. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-06 00:06
  • Ah. Interesting. And yet the civil case against Lay's estate can continue as if nothing had happened, or so I understand. --klaus 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Apparantly not. --Descendall 04:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

This is not the first time a celebrity's conviction has been voided in this manner. See Budd Dywer Raul654 01:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The court system has did what they have to in response to a defendant's death. If he lived, Kenneth Lay would attend his trial and have the jury decide his fate. He will never be convicted post-mortem, since Kenneth Lay is not present at the court hearing. But his reputation as a CEO who committed an unethical, unprofessional and illegal practice will forever be associated with his name to many people. Kenneth Lay is not guilty, nor would he face a declaration "guilty until proven innocent" by the judge and jury. Associates of Kenneth Lay are likely to serve trial in conjunction to the alleged crimes committed under his name and the Enron corporation. The trial will continue as planned with or without him, but Kenneth Lay is legally, a suspect that's never going to be found guilty or innocent. --Mike D 26 04:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Cystic Fibrosis (CF)

I'm glad this article made FA status.whicky1978 talk 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

User:InvictaHOG would probably be the one to thank, as he wrote most of the article. Raul654 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Can someone take the horrible word Caucasian off the front page summary? It's already off the main article. jnestorius(talk) 11:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Why is the word horrible? The article was changed (without discussion) from Caucasian to European. Does this mean people in other parts of the world don't suffer from it as much as the population in Europe? Bazza 13:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I would have thought that word was fine, although quick look at the Caucasian article (I admit I didn't read the whole article) indicates that the word is used to mean different things in different places. Apparently some people are also offended by it. If nothing else, the fact that it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone might make it vague and therefore less useful. On the other hand, "European" doesn't encompass the entire group it's trying to describe. Is there some other more accurate and precise term in use? -- Laura S | talk to me 23:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]
White (people)? GeeJo (t)(c) • 05:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]
What about Europid? 20:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]

US Dollar first?

The article on non-decimal currencies lists the rubel (=100 kopecks) in 1701 as the first decimal currency. -- Frenchwhale

Good catch ! Thanks for pointing this out. The Russian ruble indeed beats the United States dollar by quite a few decades. I've just removed that from MainPage. -- PFHLai 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

referring to the Wiki article on the rubel "The ruble had a unique sequence of denominations: 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 50 kopeks, and 1, 3, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 rubles. This tradition can be traced back to Imperial time. " While 100 kopecks may have equaled 1 rubel, this hardly makes it an intentional decimal based currency. You do notice there is a three in the sequence? Bptdude 07:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

article attacking wikipedia

just spotted this by accident,

Last one out switch off the lights, then. --Bazza 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]
That was a boring read. So the Seigenthaler article was wrong, and it took us a whole 3 minutes to get Ken Lay's death right. How horrible. Preston 19:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Addendum: Having looked around the news site, is this Israel News Agency even a real news site? Preston 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]
See Talk:Israel News Agency and Talk:Joel Leyden for the details of this guy's legal threats against Wikipedia and personal attacks on other users after they edited "his" articles, leading to him being hard banned. - BT 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The best thing about the Key Lay Reuters article is that the headline now starts with "CORRECTED:"... irony, much? — ceejayoz talk 21:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

maybe all wikipedia articles should be prefixed with "CORRECTED" after the first edit!
Yup, I found it here too. EdGl 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

"Wikipedia, which is now being blocked for use by many universities and colleges for its lack of accountability, through its lack of accountable user and administrator posts could actually be aiding terrorists to communicate with one another on the Internet through their anonymous edits."

The word terrorism is just like "heresy", it fixes everything! Try it the next time you are angry with someone or trying to force the members of another political party to do what yours want.Cloviz 00:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Why Wikipedia specifically? How are anonymous edits (IPs) anonymous? Is Wikipedia TOO easy to edit, so that even your dumbest terrorists, who can't figure out email or usenet or any of those other complicated communication services, will all flock to this site? Maybe we need to add to MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning a notice saying, "You verify that you are not a terrorist." — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-07 03:59

WTF? You mean terrorists aren't communicating by encrypted e-mail at all? They're actually embedding secret messages in Wikipedia articles? Genius! Why didn't we think of it before, it's so obvious in retrospect! </sarcasm>
Honestly, that's the most pathetic anti-Wikipedia "article" I've read yet. If you hate Wikipedia, fine. If you can make a good case for it, even better. But this isn't politics – you can't just throw the word "terrorism" around and expect it to make your argument work – Gurch 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The people who write articles like that are idiots.--BoyoJonesJr 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Then maybe we shouldn't pay so much attention to said idiots? (Incidentally, if you're reading this Iqbal, I have obtained the detonators. If we're on for tonight, change the spelling of the 'aluminium' article. If our cover is blown, add three {{fact}} tags to Inuit. Jimbo akbar!) --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Priceless!--BoyoJonesJr 16:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Helophilus pendulus, 6th july main page, misspelling

Regarding the article about the "Helophilus pendulus" there is an incorrect meaning explanation on the main page.It is wrongly written "dangling sun-lover" and not "dangling swamp-lover", which is the correct meaning of the scientific name of the "Helophilus pendulus". The mistake is in the translation of the ancient greek word "Ηλος / Helos",which means swamp, and not "Ηλιος / Hlios", which means sun.

--Kpapak 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Woolworth Building

Why does todays featured picture on the Woolworth Building (built 1913) make an unsubstantiated claim that it is the world's first skyscraper? There is absolutly no mention of it in its wiki article, not to mention that per resrources and information available compliled by historians, the Home Insurance Building in Chicago (built 1885) is the world's first skyscraper. This erroneous oversight must be corrected immediatly.

If that is so, then its not notable enough for the mainpage IMHO. See: WP:ERRORS The Selected Anniversary's always have a US-bend to them. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]
sorry, didn't realise it was featured pic. Still, see WP:ERROR though. my bad. But, again, Featured Pic is also US dominated, as well as most of Wikipedia. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 05:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I thought the qualification for featured pic was that the pic had to be exempliary, not the subject. --Bazza 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]
You're right. You just have to be sure you're not replying to newbies :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-07 21:57


Named FIFA 2006 world player of the year.

Whipdy-doo. Unless its the finals or semi finals of a world-level sporting event, sports are irrelevant to the main page. -- Zanimum
Well, to ITN anyway. I doubt many would object to a sports-related entry on any of the other four items. GeeJo (t)(c) • 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Ronaldinho was named world player of the year 2005 in December. Nobody has been named World player of the year 2006 yet. And if you mean player of the tournament at the World Cup he isn't on the list of candidates so he's not gonna win that. So whats the point of this message? Also if he wins Wold player of the Year ahead of Henry this year it will be a crime. Jimmmmmmmmm 00:47 8 July 2006

The Coke scandal

I thought that would be a good part to put in the news. Since the investigation involved the FBI, I thought it would on there. Mr. C.C. 05:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It is in the news -- at Wikinews ;) Tntnnbltn 11:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[]
It's not big enough news on WP to warrant a mention. -- Zanimum
Big news items go to Current events. Only big news items with good, updated wikiarticles go on ITN. --PFHLai 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Protection Template

Greetings. I am from the StarWars Fanon wiki (Wookieepedia Fanon). Due to extreme amounts of vandalism being done to our wiki, we have resorted to one last cry for help. Could you allow us to use the no-editing code you use on your Main Page? This would end the damage being done to our wiki. Thank you. 01:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]

There is no template. If you're an admin on the wiki, there will be a protect tab at the top of the page. enochlau (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]


The Main Page is quite biased towards the US of A. Take today's On This Day, five items, three are American. So far this month, four featured pics have been American topics (or mentioned America in them) and for the rest of the month, there are more to come. There are five featured articles about the US for this month (up to the 19th from where on they have not been selected). This is off-putting to non-US people, especially given the current anti-US feeling that exists throughout the world at the moment. I know that there is a limited pool of things to select from, and it would be unfair to blame the selectors, but it is off-putting. Maybe a realisation by US-Wikipedians that they might consider branching out and build the knowledge on other countries for a while (some do of course). --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 01:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I find this comment quite insulting. So because there is anti-U.S. sentiment (is this against the U.S. government, or against all residents of the United States?), you want American contributors to stop taking pictures in their country? Because some people stereotype residents of a country into a group, those residents should stop writing about their own country? And what exactly are people put off of? Of reading Wikipedia? Saying you don't like me and then asking me to work on articles about you instead is hardly a convincing argument. — Knowledge Seeker 02:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I am also offended by your comments, as I do not see any reason to doubt the veracity or significance of any of the pictures or articles linked from the main page. If you would like to change the page, the burden of creating articles and pictures is squarely upon your shoulders. Isopropyl 02:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Solution: Help counteract the bias you see by contributing as much as those who you think are adding to the bias, and get others to help you. Or, you could just continue to complain every 10 seconds on Talk:Main Page, and get nothing done; that's the easier route. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-08 02:15
(edit conflict)Well, I find that an international collaboration resulting in one country dominating being insulting, that's not international, its hegemonic. Anti-US sentiment is anti-government, but the residents do democratically elect the government, so both are really included - and it is off putting. It makes people question whether Wikipedia is going to be at all helpful for them if they have a non-US topic. It makes them think that it is full of Americans, and thus probably writing from an American-POV, and anything they write will be challenged as being POV-pushing. If Wikipedia is to ever successfully challenge paper encyclopedias, then it is going to have to be comprehensive about all countries, and come from an objective POV, that is clearly NPOV.
"Help counteract the bias you see by contributing as much as those who you think are adding to the bias, and get others to help you" - hmmm maybe by doing things like this to raise peoples awareness of systematic bias, and pointing it out where it exists--Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 02:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Not to be off-putting, but read your first sentence again. "Well, I find that an international collaboration resulting in one country dominating being insulting, that's not international, its hegemonic." What? Good luck with that essay.
(for Midnighttonight) What? How is that insulting? There is no claim that Wikipedia is or should be international according to the criteria you specify. It is a freely editable encyclopedia, with people at liberty to write about what they wish. Getting mad at prolific contributors because they're not writing about your favorite topics is ridiculous. Also, your criticism of featured pictures ignores that many of them, such as today's, come from the United States government. Since works of the U.S. government are automatically placed in the public domain, and since the U.S. (including NASA) releases many high-quality images, naturally there will be an abundance of them represented at Wikipedia. Rather than insult editors who aren't working on the topics you want them to work on, try persuading other governments (and the ESA) to release their work as freely as the U.S. does. Consider working with a project like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. And if you try to recruit others to help you in the future, consider a more diplomatic and respectful tone. I'm surprised you thought you would convince anyone to work on unfamiliar topics in this manner: after insulting me you want me to help you? I, for one, don't find this sort of rudeness persuasive in the slightest. — Knowledge Seeker 02:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
If it really does bother you that much, try one of the foreign-language Wikipedia projects. The German Wikipedia is of comparable size and quality, and shouldn't have so much of an EVIL US BIAS. Of course, then you have to deal with a German bias instead. GeeJo (t)(c) • 06:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Simple answer: America is 4x better than the rest of the world combined. lots of issues | leave me a message 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Well said. That should end the discussion. Piet 10:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I bet you all wouldn't stop commenting here if it was another country, even English speaking ones. Take this three for instance, they came in a row: "1935 - The National Labor Relations Act, which governs labor relations in the United States, was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. 1937 - Hormel Foods Corporation introduced the canned meat product Spam. 1954 - Elvis Presley makes his first recordings with the song That's All Right." Don't you think something more important must have happened that day somewhere? It's not like this every day I must say. No, it's not insulting either, just not right.--Cloviz 14:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The NLRA completely changed the way that American law is looked at and thus changed the relationships between the federal government and states. Check out The switch in time that saved nine, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, and Freedom of contract. NLRA was really the precursor, in many ways, to desegregation. --Descendall 16:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Also note that spam (food) is an internationally-sold product, and I've heard that one or two people outside the US have heard of Elvis. (Maybe they've seen him, too.) --Dhartung | Talk 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
This is all a variation of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. This isn't "an international encyclopedia" at all -- it's the English-language version of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Keep the actual mission in mind. If we got 100 editors from Darkest Rusatania tomorrow, because of a newspaper article, should you start complaining if they all made featured articles about Rusatania? Ashlee Simpson got FA, should we tell the contributors to go away becuase they have bad taste in music? Wikipedia is, statistically, dominated by white male American geeks (with bad taste in music, heh). Possibly still the majority are American. It's pretty unfair to berate people for contributing what they do; far better to encourage them to write about things that are needed. I don't find given the fact that it's in English that 5 of 19 articles are American-"related" (whatever that means) to be excessive. If anything, I'm surprised it isn't higher (maybe it used to be, I dunno). Brian0918 has previously noted that DYK is dominated by Polish-Russian topics (often one a day), because of the hard work of contributors in those areas, who have decided to nominate their articles frequently. I would much rather get more people contributing to DYK than tell them to go away. --Dhartung | Talk 15:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Today is both my birthday and my first year anniversary of having a registered account. I take this moment to say: if you think there's a bias based on a lack of information on other topics... then help remedy the problem by writing the articles to help restore the balance. This current problem only appears to imply that there are more active American contributors, and that means two things: (1) Americans are trying to help by writing about what they know, and (2) the inadvertant result is a wide range of quality "American-centric" articles. There's not motive beyond how the aggregate result reflects the macro-level number of who's contributing. In a long winded way, this is saying: the rest of the world needs to step up and keep up. It's not a put down, it's a challenge. Whining and sniveling doesn't get anything done in this situation (or any situation, really --unless you have nice parents). --Bobak 19:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Editors should however look around a bit for important topics outside their immediate area which might need a lot of work. Way too much time is spent on hardly notable topics, while some essential articles remain in a terrible state. The world is bigger than the television screen. I feel editors have a certain responsibility to help build the encyclopedia and not just write something about whatever interests them. Piet 19:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Okay... then be proactive. I have. Don't expect others to help you. It sounds like the people who complain about poor people being poor. With how Wikipedia is structured (de-centralized), there's no realistic way to fix the situation other than contributing to correcting the balance. --Bobak 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The whole point of this place is that I do expect others to help. I did not come here to write an encyclopedia, or even one article, by myself. Joint effort is the only path to a good end result. The fact that currently the majority of the efforts seems to be utterly pointless strikes me as a problem.
Btw I have not complained about American-centrism, I don't see it as a problem in the English wikipedia. But I object when someone says it's because people only write about what's close to them, and so we should just accept that. The least we can do is admit it's a problem.
And I don't see the analogy with complaining about poor people being poor. Piet 20:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Well, it's hard to avoid those US-related articles. It's part of the systemic bias that people naturally contribute what they are familiar with, and the many Americans in English Wikipedia have been doing a good job with what they know best. Lucky Americans. Paper has become cheap when their country was born, and their whole history has been recorded in details. This has translated into good wikipages about their history. Good wikiarticles will get featured, while dinky stubs won't. Actually, getting just one every day is an improvement. It was much worse in 2004. ( Example})
To make things worse, many historic events were not properly dated, or at least the date cannot be found in the relevant wikiarticles, making them ineligible for Selected Anniversaries. There is also a problem with events that took place outside "Western/Christian Europe". The Gregorian date is too hard to confirm for events in Persia, India, China or Japan, for instance. For events in "Eastern Europe" where the Julian calendar was used for a longer time, it's hard to figure out if the date in the wikiarticle is Julian or Gregorian. Events with iffy dates can't be featured. (Many pages have been fixed now, but most still need checking.)
Hence, we're often stuck with US events. To "get rid of" US events, please help write up more wikiarticles about historic events in other countries. See WP:CSB. Thanks.
(Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries#USA bias in Selected Anniverary, 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC).)
-- PFHLai 20:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Currently only 3 out of 18 items on the main page are American. Chicheley 13:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Please, the proper framing for that statement is: the vast majority of the main page is unAmerican. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-09 16:02


  • The Internet having largely been invented in America
  • The WikiMedia Foundation and its servers being based in Florida
  • The servers being based on Intel CPU's (any many other vital components having been invesnted in the USA, including TV, satellites and transistors to name a very few)
  • Those networks running an network equipment designed in the USA
  • The remaining founder, Jimmy Wales begin a U.S. citizen, having been born and educated here and having made the millions of dollars that he now posesses been earned at a Chicago-based company
  • Jimmy's Objectivist philosophy being based on virtually all American citizens, including Ayn Rand, who was a naturalize citizen
  • A large fraction of the entertainment content that Wikipedia has being created in Hollywood or by American authors

...I would expect that some bias is a natural outcome. Assuming that Angela, Eloquence, yourself Mr. Midnighttonight or whomever you really are and other prominent, productive and constructive non-American Wikipedia contributors are so motivated, perhaps they and you can help to eliminate or at least reduce this bias. If you indeed find this bias to be so onerous, I suggest that you get to work and out-create the USA with new an innovative ideas as best you can. Even if you fail to eliminate this bias entirely, such an effort is likely to improve your position and the prominance of whatever culture your wish to see more of here. -- 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Please keep in mind that the US is primarily a European country (same as Australia, South America), so this conversation is quite irrelevant (assuming this is Joe USA vs. Jack Britain). I find it more disturbing that there is a lack of articles around more demanding subjects such as conflicts in countries which were subjected to the white christian crusades around the world (e.g the majority of African countries and the asian sub continents). Kakugo 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia has an international outlook on life and knowledge, and limited to an American viewpoint won't make it informative for the rest of the world. But, American pop culture has been global in the last 40 or 50 years and what we accomplished as a country amazes and intrigues the world. Then again, we're not the only ones in the era of globalization and international diplomacy, as Wikipedia knows perfectly well. We try to keep out bias that may offend and belittle the achievements of other countries. Also I want to comment Wikipedia supports a mainly "western" thesis on most subjects from Europe, Australia, North and South America, south Africa, east Asia and any country with ties to the "west". The internet is open to every country and would love to learn more on subjects that are culturally relevant to them. Wikipedia needs to expand and add on other cultural views as long it don't hold bias or hold ignorance to others, like the news talk pages have a great variety of opinions from around the world. Americans may support one thing, but not much in Europe or Asia, or it's widely opposed in a certain country. On the other hand, a certain subject may hold unfavorable to Americans, but it will for Europe or another continent. In order to make an encyclopedia, keep out any bias or self-centric statements that could alienate those who want to use it as a resource to their studies or research work. Anyone in the U.S. ever read European language Wikipedia articles like myself? You could find these more centered on their country or the main focus is what's known for them, so I won't take offense to you or rule out bias against Americans. Wikipedia is proud to hold a world view, then you may discover an editor or administrator's article would know more on his/her country's view. --Mike D 26 04:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

stone "was laid" at a particular minute?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/July 9. --14:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Distasteful choice of featured article

I know Americans are probably too stupid to understand this but anyway, Germany just won third place in the World Cup and they are finally able to shead a bit of shame about the past and let loose and party a bit. They don't need have mud thrown in their faces this weekend. The concentration camp article as a featured article is in extremely bad taste. Couldn't this have waited a week? I am from Denmark, by the way. Andersa 05:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

  • I was going to type a long line of "hahaha" but decided to just go with a nice short emoticon: XD — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-09 05:56
    • Unfortunately, it is just a mere coincidence since the daily featured article for each day is always selected weeks in advance. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
      • The current mood in Germany could have been known a week ago, and this could have been postponed. Andersa 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
We're human. Including Raul. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Humans should be able to read news.. Of course if all you have is Fox News, I know it's not easy. The new mood in germany has been on the news in europe for at least a couple of weeks. Andersa 06:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC) -- Well more than a week anyway.. Andersa 06:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Just keep in mind that 99.9% of Wikipedians are unpaid volunteers. And there is no need to throw in insults when you have received only civil replies. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Germany played a soccer game, and theres a featured article on Wikipedia about concentration camps. I don't follow the problem, here.Preston 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The idea that we should follow sports when scheduling featured articles is preposterous. The idea that we should spare the feelings of Germans over the Holocaust is ... disproportionate. Besides, didn't Germany "shed a bit of shame" when they were World Cup Champions in 1954, 1974, and 1990? I don't know whether to,,2-2180817,00.html laugh or cry, really. --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
No they didn't. You don't understand at all. Anyway I can see I am outmanned in this argument, so you can have it your way. andersa 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Take it easy, Andersa. The bit about Americans was very unnecessary. It may be bad timing but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have thought about it either. And if Germany has shed their shame, I hope it's not because they have forgotten. Present day Germans carry no more responsibility than present day Australians but it's not something to put in a closet and never think of again. Piet 09:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm neither American, nor stupid, but until you actually raised this point I had not even considered any connection between the fetaured article and the recent football world cup in Germany. --Bazza 09:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

the topic being distasteful is not so much connected with the German soccer game, but with the insensitive tone of the summary here on the Main Page. While this will do for the intro for the article itself, where people expect to read technical details about a concentration camp, the summary here will need at least a short sentence putting it all into context, referring to the Holocaust, WWII etc. before descending into technical details. The death toll could also be mentioned ahead of geography and organizational structure (really...). The snide comments regarding Germany and the World Cup are not helpful either. This is not about some sports event, the phenomenon goes far beyond that, the World Cup has just proven a trigger for an unpredictable collective change of mood. The commentators are unanimous in judging that nothing like this has happened in Germany since the unification 1989/90. This shouldn't keep Wikipedia from discussing (and featuring) Holocaust related topics, of course, but it explains why the coincidence can be perceived as jarring. Which Andersa was trying to convey (taking a potshot at the Americans was diplomatially unsound of course, and may explain the tone of the replies he got). dab () 09:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree 100% with this comment. Andersa 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
You're right. It is, not only a coincidence, but an unfortunent one. I personally would change it to an article on Richard Wagner or to Otto von Bismark, but I'm only an American, and don't know how. Until I learn how to use this "computer" to rid the American-led conspiracy to make this "wikipedia" as American-centric and, appearantly, anti-German, as possible, the Germans will have to deal with the lack of Orwellian denial of history on Wikipedia after their loss in the World Cup.Preston 17:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree that it is poor timing. Chicheley 13:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

And I disagree. Ahh, the wonders of simple voting. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-09 16:01

Lighten up. The featured article is just a coincidence. Everything that happens on here is not some sort of American conspiracy to undermine other countries. Also, if the featured article was selected based on the "mood" of a country, thats ridiculous--BoyoJonesJr 16:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

[personal attack removed] 17:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Please don't be a troll, User: And on another note, I, for one, completely agree with BoyoJonesJr's comment. Picaroon9288 17:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The notion that the selection of featured articles which involve a particular country's history should be timed so that they don't interfere with that country's current mood is as silly as the notion that Germany is only now able to "shead a bit of shame about the past" because it won some soccer football games. --mtz206 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I guess if you are not from Germany and don't know any Germans, it is difficult to know how big a deal the collective shame about WWII is. And it's not like I am saying there should be censorship on articles or anything like that. Sometimes it would just be nice, if people took a little bit more care not to stomp on other peoples toes. Here is an idea. We could make an article that explains the situation, and if it is good enough, maybe it could come on the front page some day. Andersa 18:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I am ethnically German, and I say tough noogies. History's a bitch. We should not be playing Don't mention the war. We're an encyclopedia, not an encounter group. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I am a Turk living in Germany. it seems that many people are really unaware of whats going on in Germany. Germans are now getting normal. They are begining to feel ok when they are running around and shouting with their flags. Total German flags sold this year has made a peak and reached the highest level since WW2. I totaly agree with Andersa.neurobio 00:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I can understand that perhaps only now are Germans "getting normal." The point here, however, is whether the selection of a featured article must be dependent on the feelings of all the possible populations that have any relationship to the content of said article. For example, today's featured article is Michigan State Capitol: are we now offending those citizens of Michigan who aren't particularly proud of their capitol building? Or perhaps the citizens of Indiana for not selecting their capitol? --mtz206 (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
"getting normal" term is used by a German politician by the way. I got it from there.neurobio 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Unfortunate conincidence but what's to be done? As outlined above, just because an article is offensive (to some) does not mean it should be excluded from the main page; I very much doubt if there was any intent to offend anybody with this particular item. Anyway, few Germans are going to give a stuff what's written on Wikipedia this weekend anyway ;-). Original post was so uncivil as to be difficult to accept seriously, btw. Calling a group of users 'stupid' is insulting, counter-productive and generally not the way to do things. Just my tuppence. Badgerpatrol 02:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
If the choice of FA were dependent on whether or not it would offend someone, there would never be a feature article, as I'm sure that any article which could possibly become a feature article is offensive to someone, be it for national, religious, personal, or other reasons. To not make an article a feature article because of a certain group in many ways goes against the neutral point-of-view that Wikipedia promotes.Braindrain0000 05:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I was born in Princeton, and I want to thank you for making the History of New Jersey the FA during the 2006 New Jersey State Government Shutdown. Clearly, your desire to make Germans feel bad during the World Cup is calculated to raise the spirits of people from New Jersey. Hopefully we can soon move into Phase II of the Anti-German/Pro-New Jersey plot. --Descendall 03:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Absolutely. In fact, the people behind the Anti-German/Pro-New Jersey Plot (or AGPNJP for short) requested the article way back in February, clearly indicating they had advanced knowledge of the shutdown. Raul654 03:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Wow, Descendall. It takes great skill to write a completely sarcastic comment in a completely serious tone. Well done! joturner 04:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
We should have put 2006 New Jersey State Government Shutdown on ITN at the same time ..... (just kidding) -- PFHLai 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree I had not even considered any connection between the fetaured article and the recent football world cup in Germany and I am American July 14 06

On this day - River Plate?

River Plate as a term for Rio de la Plata is becoming less and less common; mostly because it makes no sense. Rio de la Plata means River of Silver (which too makes no sense, because it is not a river); not River Plate (that would be Rio del plato). Anglophones used River Plate as a false cognate. In academic writing saying River Plate is considered archaic, and should be seen as evidence of ignorance about the region. While Silver River sounds arcane, it's more correct. Stick to the Spanish Rio de la Plata, and no one gets in trouble, and everyone understands.

But in English, the common name is River Plate and this is the English-language Wikipedia. There are lots of names around the world which have been mistranslated from one language to another (or whose names have evolved in their original language to a different form), and have ended up with a different meaning as a result, but it does not mean they are wrong. I don't understand how the name of a body of water cannot make sense — it's a name, it doesn't have to make sense. --Bazza 15:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
There are plenty of examples of non-English phrases that we use in English (eg, Rio de Janiero). If "Rio de la Plata" is correct according to modern academic writers, and "River Plate" is archaic, we should stick to the more correct term, as we do for numerous Arabic subjects, for example. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-09 15:58
To name a BAY a River, defies the purpose of naming. This was common during the Age of Discovery, as Iberian explorers mainly stuck to the coasts of South America. The best examples are Rio de Janiero and Rio de la Plata, which are both called "Rivers" though they are bays. Regardless (as this is irrelevant to the English name), the term River Plate is not used in modern desciptions.
  • Actually, the usage should be Río de la Plata, as River Plate has an entirely different meaning in Latin America (namely, the soccer club). If someone said River Plate when referring to the river, that person would be given funny looks and then chastised. Titoxd(?!?) 18:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The naming convention guideline on Wikipedia is most common usage in English. If River Plate is still the most common usage in English, then it is what we should use. We shouldn't hypercorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
But it isn't still the most common usage. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-09 19:09
It's so common I hadn't heard of it, ever. Titoxd(?!?) 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Not this one again! This underwent months of discussion on the article talk page. violet/riga (t) 19:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Volunteer please -- to move Battle Of The River Plate to Battle of Rio de la Plata. Nah, just jivin. ~ Moriori
You mean Battle of the River Plate? Watch those capitals! :-) Carcharoth 14:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]

As for the Rio de la Plata thingy, I'd say that whenever you mention it, call it an estuary. ie. Say "the River Plate estuary" or "the Rio de la Plata estuary". Though as it is an estuary of the Uruguay River and the Parana River, not a non-existant River Plate, that might be even more confusing! But then I went to look at Rio de Janeiro (not having ever thought of this as an estuary), and the mystery deepens. I quote from Rio de Janeiro:

"Guanabara Bay, future site of the city, was reached by Portuguese explorers in an expedition led by Portuguese explorer Gaspar de Lemos on January 20, 1502; hence Rio de Janeiro, "River of January". There is a legend that the mariners named the place thus because they thought the mouth of the bay was actually the mouth of a river, but no experienced sailor would make that mistake. At the time, river was the general word for any large body of water."
In particular: At the time, river was the general word for any large body of water. So it seems that there is something more going on here, and that Wikipedia is currently confused about this (saying different things on different pages). Can someone clear up the confusion? Carcharoth 14:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]


{{The summary is: restore interwiki links (please), why did they get removed?}}

Huh? They are in there. Just scroll down to the bottom. Titoxd(?!?) 18:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

World Cup Final

Guys, it's the world cup final in a couple of hours; the most significant sporting event in the world. Doesn't it rate a mention on ITN?! --Guinnog 16:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Please list your proposed entry at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Be sure to include a link to the substantially updated article in bold. —David Levy 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Martinets. It's an insult to the thousands of people who have worked hard on the 2006 FIFA World Cup and the dozens hundreds (Category:2006 FIFA World Cup) of accompanying pages over the last months. Jooler 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I merely informed Guinnog of how to propose his desired entry. How is that "an insult"? —David Levy 16:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Um... it hasn't happened yet. We're all sitting around at 3am down here waiting for it to start. How can there be an entry in ITN for something that hasn't even occured. This is an Encyclopedia not a crystal ball. (Oh and Viva Italia! ;) --Monotonehell 17:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Add the d--n results already. Italy beat France 1-1, 5-3 in the penalty knockout. 20:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Score was 1-1 with 5-3 in penalties, NOT 5-4 Dav2008 20:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
just so you know, the picture and the cup Italy won is NOT the Jules Rimet Cup, but the FIFA WOrld Cup introdued after Brazil had won the Coupe JUles Rimet for the thired time -- 22:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]
This error on ITN has been fixed. The error on the FIFA World Cup Trophy page which led to this error on ITN is also fixed. Thank you, Joturner. -- PFHLai 22:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]


Why is the featured article semiprotected? I thought featured articles were never to be protected? This gives a horrible impression to newcomers! 18:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Yes, the horrible impression that we are an encyclopedia first, a community second. *gasp* — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-09 19:11
They're generally not fully protected (without exceptional circumstances, anyway) but semi-protection isn't that uncommon with a bout of persistent vandalism. GeeJo (t)(c) • 20:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It's not the Jules Rimet Trophy

that was given to brazil. ive just changed.

actually i cant can i? but its wrong italy have not just won the Jules Rimet.someone correct

It has been corrected. joturner 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

wow that was fast Chinksimon 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[]

"In the news" naming issue once again

The matter of investigating the potential of a section rename for ITN has come up on a few places, including this talk page. I've started a centralised straw poll here, and would greatly appreciate commentary, feedback, suggestions, or particularly creative insults. The Tom 00:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I couldn't believe the policy makers on Wikipedia seem not to care on the issue. B.t.w. what does ITN stand for? I'm been new here in the past week and would love to contribute in Wikipedia, the best resource of information that humanity has ever made. What an endorsement idea, wish I get the royalities for it LoL. Wikipedia could start focusing on advertising their web service. --Mike D 26 07:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Penalty kicks/Panalty shootout

It says on the ITN section that Italy beat France on penalty kicks, which is technically wrong. If you look at Penalty shootout (football) and Penalty kick, you can see that they are two different aspects of the game. Could someone change it round please? Thanks ;) The Halo (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Corrected. -- Zanimum 13:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Thank you!! The Halo (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Wikibooks is 3 years old today!!

Today, July 10th, is Wikibooks' third birthday. We have a notice up on our b:Main Page. It would be great if someone could also put up an announcement here. (Though I'd like to be bold, I don't know the etiquette for updating the main page and want to tread lightly) Kellen T 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

How old is the Guttenberg Project? And how different is it?

Wikibooks cooperatively produces new manuals and textbooks. Project Gutenberg publishes existing works whose copyright is expired. You can go look at our b:Main Page to find out more. Kellen T
See also the wikipedia article on Project Gutenberg. --PFHLai 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Thank you. Unfortunately I can't read more than 5 lines in one sitting.
Try adding a \n once in a while or use word wrap...hmm not funny.

Shamil Basayev

I personally think that the headline should mention his significance - his (and I say this loosely) job title. --Ade1982 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Mícheál Ó Domhnaill has just died

Can somebody link that to the main page? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page, criteria #5. Then, if you insist, post a suggestion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Instead of ITN, please consider posting at Recent deaths and on the right side of Current events. -- PFHLai 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]


frankly ,this picture is not serious.You schould beter have use the pirate flag ,not the caricature.They supose to be ruthles criminals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16:12, 2006 July 10 (UTC).

I'd agree that the image would be a bit odd on the Main Page as an illustration of a Pirate Featured Article, but in this case it's the image itself that's featured. GeeJo (t)(c) • 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
That is truly the worst thing to appear on the Main Page in a long time. violet/riga (t) 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]
How the hell did this become as featured picture??? It makes no sense, it looks like some cheap clip art ripoff. --Childzy talk contribs 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It's a representation of the pirate stereotype, done by the same artist who did the images at Mad scientist and Villain. Also, see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pirate. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I don't see what's wrong with the image. It's a perfectly good illustration of a stereotypical cartoon pirate. We get a lot of beautiful photographs, but it's nice to see something different every once in a while. —David Levy 21:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Agreed. It's a nicely done illustration by one of our editors. Line art is an important part of our articles. Kellen T 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

But the written blurb alongside it does not link properly. It's the same problem we've been having since we started having featured pictures, and it really needs sorting out else we should remove that section. violet/riga (t) 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

For example, compare:

violet/riga (t) 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Absolutely. The caption should have described the stereotype, not piracy -- that was completely inappropriate, since sea piracy continues to be a serious topic. Of course describing the picture requires more effort than copying a lead from an article, so it's understandable that those who maintain the FP calendar do not do it. One possible alternative would be to make a one paragraph description on the image description page a required criterion for featured picture candidates.--Eloquence* 00:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I've clarified the criteria to this effect.--Eloquence* 00:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]

  • If you want to discuss new proposals on modifing how the captions/written blurbs are edited, you might want to post on Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day instead of here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
    • Never mind, I misunderstood the issue. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I couldn't agree more with what violetriga said. See also Wikipedia:Captions. Carcharoth 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The font is too small. Make it bigger.

World Cup news request

Please could someone change the word 'defeats' back to 'defeat' - as a topic concerning European nations in an event held in Europe, British English would seem more appropriate here (and in British English sports teams are always referred to as if they're a plural). In fact I'd even prefer it if it could be changed to 'Italy beat France' as this is the normal usage in the UK.

Cheers — SteveRwanda 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree. It seems to me to be more correct to say that. - Cribananda 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Should the lead of Italy national football team then read, "The Italian national football team are the national association football team of Italy"? Doesn't make any sense to me to say it that way, but I'm from the US. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Mmm, interesting question - in that instance because you're talking about the team as an entity (one entity) rather than the specific team playing the match (eleven players), it's arguably correct to use the singular. However, when talking about the team's efforts on a particular night, UK usage is always in the plural. The same article you mention says here: Italy won their opening game of 2006 World Cup against Ghana, and the main BBC Sport article on the match also says Italy beat France 5-3 in a penalty shoot-out. I'm not saying it's logical, I'm just saying that's the way it is Smile-tpvgames.gifSteveRwanda 19:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The latter of those examples is inconclusive. As past tense, "beat" could be singular or plural. --Landauer 20:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Heh heh, good observation! However, the point is still valid - right at the top of the article it says "Highlights: Italy 1-1 France (Ita win 5-3 on pens)" and, further down, "But Italy recovered well from their unfortunate start"... Anyway, it's been changed now so hopefully that's the end of the matter until the item drops off the bottom of the list. — SteveRwanda 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Certainly better to not have the 's'. violet/riga (t) 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I changed "defeat" to "beat", because Italy defeat France sounds absolutely awful to my poor American ears, whereas "beat" is number neutral, as pointed out above. Dragons flight 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
PS. I'd also be happy with "defeated", if one wants to go that way. Dragons flight 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Try Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. -- 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]

1) For the record, neither France nor Italy is part of the U.K., nor was either ever part of the British Empire. I'm sure most of the French and most Italians would agree. 2) There is nothing in the Manual of Style that suggests that the EU is the orthographic or linguistic fiefdom of the U.K. And thank God for that! We don't want to start dividing up the world into "places near the U.K." and "places near the U.S." To be sure, more Mexicans are taught American English than British English, and more French people are taught British English than American English, but let's allow non-native speakers to make their own choices. Many of them choose neither British nor American (nor Canadian, Australian, Maltese, etc.). If someone writes "Manchester defeats Liverpool", feel free to change it, if you can't live with it as it is. If someone writes "Italy defeats France" just leave it alone! Let the non-Commonwealth and -U.S. world develop as it wishes to. Peace out, --Cultural Freedom "talk" 2006-07-14 16:28 (UTC)

Text size

Why are the words so small? Make it bigger. It's hard to read anything. Aaaaaah! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:43, 11 July 2006.

Our site contains articles at standard Internet point sizes. You can tell your browser to make everything bigger, if you're have a hard time reading our site. -- Zanimum

Mumbai train bombings

The Indian flag serves no purpose for the news, can we have this image instead which is more informative. --Sartaj beary 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Unfortunately, Fair Use images are generally not allowed on the Main Page when there are acceptable free alternatives. If you can find a more suitable free-licensed image, feel free to propose the change again :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
(Note: The suggested pic has been removed hours ago. -- 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC))[]

If Bombay and Mumbai are both acceptable use in India, and the western world knows Mumbai as Bombay then why are we calling it Mumbai? - 23:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (its spring time for nationalism!)[]

Because it's name has been changed and out of respect we should use its new name. You don't go calling 'Constantinople' 'Istanbul' do you? ;) --Monotonehell 03:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
You have that backwards.  :) —David Levy 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
"Even old New York was once New Amsterdam..." - UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Why they changed it, I can't say. —David Levy 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
People just liked it better that way... -- ALoan (Talk) 22:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
It is sometimes difficult to decide which name to use for a city, especially when the name of a city is changed. In this instance, Mumbai tends to be the term used nowadays in Western media as well (see, for instance, CNN's article, the BBC's article), or the CIA World Factbook). — Knowledge Seeker 07:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I have an idea. Why don't we use the name that Wikipedia uses? Moriori 08:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
That's what we're already doing, Moriori. (And what is the difference between "we" and "Wikipedia" in this context?) Please clarify your idea. — Knowledge Seeker 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Dont know if its really necessary to change, but we do have a free image now. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

My sole point is that if this were to happen in Chennai or Kolkata it would be more educational in informative if it read Mumbai (Bombay), Chennai (Madras), or Kolkata (Calcutta). I know the difference, but I doubt most people even know the names of those and other Indian cities have changed at all. - 16:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

That's certainly a reasonable suggestion, and I updated the text accordingly. It might have been more helpful had you made that suggestion in the first place rather than querying why the new name was being used. — Knowledge Seeker 16:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
So clumsy! Sigh .... if both names have to be there to confuse people, a link to Indian renaming controversy may be useful there. -- 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Just be grateful it didn't happen in Gdanzigsk. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

WIKIPEDIA blocked in China

Did you know that the whole Wikipedia is blocked in Mainland China? Is there any mirror sites that we people resideing in China can access this valuable resource? Thank you for your attention (the only way I found out is because i'm accessing wikipedia outside China).

Yes, this is widely known. has some good articles on how to avoid the censorship, IIRC. — ceejayoz talk 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
See Wikipedia:Advice to Tor users in China, which has the URLs of the HTTPS gateways, which are not currently censored.--Eloquence* 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]
How does one access that Wikipedia advice page when they can't access any of Wikipedia? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-12 02:27
Magic. — ceejayoz talk 13:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
One friend out of the country can tell all his/her friends still in the country. When there's will, there's a way.
BTW, Baidu Baike's article on Wikipedia mentions the block and provides an alternate link. I wonder if that link works. -- 17:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Also, if you're interested in the history of the blocking, see Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. —Cuiviénen 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[]


Shouldn't the little squib under DYK have made clear the article was about the geography of Texas? It looks like we somehow didn't bother having an article about Texas until recently. Daniel Case 02:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Texas helium

Is the past tense verb for "to extract a gas from a field" really "won"? Even if it is, isn't that a rather obscure terminology? --Nscheffey(T/C) 04:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The more I look at it, I think the whole sentence is awkward and possibly incorrect. According to helium:
After the "Helium Acts Amendments of 1960" (Public Law 86–777), the U.S. Bureau of Mines arranged for five private plants to recover helium from natural gas. For this helium conservation program, the Bureau built a 425-mile pipeline from Bushton, Kansas to connect those plants with the government's partially depleted Cliffside gas field, near Amarillo, Texas. This helium-nitrogen mixture was injected and stored in the Cliffside gas field until needed, when it then was further purified.
This suggests the majority of helium is from Kansas, doesn't it? Surely there is a better DYK blurb one could make for Geography of Texas. --Nscheffey(T/C) 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Mumbai attacks

Could someone please include that there were 174 deaths and over 400 injuries to show the scale of the attack. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Anti-German sentiment in World Cup article

I've read a horribly done article on Germany in their third place match victory and explained how the Germans are dictators or warmongerers. I like to see this denigrating article removed, since it don't relate to Germany in the present time. Germany was the enemy in WWII when ruled under Hitler and the Nazis, but does not represent the entire German people in the year 2006. Some statements were made on the Germans love to start wars, follow tyrants like the Kaiser or are "brainwashed" under "socialist" governments (notably the East was under Communism, 1949-89). Wikipedians take note on whoever wrote articles to attack, defame and insult a country, will have the article yanked very quickly. I find it sad that some Wikipedians conceive the idea to relate modern Germany with war. I thought the World Cup was about sports in an international competition, not revival of past national hatreds. Let this be a notice and a warning we should not tolerate anti-German sentiment when the main focus is on soccer/football (I live in the U.S.) in Wikipedia. --Mike D 26 07:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Which article is this ? This talkpage is intended for discussion on things on Main Page only. Please comment on the talkpage of that article. You'll get a better response there. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 00:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
What you saw was probably just vandalism that other editors quickly removed. You don't need to argue the point here; just fix it. Only a very few persons with such extreme views will participate in a Talk page. --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
PFHLai, the Germany wins World Cup third match article. It was heavily discussed last week on Wikipedia talk pages. My discussion was ruled as appropriate (this was on a main page July 9th, when it was today's news), so it does not need redirection. Dhartung, I'm glad someone had corrected that article and ensure the German people are a different country today than in 1914 or 1945. My father is from France, whose team lost the world cup final and I've imagined what if they played against Germany, not Italy. Will there be a few French fans threatened the German team over the Nazi occupation of France 65 years ago? No...the FIFA organization pressed a code of conduct to world cup fans not to engage in racial, nationalist and politically charged rhetoric against team mates and opponent teams. Very few incidents of Nazi or white racist fans acted in this sort of manner, because the security can find the violater and eject him/her out of the stadium. Whoever wants to revive hatred against a nation or don't agree that a few players of their team are Black, is disturbing and hypocritical. I don't see a reason to allow someone edits stuff on Wikipedia from their biased POV about Germans. --Mike D 26 04:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Today's featured picture

Am I the only one who thinks that today's featured picture may look better on MainPage if we use the column format, instead of the row format ? May need to enlarge and <center> it, though. --PFHLai 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I agree in part: for wide landscape pictures. Portrait or narrow landscapes are fine in column format as it makes the most of the available space. I would also like to congratulate whoever wrote the accompanying text today — an admirable commentary on the picture rather than its subject matter, as it's meant to be. --Bazza 18:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Adding optional "edit" links

I've created a version of the main page containing edit links for the five featured content sections (intended for use by admins). They're hidden via CSS (bypass your cache if they aren't), but this can be overridden by adding the following code to one's personal monobook.css (or equivalent) file:

.sysop { display: block }

Ideally, someone with better coding skills than mine will kindly relocate the "edit" links to the right-hand sides of the section headers.

Are there any objections to the idea of incorporating this change into the actual main page? —David Levy 19:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

This sounds good to me, as anything that makes admins lives easier must be good. Does it use the same "adding an edit button" trick that I've seen other templates use. In fact, I might as well ask, now the subject has come up, whether there is an accepted standard for such "manually added" edit buttons for templates. I've seen several styles used: the "vce" style (which I hate), a templated "edit" button in the style of the vce buttons, and then this one which is much more recognisable as the Wikipedie style edit buttons. And should "edit" buttons be used on all templates, or only in some cases? Carcharoth 22:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm not familiar with the tricks to which you refer, but this method probably is different. Rather than modifying the templates themselves, I added links to the main page code. —David Levy 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I've found some examples of what I was referring to: Template:Histalbania (the normal edit button); Template:History of China (uses the Template:Tnavbar, which seems to be widely used). I couldn't find the other styles I was remembering, though I'm sure others exist. Template:Edi and its related templates, especially the primary one at Template:Edit are also relevant. It seems silly to me that these different styles exist. I was wondering if there was any guideline anywhere that covers this? Carcharoth 01:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I definitely support this proposal. Cut's down on the navigational maze to get to the correct page. Relocation into the section headers would be ideal so that it doesn't affect the spacing of items in each section. Good work, let's get it live soon. 08:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Per advice received at WP:VPT, I just changed the necessary CSS code ("#" → "."). I'm still working on getting the links to appear within the section headers. —David Levy 09:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Thanks to Splarka, the "edit" links now reside within the section headers. —David Levy 12:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Looking good, I've updated the test page to remove the extra square bracket pairs on the edit links. 13:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The surrounding brackets are deliberate; these are designed to resemble the standard [edit] links that appear on most pages. —David Levy 13:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Not good IMO - replied on your talk page. 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Your explanation convinced me. I've reverted to your version. —David Levy 13:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Can anyone add the ".sysop { display: block }" to their monobook, or will that only work for admins? Failing that, is it possible to have a "view" option that non-admins could use? That way they can easily see what is going on, even if they can't edit the template. Carcharoth 13:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Anyone can use the ".sysop { display: block }" code if he or she desires. —David Levy 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

With all the relatively recent versions of JAWS (the most popular screen reader for windows) I tried, the edit links appear no matter what I put in my monobook.css. They also appear after the heading title, rather than before it, as is normal for other wikipedia pages. The main heading "from wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ..." is not spoken on the main page, which is the expected behaviour. Could the techniques for that also be employed in hiding the edit links for non-css based browsers? I also don't think css is the right way to go about changing content on a page; it was designed for style and presentation issues. I like the concept though of being able to get to the template quickly. Graham talk 14:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Ah I see the top heading of the main page is hidden by some code in MediaWiki:Monobook.js. It'd might be harder to hide the edit links with that method, but I don't understand why JAWS is ignoring the CSS but not the JavaScript. Graham talk 14:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Hello, Graham! I recall your past assistance, and I intended to contact you regarding this matter.
The reversal in order is because most "edit" links appear above and to the right of the heading titles, while these links appear on the same line (but still to the right).
In order to hide the "edit" links, you might need to clear your cache. (I don't know how to do that in JAWS.) I updated a site-level CSS file, and you probably have the previous version cached.
Please report back with any updates. Thank you! —David Levy 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I cleared my cache with control+f5, but the edit links were still there. Graham talk 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Okay, I'm going to pursue an alternative solution. —David Levy 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I just added "speak:none" to the style tags. Did that solve the problem? —David Levy 14:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
No, they still appear. The tags appear in the html source, so it's definitely retrieving the latest version. Graham talk 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Are you certain that you cleared your entire cache (as opposed to just that page)? The important code was added to MediaWiki:Common.css. —David Levy 14:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Yep, I deleted all temporary files, and the edit links are still there. Probably a site-wide problem, though I'm not sure how the main css works and why it's ignored. Graham talk 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I just changed "speak:none" to "display: none" in one of the sections and previewed it to see what happened. The edit links did not appear in that section. This means that there is probably a cite-wide problem with ignoring common.css, and JAWS doesn't recognise "speak:none". If that was saved, it'd defeat the purpose entirely. :) Graham talk 14:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I don't know why MediaWiki:Common.css isn't working for you. I was told that it would be possible to include the "display: none" code on the page itself, but I can't seem to figure out how to do so in a manner that can be overridden via custom CSS. Hopefully, someone else will step in. —David Levy 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I've wanted something like this for a long time and, if we can get it to work, this will be an excellent way to do it. We could add other things, such as history and talk page links as per this example. violet/riga (t) 19:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Angry Students

Many scholars are very upset about the possibility of people who don't know what they're talking about changing the text. However, calling a nice person like me a vandal is frowned upon.-- 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)(dial up)[]

My hunch is that this comment is from Chuck Marean (talk · contribs), who has left messages from IPs in this range previously before remembering to login. See, for example, The topic of the comment fits recent issues with Chuck as well. Chuck, let's take this discussion to your talk page, ok? --mtz206 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Isreal in Lebanon

- No mention on the main page in the news....seems much bigger than a couple of tennis champs in an event that happens all the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyintothesky (talkcontribs) 21:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC).[]

Flyintothesky, please note that Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia) is not Wikinews (a news website) ....... and please make use of Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, not Talk: Main Page, to post suggestions for ITN. Thanks. -- 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Operation Just Reward is now on Main Page. -- PFHLai 13:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

To be precise, I believe Israeli ground troops didn't enter Lebanon (at least not on a notable scale). The headline should be something like "Israel strikes Hezbullah and Lebanese infrastructure in response..." or "Israel launches operation Just Reward..." Please correct. Idan Yelin 08:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It is big news. Obviously one so political and religious a website might want to not get too entangled with. But, wouldn't Wiki be a good place to go to see objective background? Such as-- If Lebanon is a country, how come these Hezbullah guys are running a big chunk of it? Is this like the drug cartels running a piece of Columbia the size of Switzerland? What are the current boundaries? Who are the main players involved? What agreements are currently in place, either working or ignored? Bptdude 08:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Italy Beat?

Shouldn't that be Italy beats France, to stay in present tense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

They aren't presently beating them, are they? --mtz206 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I don't know, but apparantly bombs are presently going off in India, and Basavey is presently dying. --Descendall 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Please see above #World Cup news request. -- PFHLai 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Image Switch

There has been some discussion on the talk page of ITN that the map shows Mumbai in different places depending on the reader's browser. Perhaps Image:Mumbai-main.png...


...could replace the superimposition of the India map image on the Main Page. Thanks in advance. -- joturner 02:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Try Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. -- 06:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1981, 2006

Why there isn't any mention of the sixth arab-israeli war in the news pan? This is the only news that matters today, because it has the potental to go WMD, make oil 10USD a gallon or cause another 9/11 for USA.

All hyperbole aside, it really really does merit a mention. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Please see above #Isreal in Lebanon. -- PFHLai 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Wikipedians, check out AOL news and put up a link to the ITN section. The recent crises in the Middle East has caused speculation on whether we're on the brink of World War III. Radio commentator/TV show host Glenn Beck is betting on his prophecy of a regional war to become global when nations start to take sides. Because of Iran pursues nuclear weapons development, and the insurgency in Iraq will get worse. International condemnation was open and wide for Israel's strategic attack on Hizbollah, except the U.S. remains a staunch ally to Israel and the military commonality shared with the Bush administration on the war on terror. I feel the latest incursions with Lebanon and Hizbollah will expand and intensify in the long run, along with Arab reaction to Israel is as bad as ever. What we need is find more news reports on the war and keep Wikipedians well informed. --Mike D 26 04:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The Chicken

is cute lol. --Howard the Duck 07:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

"Chickens (a one-day-old chick pictured)" is grammartically wrong. "Chickens ( an one-day-old chick pictured)" is right. --inky 07:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I disagree. At least in American English, a is used before an initial consonant sound; an is used before initial vowel sounds. "A one-day-old chick" is correct usage. — Knowledge Seeker 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Yeah but we're talking real English here not you modified version. We're talking the original language not the one America chewed up and spat out a again. It's "an one-day-old chick pictured" ok. Jimmmmmmmmm 09:29 , 13th July 2006
No. "A one-day old..." is correct in British English as well. "O" is a vowel, but since the word "one" has a consonant sound ("w" similar to "won"), the correct indefinite article is "a," not "an." Also, there is no need to be insulting (or trollish) towards American English. But if you insist, a Google Test tells the same story: of "a one way" (8,920,000) vs. "an one way (32,900). Carcharoth 08:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Sorry I was a bit mean, but Wikipedia is annoying me right now with being overly American and the use of American-English before English. I was wrong but just the phrase in "At least in American English" annoyed me. I don't care about American-English, thats not English, English is English. Jimmmmmmmmm 09:50 , 13th July 2006
The last thing I need is an English lesson from a guy who say "an one-day old." -- 12:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
While I understand your sentiments, it just makes you and us look silly when you try to use as an example that isn't really an example... Nil Einne 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
When you start putting a 'u' in colour, humour etc then start talking to me about how speak English. It's about time wikipedia (an international website) started using English rather than American-English. This is English wikipedia after all not American-English wikipedia. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:15 , 13th July 2006
Here's a guy who thinks that "An one-year old" is grammatical giving out English lessons. Good luck finding students. --Descendall 02:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm English, and "A one day-old" sounds right to me. The 'u's in colour etc. were artificially inserted to make English look like Latin, IIRC, not because it was the right spelling. There are various forms of English around the world - just because its origin is from "England" doesn't mean we own it! Stephenb (Talk) 12:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Lets just eat the chicken and get over it!! Mmmm! A one off chance to eat a big chicken!! ;-)

Thats my point though it's origins are here but we use everyone elses. I know we don't own it but you wouldn't use Austrian German in German wiki would you. I believe there is a difference don't quote me. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:27 , 13th July 2006 PS you not living in Enlgand? Just that you posted at 12:24 and it 13:24 here.

See Wikipedia:MoS#National_varieties_of_English. I'm in the UK. I guess my timestamp is UTC (probably GMT to you :-) Stephenb (Talk) 12:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Ok, that's gotten me curious. Does the German Wikipedia not have similar rules regarding local varieties of the language? If not, why not? GeeJo (t)(c) • 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Remove the one and you've solved the problem - it is redundant anyway.--Peta 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Your argument in favor of British English reminds me of the justification white supremacists in America use for their views. We were here first and English is our official language and we refuse to allow our cultural heritage to be tainted. Cigarette 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Jimmmmmmm, English as She Is Spoke is different in different parts of the world. We permit people to write in American English, Canadian English, British English, Australian English, New Zealand English, Hong Kong English, and so forth, without prejudice. The only guideline is consistency within one article, and that is generally decided by topic. NPOV forbids us from "choosing" one variety of English. Are you aware that there are more people learning English in China than anywhere else in the world? It's been released into the wild, and good or ill, it is becoming an international lingua franca. Finally, your not-an-example example reeks of Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, so please don't take such nonsense into actual articles just because you have chosen to adopt an extreme dislike of American English. Try instead to be at the very least tolerant, better yet, amused. If at all possible, best of all would be to simply appreciate the different ways that English has evolved around the world. --Dhartung | Talk 17:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
And besides, 70% of native English speakers speak American English. Just thought that little fact should be thrown in. Preston 00:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
All the more reason to educate them into the proper way. *LOLs* (joking) --Monotonehell 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It's a good thing Shakespeare wasn't subjected to this kind of editorial control! Cigarette 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

So Much Violence

Isn't there anything else more notable in the world than plane crashes, suicide bombers, etc..? It'd be nice to hear something newsworthy than the violence that wreaks every minute. --Nissi Kim 17:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]

"Puppy sniffs flower" doesn't make for very notable news.— ceejayoz talk 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Depends. If it was the recipient of the world's first successful canine nose transplant, it might :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Seems like the easiest way for "happier" news is to highlight sports and scientific breakthroughs on here, too. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Elections would work, too, but many people find them boring. -- 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Democracy is such a yawner! — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-13 23:29
Sports is just war by proxy. I say go the puppy sniffs flower route. ;) --Monotonehell 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[] Photographic evidence violet/riga (t) 09:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
If its news worthy, I wouldn't mind that. Accomplishments. Even death by natural disastors would be alot better news than death by war.


Bangladesh? I am offended! --Bobak 01:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Huh? What's offensive about an article on Bangladesh? — ceejayoz talk 02:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Maybe his name is Ladesh? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-14 03:51
No, I see wehre Bobak is coming from. Bangladesh is in the middle of their rainy season, so featuring them on the main page in the middle of July, of all times, is clearly meant to show off their inclement weather and deter tourism. Whoever scheduled it should know better. Raul654 04:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
First the Nazi-related article on World Cup Final Sunday and now this. And I hear tomorrow, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is being featured as a form of ridicule for recently losing its one-day total box office record to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Just shameful. -- joturner 04:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Didn't Raul decide to put ROTS on the Main Page long before the box-office totals were known? --maru (talk) contribs 05:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Well, he should have been able to figure it out. By reading the newspapers, conducting exit polls at theaters, monitoring bank transactions, and developing appropriate predictive software modules, he should easily have been able to forecast the box office trend and avoid shaming Star Wars during its vulnerable period. Have you no consideration? — Knowledge Seeker 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Wait, then if we have to take out Bangladesh, why not the article on Sedition Act of 1798. It makes America look like a totalitarian government in a time of war. --Nissi Kim 16:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

tee-hee-hee... Mischievous elf am I. (spoiler) --Bobak 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Cheeky git. — ceejayoz talk 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Did you know error

Should read "...sunk by a German U-boat..." and not an German U-boat. I think all that discussion about the chicken has got some people confused. - Cribananda 05:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Fixed. Thanks! Titoxd(?!?) 05:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It's easy! (to be confused) The a/an is applied to the phonetic sounds of the word, not the actual leading letter. So it's "a u-boat" but "an umbrella" - see? simple... *hides* --Monotonehell 05:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Good that you know. So whom were you trying to explain that to? - Cribananda 06:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
That should be "to whom were you trying..." Eixo 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
"An German?" Titoxd(?!?) 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
It should be "an German U-boat" in Boat English. I'm sick and tired of all you people using country-specific English. Don't you know that there were boats long before your countries existed? — Knowledge Seeker 06:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
"Those poor saps back on land will never know the simple pleasures of a monkey knife fight." -- Homer Simpson. Raul654 06:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
For all the discussion about the error in that DYK, I'm surprised no one caught another, more glaring error: "...that at the end of his 13 match first class cricket career, John Howarth's batting average of 0.00 set a new world record, and has led to him being dubbed one of cricket's worst batsmen?" Someone want to tell me what's wrong with that without checking the page history, where I fixed the error already? ;-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Batsmen and the hyphens between 13-match and class-cricket. Titoxd(?!?) 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

World cup

Surely the World Cup is no longer valid in the news section.

Items normally stay in the In The News section for a few days - it'll probably be dropped over the weekend. — sjorford++ 15:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Israeli troops enter Lebanon

To say the least. How about "Israel attacks Lebanon". The current story makes it sound like they're on a field trip. It's NPOV run amok. --Nelson Ricardo 17:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

nah its telling it like it is, what do you suggest then??? Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Israel enters Lebanon to attack Hezbollah would be more accurate, wouldn't it? — ceejayoz talk 02:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Absolutely, if the Beirut airport is a member. Zocky | picture popups 03:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Again, Israeli troops didn't enter Lebanon. Idan Yelin 14:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The ITN blurb is now changed to "...launch a military offensive into Lebanon...". Hope this helps. --PFHLai 20:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

frostys kid

i loved him i fort he was fit lmao i fort it was a bit funni when i got told he died coz every one gos around skl sing 'there ganna tast g8' lmfao but i dont think its nice the way peeps r nasty bout him coz he is famus lol iv seen worse and bet u av 2. yea when i first saw the ad i was on the floor in fits coz i fort it was soooooo funni but hes cute and not a very gd dancer lmao but still dont b so mean i bet hes a noce kid in side!!! and y the fuck would he kill him self 4 if he did kill him self it would b all ur fult 4 bein so mean to him. just think if u got asked to do sumin lik that 4 lik £3000 i bet u would do it any 13/14 yr old would cum on if i got asked to do it i would lol just remember there ganna tast g8!!!! but how can u sleep at night thinkin sumone who went out ov his was to make u laf has killed him self (but has he or not) and how can u sit down in the mornin eatin ur frosties and not think ov that song 'there ganna tast g8' and not feel bad bout him killin him self coz all ov u r bein nasty to him.i no theres sum peeps out there who feel the same as me cumon get over it find sumin else to laf at its not fear on him is it?

This is the English language Wikipedia. You may find that you receive more replies when you speak in English. GeeJo (t)(c) • 19:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Trnzl8shun:Vis iz V englsh wkpdia. u may get mor tok bak if u uz englsh GeeJo (t)(c) • 22:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Is there an SMS Wikipedia yet? --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

No, I don't think so. But you could creat one :D Dure 03:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

LOL KTHXBYE --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Serie A scandal results in relegation of three football giants

I think it might be newsworthy (in place of the World Cup) to put the news that Juventus, Lazio and Fiorentina have been relegated from Serie A for their role in the Serie A scandal of 2006.

Link from BBC: --Bveale 20:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

While this appears to be notable enough and has an updated article, ITN suggestions are made at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, not here :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Well, thanks for the heads-up! --Bveale 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Rembrandt's 400th birthday?

Okay, I know most people are not that stupid to think that Rembrandt would actually be alive to celebrate his 400th birthday, but is that really OK to word it as a "birthday" when the person in question is dead? How about "anniversary of his birth"? --Revolución hablar ver 05:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Agreed and fixed. Zocky | picture popups 05:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Firefox Problem

I'm currently experiencing a problem with Firefox - every time I go to the Wikipedia main page, I get the message "You have new messages...(blah blah)", but not when I click on any other pages within Wikipedia. I know for a fact I have no new messages, since I check the history and my edit is the latest. Also, it doesn't happen when I go to Wikipedia main page using IE. Anyone else got the same problem?  Killfest 08:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It sounds like you need to purge your broswer cache. Raven4x4x 09:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Lebanon image

The position of Beirut on the Lebanon map is off by quite a large margin. Junes 09:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Is this still a problem ? If it is so, please report this at WP:ERRORS. Thanks. -- PFHLai 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Italy Soccer

The in the news section has something about Italy soccer teams being demoted. When it mentions the world cup, it says "win". It should be "won". I went to the in the news page, but found out that like the main page itself, the template is protected. Can an admin please fix it?. TeckWizTalkContribsGuestbook 13:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

It's correct as it is. It's just written in British English. In AE, it would be "wins". Zocky | picture popups 13:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
No, it should be in past tense since the news clip is not about the World Cup. —Cuiviénen 15:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
To avoid the appearance of a grammatical tense error, the ITN blurb has been rewritten as "... only days after the Italian national team's victory in the 2006 FIFA World Cup." Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 20:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Italy Soccer. Again.

It says that the teams have been "demoted" - I would have thought that "relegated" was the standard word for what's happening here.Karlusss 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

The submission on the ITN candidates page used "demoted" over "relegated" mostly because not all would know what "relegated" meant in this context. GeeJo (t)(c) • 15:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Demote and relegate mean two different things. Is this Simple: Wikipedia now? Relegated is the correct word. If people don't know what it means that can click on the story or look in a dictionary. Jooler 16:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Hey, don't look at me, I neither wrote the entry nor put it on the Main Page. I'm just explaining why it's currently that way. :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 16:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
"Removed" is better. Not everybody understands the concept of relegation and promotion in European football. --Howard the Duck 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I've added a link to Promotion and relegation. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 20:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
That's OK for me. --Howard the Duck 04:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Not enough variety in FA Selections.

Since Tony Blair is to be the FA for July 16, I don't imagine there will be another FA about any other British politician for some time. This is as it should be. There are three science-fiction-related Featured Articles for July 1-19 however. This is too much sci-fi.

Add to the FA criteria a rule that articles to do with a given topic not be selected as an FA until after a reasonable interval has passed since the last time an article in a so closely related field was featured.

If this comment belongs someplace else, my apologies. I'm new at this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csmccann (talkcontribs) 21:04, 2006 July 15 (UTC).

I agree that main page FA selections should be varied, and that three science-fiction-related articles in three weeks may be a bit much. Raul654 Is responsible for choosing which FAs appear on the main page, so you might want to mention this to him. However please note that there is no strict relationship between the order in which articles are determined to be as FAs, and the order FAs appear on the main page. FAs can appear on the main page more than once, and some FAs are considered inappropriate for the main page, for various reasons (e.g. no good picture). Paul August 21:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I try to avoid scheduling article from the same topic within about about a week of each other; however, I don't take the whole month's article into account when doing it. Also, I don't know where you are getting three featured articles - I only count two (Three Laws of Robotics and Revenge of the Sith); possibly you are also counting Final Fantasy X, which is not science fiction by any means. Also, one minor correction - Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (the governmental position) is scheduled for the 16th, not Tony Blair Raul654 21:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I only see two science-fiction articles within between July 1-19: Three Laws of Robotics and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. However, I could note that a correlation could easily be made between almost any two articles. For instance (although this is a rather basic example), there are four geography-related articles between July 8-24 (Nauru, Bangladesh, Cape Town, Lastovo), although some made add some of the other articles within that period to that category. -- joturner 21:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Plus, Three Laws of Robotics may have its origins in sci-fi, but it's clearly also a social issue of tremendous importance as we work on AI. 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Not to mention that you can find a lot of people who will vehemently argue that Star Wars is not "real" sci-fi, but space opera. ;)
As with so many things at Wikipedia, this is a function more of editorial bias rather than process. We can't schedule FAs to balance a topic if they aren't being improved and promoted. And I agree with Joturner that as humans we're likely to create patterns even where they don't exist. So, the impulse here should be to decide to work on promoting different featured articles than what you see, rather than argue against volunteers who are working hard to improve the areas of Wikipedia that are important to them. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia Game

The other day my friends and I discovered a fun game to play with wikipedia. First click on "random article" (it usually helps to read the article). Then click on another random article. From here, you have to navigate back to the first random article by using only links found in each article you go to. You cant type anything in the search box and you cant use the "back" button. Its fun because you have to try to think of a chain of connections that link the two different things. Also you can play this game by just saying what subject to start with and what subject to get to. I guess the winner is whoever can do it in the fewest number of links. Or perhaps with the strangest links.

  • This game is pretty old, and you have to be careful that people don't cheat by using the tool that does exactly what you're supposed to do in the game. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-15 23:57
Sounds like a Wikirace. —Cuiviénen 23:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[]

the news states this: "S7 Airlines Flight 778 crashes in Irkutsk, Russia, killing at least 124 people on board." however the page for S7 airlines states there was an emergency langing and no deaths

The accident in question occurred on July 9th (a separate incident involving the same flight number occurred on July 13th) and is included in that article. —Cuiviénen 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Wildfires in So. Cal. article

Wikipedia had a news article for a moment (it seems the link was removed) on the So. Cal. wildfires. I live not far from the wildfires raging on in 75,000 acres near Yucca Valley, Cal. For 5 days, the two wildfires went beyond the control of Cal. Dept. of Forestry firefighters and they merged 6 miles west of there, due to temperatures above 100F and high winds. In the weather report, humidity went up and this is good for the firefighters' effort to stamp out the fires. Before the fires, it's been quite dry as the blaze gets closer and closer to development, like the community Pioneertown build in the 1950's as a stage set to film many Western movies and TV shows. So far, 200 homes are destroyed or in the blaze, while thousands of other homes are evacuated. At this time, the inferno is 25-30% contained. --Mike D 26 04:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I'm unsure what you mean. Wikipedia does not have any "news articles". For those try Wikinews. If you mean there was an entry in "In the news", how long ago was this? I can't find it up to a week back. If you mean there was an article about these fires, perhaps it was removed as unencyclopedic? --09:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I recall seeing a one-liner about the fires in Portal:Current events, but there was no article associated with the news link. --Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[]