Talk:Main Page/Archive 132

Archive 125

←

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archives

Do we really need the archives listed twice in the title of this page? Once under the "This is the talk page" and once under "Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the most recent archive". Can we get rid of the unhidden prior? The top of this page is far too long -137.222.114.243 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have removed the whole of the top template, as it is redundant to the "NO OFFTOPIC QUESTIONS" banner. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009 Mediterranean storm

Location of naming. See Talk:January 2009 Mediterranean storm. Simply south not SS, sorry 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You can suggest small changes on the main page at WP:ERRORS even if it's not an error. --74.13.127.206 (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Duck grammar

The POD Australian Wood Duck has a line: "They are usually 45 to 51 centimetres (17.7 to 20.1 in) in length and look like a small goose." that doesn't make sense. Just saying, Sorry, just saw they were not talking about the eggs, but the duck. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect on main page

Is there a reason that one of the DYKs is a redirect to the actual article? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly because the person making the DYK was using "Everyday I Write the Song" rather than "Everyday I Write The Song". I believe the one on the DYK is correct but this spelling is redirected to a spelling using "The" with a capital T. I think it would probably be easier changing the link on the DYK to "Everyday I Write The Song", which means this should be moved to the errors in the main page section. Dark verdant (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No harm in redirects. The question is which is the correct title- per the MoS, Everyday I Write The Book should be Everyday I Write the Book. I will move it now. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Australia Bias

The Australian Wood Duck, Banksia ericifolia and the Rum Rebellion. All Australia! I demand you get rid of of this Australia bias on the Main Page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.112.36 (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day, mate! --74.14.20.242 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost

What is some weird crap about Lost doing on our main page? Doesn't anybody watch these things? --TS 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice featured article. That is where the featured articles go (main page). §hep • ^Talk 03:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a "featured article" full of bilge. This is one of the few really reprehensible things about Wikipedia: that we have so many brilliant articles but we filter them in such a manner that the most ridiculous crap is designated as the best we have. It's pretty horrible. If you're involved in this bilious process, stop. If you're not, stay away from it. Write about what need to be written about , edit the articles that need to be edited, and avoid the preciousness of "featured article" writing. --TS 04:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should keep in mind that some person spent hours, maybe days working hard on that article? I think they would appreciate that more than having their work called "crap". Regards, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How predictable of you to trash our finest writers and editors with glib hyperbole and crass generalizations, bereft of actual examples or evidence. FA standards are notoriously rigorous/fickle (depending upon your point of view), but they frequently result in minor masterpieces. This is a great article. So are this and this and this. These sorts of articles make me proud to say I'm associated with the project in some small way. I'd go so far as to say that the tiny to extent to which Wikipedia resembles an actual encyclopedia is due in large part to the efforts of our Featured writers and Reviewers. Of course, any human filtering system allows occasional bad apples through, and no process is a above critique. But Tony Sidaway's petulant foot-stomping does, well, nothing to improve the process. It goes without saying there are more important articles we'd all rather see on the front page--like, nasal sex or some dreck about Dr. Who; so hows about a little less whinin' and a little more writing? --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You make your point so well that you don't notice you've proven the opposite of what you believe. Those articles are great articles. And on reading them you immediately realise the difference between a great article on an interesting subject, and a tedious pop culture article on a tedious subject that happens to be on TV right now. One is a well-written article that makes even those who aren't interested in the subject understand why it interests those who are. The other ticks a few boxes (spelt properly, correct use of the arcane inline footnote system, and above all, long) and gets the same star.

The excellent and genuinely interesting article on The Garden of Earthly Delights was written 500 years after its subject appeared. If Wikipedia had been invented 500 years after Lost, no-one would have even bothered writing an article about the TV show, let alone a series of extended trailers. --81.157.142.106 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then do something about it instead of just complaining that everyone else in the world is less intelligent than you. If you don't like the featured articles, actually put in the effort to get an article you like to FA status, and therefore eventually on TFA. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article is well written, but the reception area seems to needlessly group reviews of individual episode by reviewer. This level of granularity seems unnecessary and trivial, detracting from a good encyclopedic article; I wouldn't have expected it FA without having that section pruned. —Ost (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell picks the daily article?

Not to insult the writers or anything like that. But today's featured article isn't exactly epic encyclopedia stuff. I'm left with the urge to ask if wikipedia got paid for running this commercial. --Theodore 03:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a featured article; Featured articles end up on the main page. If you dislike the selection, feel free to work on more significant articles. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the daily article is picked by user:Raul654. DS (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To Juliancolton; If you dislike the selection, feel free to work on more significant articles. What does that mean? Are you saying that I have to work on significant articles before I'm allowed to comment on today's featured article? Where did you come up with this rule? Please tell me - exactly which significant articles must I work on before I'm allowed to express my dislike at the selection --Theodore 06:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on, at least it's not that extremely crappy show about crappy jail guards that's finally gonna end. –Howard the Duck 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sure they left those crappy jail guards behind long ago. Isn't it more FBI-oriented now? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool it man. I'm sure you're misunderstanding what Juliancolton tried to say. Eakka (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What Juliancolton means is that if you have a problem with the articles that are selected, you are more than welcome to nominate ones that you'd prefer at WP:TFA/R. I do agree with you that it seems like a strange article to have FA status, but people spent a lot of time on that article. It's only fair that it goes on the main page - it's our best work. Thanks, Matty (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article means it's an excellently-written article as determined by the criteria, not that it's an "epic" subject. I admit to checking here because I anticipated comments on the webisodes' perceived lack of scope, but I'm displeased that the tone here and Talk:Lost: Missing Pieces#I think it's ridiculous is so harsh rather than constructive.

Also, while I was looking at the article, I noticed that blatant vandalism had gone unreverted for 17 minutes. I'm not blaming anyone, but I'm a little surprised that RC/TFA partollers didn't pick up on it. Revelian (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Common misconception

It's a common misconception that Xxxxxxx is insignificant/demeaning/bilge and therefore should not be today's Featured Article.

I was surprised that the relevant section of the Main Page FAQ focuses too much on the systemic bias complaint and does not properly address "this topic is pants". This should be addressed - it's an understandable misconception, after all.

PS A friendlier response to this complaint is a signpost to WP:TFA/R, rather than inviting people, most of whom are newbies, to write an article that passes these hairy criteria. I know only too well that even experienced users find it jolly difficult to get articles featured. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Tony Sidaway can rightly be classified as a newbie though. More importantly TFA/R requires a good reason, I think there's too much crap on the main page is simply not going to cut it. Even if you can't get an article up to FA by yourself, if you do a decent job of it it may eventually become FA. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, I think it's great that the main page includes all kinds of featured articles. I also think it's great that the FA criteria allow articles that one wouldn't find in traditional encyclopedias to qualify. To be frank, one of the things that makes WP work is the fact that anyone would be able to find a corner of the project that really interests them enough to make them want to dedicate time and effort to improving it. And once they start there they eventually move on to the rest of the project. It would be terribly unfair of us to deny the talented writers of this particular article an opportunity to have their work on TFA. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm only a casual watcher of Lost, but I found the article interesting and informative. I didn't know webisode-type material could be nominated for an Emmy, for example. Popular culture topics are interspersed with biographies, history, astronomy and biology, according to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2009. I wasn't fully aware of the point system for TFA requests that helps maintain that balance. I like occasionally reading about the unusual and esoteric, which includes Scout Moor Wind Farm and Beyond Fantasy Fiction (and the exploits of 4chan), especially when well-written. Revelian (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Would I be right in thinking that this featured on day of the United States new season premiere of the show? I've been warned not to "advertise" TV shows on the Main Page before (e.g. DYK) so I'm a bit confused at the contradiction here. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You would be right. §hep • ^Talk 03:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This was also done in that extremely crappy show about crappy jail guards that's finally gonna end and that sporting event where 22 people kick a ball for 90+ minutes. –Howard the Duck 13:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I could understand the sporting event (not specifically that one, I hasten to add, but anyone involving more than one country) as at least it is happening at the time and is a worldwide event. But fictional TV shows? I make the point because I thought I would once get an obscure documentary which was only airing in my country and was about a real-life political figure onto DYK on the day it was being broadcast but was advised that it might contradict Wikipedia's advertising policies. I would think something like Lost or Prison Break, which both air across the world (including where I am), would be more likely to be given a major boost from being featured articles for a day never mind a once-off DYK for a few hours... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused? The article about a webisode about the show about crappy jail guards that'll end soon wasn't on DYK, it was on FA. As long as an article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and people worked hard on it to please the FA gods it can be an FA. As for scheduling, the main participant in the FA process can petition his article to appear on a particular day, like for the subject's birthday, anniversary, first day of competition, election, or season premiere. There was nothing irregular about the appearance of the article or the date it appeared. –Howard the Duck 12:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: Sporting events not involving two or more countries are... banned? How about this article I had been working upon? Bye-bye Main Page? –Howard the Duck 12:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke, the season premiere date is a point in favor on WP:TFA/R. "Date relevant to article topic:[1] 1 point". I don't understand why DYK would discourage articles about a current TV show, as long as the language wasn't advertising. I know they sometimes have lots of similar theme articles in a short span (like railroads or trees) that they space out over several updates or collect into one multi-article hook. Revelian (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The hook in question had three articles. Anyway I'm not one for complaining, I was just looking for some feedback on where this applies. Thanks, I'll have a look at that. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

10 ITNs

For main page balance, there are currently 10 ITNs in T:ITN, 2 more than the recommended maximum. On times when we have a long TFA and short OTD, can DYK put on a few less items, or shorter ones? Spencer^T♦C 12:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The DYKs are put in queue around a day in advance, and cycle through every 6 hours. It's easier to just lengthen OTD; there is usually a fair number of hidden anniversaries that can be unhidden to balance out the Main Page. - Mark 12:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When putting DYKs in queue in advance, one should check the space availability on MainPage using tools on Template:Did you know/Next update. Fewer hooks and less wordy hooks should be used on days when TFA is long. Maybe there should be a word limit for TFA on MainPage. ITN should not need to bring back multiple old news items just to accommodate TFA & DYK and balance the two sides on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point; the featured article and the selected anniversaries are both on the Main Page for a fixed period of 24 hours. Evening out due to FA-length is best done with the selected anniversaries because they will both disappear from the Main Page at the same time, and the evening out will only have to be done once per day. Then all that remains to be done is to ensure ITN and DYK always remain around the same length as one another. - Mark 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark, your way will work if the only concern is the layout on MainPage, but it's not. IMO, it's not a good practice, as it's disregarding the issues with content. Please consider the following:

• Items on Selected Anniversaries (now know as OTD) shown each year are selected and un-selected for a reason. Most of the time it's no big deal to bring in (unhide) an extra item, but not always (example).
• Does ITN want to be "around the same length as" DYK? No. The purpose of ITN is to showcase articles well updated with recent news materials. Having non-recent (old) news items to go stale on ITN for 10 days is not good. Bringing back ancient items, already removed from ITN due to age, is bad. The number of items on ITN used to be "3 to 5", but often there were "5 to 8", violating it's own guidelines to help balance the layout on MainPage -- to the point that young veterans at ITN thought "5 to 8" is the way things are supposed to be and the ITN guidelines got changed ("updated") without much discussion. (At least, this is how I remember it.) This results in stale items sitting at the bottom much longer. Yesterday, there were 10 items on ITN for quite a while. We need to keep ITN short (ideally, about 5) to keep the contents current.
• How long should the text on TFA templates be? We don't need much, probably 800 to 1000 characters, for a good summary of an FA. (Today's TFA has about 900+.) I don't mind giving TFA a little more space on MainPage. It's good stuff, and deserves to be prominently displayed on MainPage. But, these days, TFA often have 1200+ characters. And yesterday's TFA template had more than 1600 characters until I trimmed it. Why so long?
• DYK is the one section on MainPage that is revised quite extensively during each day, and there are tools at DYK/NU to help fit things nicely with the other sections on MainPage. There should be 5 to 8 hooks per set, with a cap of 200 characters per hook. There are enough hooks to choose from to not have 8 hooks all almost 200 characters long on DYK on a day when TFA has a longer paragraph, closer to 1000 characters instead of 800. What's wrong with putting up just 6 hooks when having 8 hooks messes up the layout on MainPage? Why not mix in some less wordy hooks? Why are there sometimes 9 hooks? Why does cramming 12 hooks on DYK at the same time get a mention in the DYK Hall of Fame as if it's an achievement? I understand that some days there is a backlog. It's okay to adjust other sections on MainPage to help out. But when the backlog becomes a chronic problem, fix the backlog problem instead of padding the other sections every day. We need to be more selective about the hooks, throw out the uninteresting ones, and use only 6 hooks when the hooks are long, and up to 8 hooks only when shorter hooks are available, depending on how things fit on MainPage.
• Please don't needlessly pad extra items onto various sections on MainPage. You're pushing the very pretty POTD further and further down the screen. And some viewers are bound to miss out.

I didn't miss your point, Mark. I simply don't think it was a good idea. When the left side of MainPage is frequently too long, we should fix the problems on the left side so that the right side doesn't have to compensate so often. --PFHLai (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 28, 2009

The text on tomorrow's TFA template is very long at 1725 characters. Can we not have 10 ITNs again tomorrow, please? We need space on MainPage for DYKs. Help is needed to trim this TFA blurb to about 1000 characters long. Thanks in advance. --PFHLai (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's now 1237 characters long. Hope it's short enough. Thanks to BorgQueen for the initial cuts. --PFHLai (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions

I just saw an article on Yahoo! that says Wiki is proposing to not allow anonymous posts or 1st time posts unless reviewed by a trusted source. This is due to someone editing the wiki pages of Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. Robert Byrd. This user posted that these men had died when in fact they are still barely living. The article states that the error was corrected "within minutes". I think Wiki needs to cool their jets. The community worked. Incorrect information was corrected. No one got led astray. I'm sure some kid wasn't doing a biography and reported they died in his school paper because of an incorrect posting anyway. Maybe someone was just trying to be the first to report the news. I dont think their was malicious intent there. I am not sure why Wiki is calling this "vandalism". The word vandalism implies harmful intent. Doesn't seem to be the case here. Get with it Wiki... ease up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.178.70 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this. This is the place to discuss the main page. Places to discuss this include WT:Flagged revisions and WP:VPP. Algebraist 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Strictly on the issue of the Main Page, Wikipedia itself is somewhat in the news today (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7851400.stm, for example) on the "Flagged Revisions" point, so I came to the Main Page looking for a link through to where the discussion itself was taking place. For such a high profile debate, and for so obvious a reason for people to be visiting the Main Page in the first place, would this not be a worthwhile addition? Cncoote (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed that that's what the Village Pump link is for... but I still think that with this is the news, the it could be clearer where to head.Cncoote (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It makes little sense for people to visit the main page if they want to participate in the discussion. It makes sense for people to visit wikipedia whereby they are liable to end up on the main page. The header at the top of this page however clearly tells people this is not the place for such a discussion. And to be frank, if people can't be bothered to read a simple header, I'm not sure if they will have anything useful to add to the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

27 January 2009 Picture of the Day

...."rendered his work moot" - this is a rather novel use of the word "moot" - did the caption writer have redundant in mind? 196.2.124.248 (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No. "Redundant" would indicate that his work substantially imitated (knowingly or not) work which had already been accomplished. "Moot" indicates that his work was pointless, without purpose or useful application. The latter is the case... the naval victory made producing Fulton's submarine unnecessary and probably even wasteful. Had Fulton completed his design sooner, the submarine might have been produced and put to useful application in that battle, which would have made it not moot. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This should be reported and discussed on WP:ERRORS. Not here. --74.13.129.119 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. A question about a potential error on the Main Page should not be discussed on Talk:Main Page? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up and go to Talk:Main Page#Main Page error reports. --74.13.129.119 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha, but there is not actually an error. I have frequently seen discussions moved down here when the error report was found to be mistaken. Is this an incorrect practice? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is meant for minor grammatical problems. There's no great harm in having this discussion here, especially as there is disagreement. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ERRORS is a good place for these things. It's on the watchlist of those involved in maintaining MainPage. Lengthy discussion shouldn't take place there, though. --PFHLai (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I used to watchlist the errors page, but I took it off. I only watchlist the main talk page now. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear 196 felt there was an error so the error report section was indeed the best place for this. The fact that they were wrong doesn't change this and although PFHLai is right it's not suitable for a lengthy discussion, the only reason this one is lengthy is because we're discussing the best place for a discussion. Discussions concerning only one aspect of the main page are usually best held in the talk page for that section anyway. POTD is one area where we don't tend to get a lot of discussion but even so, in this case the best thing would probably have been in the error report section and if the discussion got unwieldy move to Template talk:POTD/2009-01-27 with a wikilink in the error report section. (As the error report section emphasises, discussions about anything which occurs in the article should always take place in the article talk page first.) BTW one of the advantages with the error report section is people are not left scratching the heads as I was as to where on earth the issue occured. Nil Einne (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article

PROPOSAL: Massie Block Yep ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.186.162 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, and after making sure the article meets the criteria, feel free to nominate the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks, Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I iz discriminated against

Why has it been so long since there's been a cat on the main page? Ceiling Cat (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Voilà: Category: Main Page. --PFHLai (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

On this day...Sergius III

"Sergius III whose pontificate was remarkable for the rise of what some historians saw as a pornocracy..." seems to be an unverified "fact" and should not be on the main page. I am not questioning the corruption of his reign, but rather that the term "pornocracy" has been used by more than a single author who may or may not be a "historian" in the academic sense. Look at the pornocracy article and see how unreferenced it is. It has tags all over it. This blurb would never have passed DYK process. "On this day..." should have similar standards. --Boston (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I copyedited the item. How does it look now? --BorgQueen (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That is appropriate! The pornocracy article should probably go to AfD. I'll see if it can be improved first or if it really is WP:OR. --Boston (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

can anyone help? please!

In need help with this question ; I have no idea how to find the answer. So here it is- A color blind man marries a woman of normal vision who is homozygous dominant. What are the chances that they will have a color blind son? A color blind daughter? Why? Any suggestion, websites that can help or answers are greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.95.75 (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You should try asking at WP:RD/Sci. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.115.68 (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting for a local wiki link on en's main page

Do we need any requirements to place a local wiki link on english wiki's mainpage? --~GlaCiouS~ (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been protected so that only admins can edit it. What did you want linked? I can add it for you. Thingg^⊕⊗ 16:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The requirement is that only Wikipedias with at least 20,000 articles and a minimum depth of "5" are permitted on en.wiki's main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Search box

I've added a search box to the header. Most core discussion pages have one now. I think it will be useful given the size of the archives and how often certain issues come up and the fact we like to suggest people search the archives. Feel free to change the wording or move it around though Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this change, it's a great idea and should supplement the FAQ well. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea! Thumbs up! --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncalled for precedence for obscure holiday

Why is the more or less unknown (how often to hear this, come on now) pagan "festival" Imbolc placed before the much more known Christian day? Neopagans are little in number and most people aren't going to know what this "Imbolc" is. This order of precedence seems to be a little...stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.240.91 (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then. You've answered your own rant there. "Most people aren't going to know what this "Imbolc" is". Lucky Wikipedia provides lots of links to click on to rid the world of all this devastating confusion. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of either festivals. I used to be Catholic and although perhaps not extremely observant I think it's fair to say that the feast of St. Bridgid is not in the top 20, probably not even in the top 50 or 100 of important days for most Christians. Perhaps things are different in Ireland but in that case it's predominantly an Irish thing and not a Christian thing as you suggested. Given that Imbolc is an important day for people of a few small religions and St. Bridgid is a very minor day for people of a large religion, neither really has big claim for importance. According to Imbolc, St. Bridgid's day arose out of the Imbolc traditions anyway. So all in all neither observance is of great international importance. The Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries don't say anything about ordering items. I'm not that familiar with SA but perhaps we have an unwritten policy to order items in order of 'importance' when there is an extremely clear difference (using an example I came across for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October (2008) Diwali vs Okhi Day) but I doubt there is any consensus to always order as such when it's not clear since that would lead to dumb and pointless disputes, it appears to be random from a quick look through SA. If you want, you're welcome to change the order for next year. If you have further comments, I suggest you take them to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither have I. Good thing Wikipedia has lots of readily available information on both, eh.  GARDEN  10:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Having heard of both I cannot differentiate without finding some sort of bias. "Bia" is incidentally the Irish language word for food which reminds me that I'm hungry. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As Nil Einne said, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries does not specify an order. The holidays and observances are listed more or less at random, or probably in the order that they were added by someone on each page first. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate linking in Did You Know

On 1 February 2009, a DYK reads: "that landscape architecture firm West 8 designed the so-called "Reptile Bridge" between Leidsche Rijn and Utrecht in the Netherlands?". Rather than "Reptile Bridge" wikilinking to an article about the bridge (which would be interesting), it individually links to articles about the two words "reptile" and "bridge" (which is not very informative). Incidentally, there is no such linking in the "West 8" article itself. Perhaps we can be a bit more careful with wikilinks? Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Go to WP:ERRORS to suggest changes on the main page. --74.14.23.66 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but why does this constantly happen. I swear there is a not a day that go buys when I click a bold link that goes to something completely unrelated. News story links are the worst, they rarely even goto information about the news event. This really puts off new visitors, maybe the procedure should be greatly improved, i mean c'mon who ever added Reptile and Bridge as links for reptile bridge.... wtf were they thinking--Dacium (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As was explained a few days ago, as the main page is intended to show off wikipedia, not all links have to be highly contextual. Sure linking to Reptile Bridge makes sense but there's no harm in linking to articles of only indirect relevance if there's no article of more direct relevance. The kind of mistakes happen, and for most parts of the main page including DYK, you are welcome to participate in the process to try and reduce the chance of it happening in the future. As for your comments on bolded links, if you mean ITN (which is NOT about news stories) they should always link to the article with the most information about the specific event. I've never, ever, come across an ITN item which links to an article which doesn't discuss the event at all so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. On occasion another article may discuss the event in greater detail but even this is very rare. Slightly more common, but even then not that common, the article with the most details is perhaps not the ideal candidate to discuss the event but the article which is the better candidate is in a poor state so we link to the better article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To help vet out problematic hooks before they appear on DYK, pls go to T:TDYK. --74.14.23.66 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Clock

Has anyone noticed that the clock says it is Feb. 2, but that it is actually Feb. 1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.157.117 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on UTC, and when you posted (as you can see by your auto sig) it was 00:31 2 Feb 09. 82.19.2.92 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please make seperate section headings if the issue you are raising is unrelated Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And once again we find that, stunningly, the world doesn't revolve around the US. Sigh. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to spin a simple misunderstanding into allegations of American arrogance. I've seen similar questions from people in other countries. —David Levy 13:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it depends. Most questions I've seen (including from Americans) ask what timezone wikipedia is in or something similar although I have seen some like this before (can't remember the nationality, didn't see important.) I would say not being aware that other timezones exist is rather ignorant (or arrogant depending on the reason) particularly on the internet but that's not exclusive to Americans (although from my experience outside wikipedia it's surprising how many Americans are not aware of UTC/GMT or the connection between their timezone to UTC, something I learnt at a relatively early age and which seems a fairly basic and important fact. The same may or may not be the same for people from other large countries, I can't say. More annoying of course is when people expect you to know what the heck the times in EST, PST etc are and don't provide a UTC/GMT or UTC+/- figure.). Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's almost as annoying as when people don't know the difference between UTC and GMT, but it's a situation with which I've learned to live. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here's links to UTC and GMT... 99.50.50.41 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But who doesn't know the difference between UTC or GMT (in other words, what does this have to do with anything)? If you were referring to my message, the reason I didn't bother to note the difference is because it was irrelevant to what I was saying. If you think it's necessary to mention irrelevant details in every post you make, then I suggest wikipedia is not the place for you. Actually the whole internet is not the place for you... Besides that, I question why understanding the difference between UTC or GMT is important. For a non-technical audience, whether you mean UT1 or UTC doesn't matter much at all. While it's helpful to be aware of the difference, it doesn't seem to me to be that important. I could get by fine if no one was aware of the difference provided they knew of at least one. It wouldn't effect the ability for them to work out what the time is elsewhere, nor would it effect my ability to know what time they're referring to without having to look up odd timezones that don't concern me. In other words, most people can work fine across timezones without knowing the difference. So all in all, I'm not seeing any reason why it's such a big issue for you that people don't know the difference between UTC or GMT. IMHO it might be better for you to learn to let it be that there are some people who don't consider what is often unimportant minutae dictate their lives. Sure if you do require 1 second accuracy, then yes, it can be a problem but most people don't Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have apologized for my unhelpful post (see below). --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 99.50.50.41, for doing what I should have done last night – which is to make an effort to educate rather than grandstand about how annoying it is that not everyone knows as much as I do. I apologise (or, apologize) for my unhelpful post. Having come to my senses I recognise (or, recognize) that, at it's best, Wikipedia is a global sharing of information that can bring people together (and, at it's worst, will drive them apart with sarcastic remarks about whole countries or cultures); therefore, my belated New Year's resolution is to make a real effort to see individuals as individuals instead of stereotypes, to try to non-judgmentally understand their worldview and, when I can, to patiently help guide them towards the information they need to make them good global citizens (rather than lump them by nationality and marvel at their ignorance). I know the world isn’t perfect and if I want it to change I’m going to have to roll up my sleeves, get out there and start changing it – myself. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh, it'll never become policy. :P —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of educating people, since it's apparent your post is not a reply to my comment, is there any reason indented it under my post? If you're not aware of good indenting etiquette, try Wikipedia:Indentation Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I indented it under my own post because it was, in effect, both a follow on to my previous post and a reply to 99.50.50.41. You are correct, my second post was not a reply to your comment but I did have your comments (and the comments of a lot of others) on my mind while I was writing it. Cheers for the lead on the indentation page, I'll have a look at it. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you know

It does not say "(Pictured)" next to "Wilkinson motorcycle" in the "Did you know..." section

Fixed. Thanks. - Mark 03:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please make seperate section headings if the issue you are raising is unrelated Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please make use of #Main Page error reports (WP:ERRORS) next time. --74.14.23.66 (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian holidays and their labelling

I have always found the manner in which the labelling of the Christian holidays is done is at best confusing and at worst wrong. Taking today's holiday (Candlemas) as an example, it is claimed that today this holiday is solely celebrated in Western Christianity, by which, I assume, this implies the Latin Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, and the various Protestant traditions. However, this is wrong, as all Byzantine Rite Churches on the Gregorian Calendar (e.g. Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in many parishes in North America or the Finnish Orthodox Church) or on the Revised Julian Calendar (mixed calendar) (e.g. the Orthodox Church of America and the (Orthodox) Church of Greece also celebrate this holiday today. For those churches on the Julian calendar, which includes most Slavic Orthodox Churches, such as the Church of Russia, celebrate the holiday on February 15th on the Gregorian Calendar, but on February 2nd on the Julian Calendar. The same would apply for those using the Coptic calendar (Coptic Rite), which would be on February 15th in most years (There are some difference about when the leap year occurs). Finally, in the Armenian Rite, on the Gregorian Calendar, Candlemas is on February 15th (40 days after Christmas/Epiphany was is celebrated on January 6th). Now for the small group of Armenians using the Julian calendar (I believe this is the case in Jerusalem), this would be February 28th! Of note, although I have never seen it happen, it is theoretically possible to celebrate the Latin Rite on the Julian calendar. This may be used by the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, which is a Latin Rite Liturgy in the Western Tradition. Thus, for them, Candlemas would be on February 15th! Thus, I would suggest the following scheme to be used:

1. For most fixed holidays (not depending on the date of Easter): February 2nd Candlemas (Christians using the Gregorian or Revised Julian Calendars). Then, February 15th Candlemas (or Presentation) (Christians using the Julian or Coptic Calendars).
2. For the variable holidays, which depend on the date of Easter: April 12th Easter (Christians using the Gregorian Calendar). April 19th Easter (Christians using the Julian, Revised Julian, and Coptic Calendars). Aside: There is a small issue with the Oriental Churches, which under certain circumstances use different date for Easter if it occurs on April 2nd.

Finally, for the saints, whose commemoration is dependent on the rite being used by the Church, then both the rite and calendar should be included. Thus, for example on January 25th (Gregorian Calendar), it is claimed that it is the feast day of Gregory of Nazianzus in Eastern Orthodoxy. This is only true for those Christians using the Byzantine Rite and the Gregorian or Revised Julian Calendars. For the remainder of Eastern Orthodox Christians, that day was the feast day of St. Tatiana. I would suggest that the feast days be mentioned as feast day of Name of Saint (Byzantine Rite using the Gregorian or Revised Julian Calendars). Woollymammoth (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, we usually have a few holidays on OTD. I'm not familiar with religious holidays, but I'm worried about practicality. Something like "feast day of Name of Saint (Byzantine Rite using the Gregorian or Revised Julian Calendars)" for each and every saint commemoration could make the holidays way too long on days where there's even two saints. The browser I'm using now allots about 60 characters of readable prose per line for the OTD section, it'll probably be even less at home, where I use a laptop. Your example has 90 characters, and that's just one holiday. Having say, four lines of holidays alone doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the page.
I don't want any factual incorrections on the main page of course, so can you think of a less eloquent way of specifying the calendar and rite? Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Main Page usually defers to the terms used on the relevant articles. In this case, the infobox tables on Easter, Candlemas, and most of the other Christian holiday articles use the "Western/Eastern" notation. Therefore, I would recommend that you contact some of the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays who help organize the articles related to Holidays. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Candlemas listed as a holiday/observance on the main page today (February 2)?

Remove the line of links

I've just been investigating page hits for the links from the main page, whilst doing so I noticed a couple of duplicates ... and before you know it came to the conclusion that this line of links Overview · Editing · Questions · Help Contents · Categories · Featured content · A–Z index is uneccessary. About,Help,contents, and featured content are already linked in the sidebar, the editing tutorial can be accessed from intro and about, that leaves questions,categories and a-z, which could be integrated into the side bar. This would bring the content up by one line - not much but an improvement for readers to get more 'meat' right away. LeeVJ (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A long-term Main Page redesign discussion is currently ongoing. The current plan includes removing that line of links. If you have any other general suggestions about the formatting of the Main Page, it would be best to make them there. —Verrai 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the pointer will have a look .. but why isn't it being done the wiki way, it's faster and more organic than a whole proposal for a new look? LeeVJ (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The main page is extremely high-profile, and whatever might be gained by editable Main Page would be lost in the ridiculous amount of vandalism it'd receive. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just meant the process for the main page redesign proposal is taking understandably longer than regular concensus built changes, hopefully it will be applied soon! LeeVJ (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dartmoor Cross

The blurb states "Dartmoor crosses (example pictured) were probably used not for religious purposes". It would seem to me they were to help people, including pilgrims navigate safely from one abbey to another. It would follow then that going to an abbey would be a religious purpose, wouldn't it? CsikosLo (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought. Perhaps "were not used for ceremonial purposes" would be more precise. A pilgrimage is a religious exercise, though not a ceremony. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages

Now that there are several laguages that are over the 500,000+ articles mark --six to be precise (Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Nederlands, Polski, 日本語)-- shouldn't there be another breakdown on the Main Pages? Currently they are grouped at "More than 20,000", "...50,000", "...100,000", "...300,000"; shouldn't there now be "More than 500,000" also? Also, I am presuming the http://www.wikipedia.org page will automatically break down into another 1,000,000+ section when a language reaches this benchmark...? Hope this is the right place to raise one/both of these issues. Jimthing (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This should be raised at Template talk:Wikipedialang, where they are constantly making and discussing adjustments to that template. As for the interlingual Main Page, it is governed by discussions at Meta-Wiki, not here on the English-language Wikipedia. —Verrai 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

More ITN picture silliness

A bold but brutally effective military strategy.

The first impression you get from ITN at the moment is that the Sri Lankan army have captured Mullaitivu, which is apparently in the middle of the Mediterranean. At least to those of us who read left to right and up to down like virtually everyone else on the planet, and aren't familiar with en.wiki's stupid formatting policies. As can be seen from the current image, the Sri Lankans chose to surprise the French by landing on the poorly-defended western coast adjoining the Bay of Biscay. They then stormed through the southern French mainland, which let's face it, isn't the most difficult of military campaigns. After sampling the local wines they crossed the Mediterranean and captured the well-known Tamil Tiger stronghold of Corsica.

No, I agree, that wasn't at all funny. Either align that shit or caption it for god's sake. --81.157.142.106 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A rather enjoyable story I must say. They're probably behind all these recent avalanches in Afhghanistan, Scotland and Turkey too, an added effect of their stomping carelessly across Asia and Europe. Presumably one of the slightly more insane members of the army got lost in Belgium along the way too... Chickens were dancing like hell along there and I knew they were all connected! --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As it appears you are already aware, this issue is discussed in the FAQ and in a section above. Saying the same thing over and over again is not going to achieve anything. As I've mentioned before, if you do the work to come up with a solution that works and pleases everyone, you might get things changed. If not, you're just wasting your time by coming up with silly stories. Incidentally, I don't know why you aren't more concerned about the people who think that Edward III, his mother Queen Isabella and her lover Roger Mortimer all lived at the Moscow State University because of yesterday's SA/OTD Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, Nil Einne, I agree with you that ITN formatting is that way for good reasons (lets just take every single previous discussion of this as already read, okay?), but 81.157.142.106 has a good point here - this particular combination of image and lead item is very bad. More to the general point, we know that people sometimes just assume that the lead item and image are related, so we ought to be careful not to confusion. All it takes is one moment to think about how people might mistakenly associate the image and lead item, and a willingness to reject images that might confuse people unduly. I realize that our new articles don't always have appropriate images to choose from, but we should still avoid confusion like this. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

81.157.142.106, stop being silly and get a wide screen monitor. The ITN pic will be next to the corresponding news item if the column is wide enough. Or look at the top of Portal: Current events. --74.13.127.206 (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

why dont we put the "(pictured)" before the text of the item so it is immediately obvious to those with narrow screens which is the pictured item Machete97 (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Because that will either result in us having to put pictured twice or people having to guess what precisely is being pictured or having to be unnecessarily verbose in all instances. (If you don't get what I'm talking about, pay a bit of attention to ITN or even just look at some of the current headlines. I don't know if we had a picture for the de-excommunication item but there are 6 people that could be pictured there. If we had pictured Benedict or that bishop we just put it besides their names, the same if we picture all 4 excommunees?) Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(pictured) before the item, caption explaining it.Machete97 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where to put the caption? --74.13.129.119 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do captions usually go ? Great example here with the map. Machete97 (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do captions usually go on the Main Page? Nowhere. And this is the problem. In the absence of captions, we use the text "(pictured)". See Nil Einne's post at 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC) for an explanation to why putting "(pictured)" before the item won't work. --74.13.129.119 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand the problem with the current situation, surely any new poeple to wikipedia are going to read the whole of the ITN section and see (pictured) next to the pictured article, and anyone who has been here longer will know that the picture is not always of the top article. I believe the problem is coming from people who are just too lazy to bother reading beyond the first article, yet can spend the time writing a big long argument demanding the picture be moved. If it is moved to be alongside the correct article the rest of the layout would look wrong as all four boxes use the same format of picture in the top right corner. It also seems to just be the ITN that gets the most complaints when DYK and OTD also do the same thing. Dark verdant (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"surely any new poeple to wikipedia are going to read the whole of the ITN section"? dont think so. even if you do scan the thing for the (pictured) it takes a minute to find it (should maybe be in bold?) and if you aren't looking for it ie. a newcomer, it could appear that the Sri Lankans had invaded the Bay of Biscay and fought their way to the Mediterranean.

As per the post you mention, why not put (pictured) in bold at the start of the item, then elaborate in brackets and normal type at the end of it. this makes it easy to zone in on the pictured item, which leads you to read it, and with it a description of the picture.Machete97 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like this will take up quite a bit of precious space. --PFHLai (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Not that I'm complaining about the "lack of space" on MainPage... --PFHLai (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Machete97. I thnk someone had already mentioned that they did it bold at some time, can't remember who that was or when it happened. Also Nil Einne was explaing that you can't put (pictured) in front as it usually comes straight after the person or thing in the picture. An ITN sentence might mention more than one people or things so the (pictured) has got to go next to the correct one. Bold seems the best idea but if it has happened before and stopped there must have been a reason for it. Dark verdant (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If the space is a problem it could be just (P) or P or PICTURED or Pictured or something at the start of the item, with the description of the picture as it has always been, such as after the name of the person mentioned as it is right now. Whatever we do it should be the same on DYK and OTD. Machete97 (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of (P) or P before the item, however will this just cause more complaints here demanding to know what it means.Dark verdant (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you saw the (P) or whatever and didn't know what it meant, then read the item/compared it to the others/saw the picture it should become obvious - but chances are there will still be people who don't get it. Machete97 (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Making the (pictured) bold seems like a reasonable solution, at least temporarily; if it was stopped for a reason, as Dark verdant suggests, then we will soon discover what that reason was. On the other hand, the practice of bolding the aside might have just lapsed due to thoughtlessness. Let's try it, I say... 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From memory, we tried making the pictured bold something but some people felt it too distracting. As they say, you can't please everyone. Edit: Yes I was right, see /Archive 108#Suggestion - "pictured" ITN item highlight. There may be more discussions, you can use our new search box to find them like I found this one. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

looks like they considered PICTURED too. i agree with what they are saying there - bolding whole chunks of text like that doesn't look very good - but i think it would be good to leave it as it is apart from a (P) (or whatever is agreed) at the start of the item, so a quick look down the left margin of ITN, OTD or DYK will tell you which is pictured. Machete97 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I favor PICTURED. Not that distracting, unlike (pictured). –Howard the Duck 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Or like this. –Howard the Duck 12:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea, though not sure how it would make the main page look with that in DYK, ITN and OTD. Might be best to see an example of the whole main page like that. It may look wrong with random blocks of blue everywhere. Dark verdant (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK's first blurb always has a pic associated with it, so it'll only affect ITN and OTD, the two sections at the right. –Howard the Duck 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I really thought the photo was some nebula or something related to astronomy, until I saw a discussion at Template talk:In the news. –Howard the Duck 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pic juxtaposition

For a while it seemed we had solved this problem, but today Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir's picture appears opposite two unrelated items.

If we can't move the pic, how about keeping the pic-related item at the top until a new pic is selected?

Sca (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is still a section further up dedicated to this topic, why not add to that discussion instead of starting a new one. There have been various ideas on how to counter it. Dark verdant (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So moved. --74.13.129.109 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Items are arranged in order of date. Spencer^T♦C 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is all so fastidious and irrelevant. The picture relates to the entire section of In The News, not the first entry. If you can't wrap your head around this concept after the first couple views than there's something wrong with you. Yeah, sometimes it's funny to see. Who cares? Right now, to correct this problem, there is a picture of Japanese Kanji next to the top story about a Japanese fraud. It's a picture of letters! It's not even relevant enough to be in the actual article. It's as interesting as having a picture of the words "NO TREES" next to a story about deforestation. When you see a top story side by side with a picture that doesn't match, do you get all flustered? Do you faint? Do you get on the phone and warn all of your French friends that India is attacking them, only to be painfully embarrassed later? Get over the slight incongruently, because now you're adding irrelevant data to the front page. The ITN picture should be whatever article has the most intriguing picture. Otherwise you're going to mostly end up with so dull meaningless filler up there. 173.49.91.134 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been replaced with File:UK snow February 2, 2009 img008.jpg, illustrating the London snowfall item, which is a big improvement. Note that the Enten image was used to replace an equally uninformative illustration of northern Colombia to go with the Titanoboa image. Frankly, it would have been better to keep Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir up for one more day. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture: Bugs and Birds bias

I have noticed a certain bias in the selection of featured photos in the wildlife realm. Not including today's picture (3rd Feb.) I have looked back at the featured pictures for January and of 8 pictures of flora and fauna there were: 3 birds, 3 insects, a cactus and a lizard/cameleon (didn't look too carefully.) This seems to be a long running bias in the selection of pictures. Remember there are other animals without wings and apart from those pesky humans. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayakboy (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's merely a matter of what our high quality photographs depict, and what editors most interested in the featured picture process are, themselves, most interested in. In this sense, it is an example of systematic bias. Remember also that birds and bugs are some of the easier wildlife to find when you go out wandering- plants and, at the right time of year, fungi are also abundant, but a lot of people find them boring. (We don't have any featured images of fungi, as far as I know.) We also have a lot of featured pictures of space topics, as NASA releases images into the public domain. The best way to counter something like this is to nominate pictures of other types- I'm sure there are plenty of images on our servers that could be featured with a little attention. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And has anyone else noticed the recent trend of hot air balloon related pictures? Alphabet55 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To put it a different way, it's a lot easier to get a high quality photograph of a Paper Wasp or Red-eyed Tree Frog in a relatively natural environment then it is to do likewise for a Siberian tiger, Python molurus or Blue Whale. Also if I'm not mistaken images on TFP are basically shown mostly in order of promotion. This is unlike TFA where there is selection and an abundance of article so it is possible to reduce systemic bias by giving a lower priority to classes of articles repeatedly featured and a higher priority to classes of articles rarely seen. BTW, I did a very quick search and didn't find any fungi FP. So it's possible JM is right. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi there is a decent web source for free pictures of fungi so you could be the first to guide a FP of a fungi to the main page, hint hint. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Backlit mushroom.jpg is our only fungal FP, which can be found in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology (not in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants because fungi are not plants). As for the birds/bugs bias, we had a whole lot of bird and bug FPs promoted in quick succession (starting the middle of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 12 and continuing into group 13, which is where we are now); I've actually been spacing them out to about 1 each per 8–10 days so that they aren't all clumped together. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

@Alphabet55: Yes, two in the last month! Not only that, but we've had two photos related to polar expeditions in the last month as well. When will the bias end?! howcheng {chat} 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another fungi picture we have is File:Haeckel Lichenes.jpg, so discount what I said earlier. We do have a lot of decent fungi photos, I'm considering nominating a batch for featured status to help bulk out the fungi portal. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

BIrds, insects and restorations are the FP staple and has been since I started closing nominations (coming up to two years). Fortunately for you I will promote another fungi pic today. I'd also like to advise against flooding FPC with fungi pics because you'll find that lots of similar-looking pictures => hardly any reviews => non-promotion. MER-C 03:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you explain the blatant anti-cat bias in the featured pics? Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What blatant anti-cat bias? --74.14.20.60 (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a blatant anti-cat bias on the main page. There haven't been any cats on the main page is months (years?) This is despite the fact that there was widespread support for a daily kitten feature. Ceiling Cat (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I want ducks on the Main Page everyday. Especially if they don't wear pants. –Howard the Duck 07:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we have File:Lynx kitten.jpg on MainPage as a FP on St Mark's Eve or the following day (April 25), please? That's the only cat in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Girl with a Pearl Earring TFP

Thanks Wikipedia, I scroll down to TFP and nearly have a heart attack upon seeing the image. That's some scary......erm, stuff!! --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, bit of a hyperbole, no? Well, it's done its job.  GARDEN  09:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What's scary about it?173.49.91.134 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sgurr nan Spainteach

The link to info about this mountain in the "did you know" section takes you to the wrong page 81.110.33.251 (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the proper page to link to? Please suggest a new link on WP:ERRORS. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The link is piped to Sgurr na Ciste Dhuibhe, which mentions Sgurr nan Spainteach as a subsidiary peak. Presumably it doesn't have its own article. --Herald Alberich (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

TFA

Is the image for TFA (File:Dan Castellaneta cropped.jpg) really relevant to the article? I mean, I know that he guest starred, but... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, (pictured) needs to be inserted after the mention of Castellaneta. The connection between that image and the article isn't exactly self-apparent... -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(pictured) has never been used on a TFA to the best of my knowledge. The note is used more to help indicate which article on a list is being illustrated, rather than exactly what is being pictured. I don't really see the problem. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why we didn't we use David Cohen in his Bender shirt? The link is clearer and the quality isn't much worse; it looks pretty decent in thumbnail. Plus, it's used in the article. -- Vary Talk 16:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the main reason I came here to see if the image was being discussed was because I clicked on the article to find out who the guy was, and was annoyed that I had to go back and click on the image because the pic wasn't there. So I guess my question is less 'why didn't we use a picture that's in the article' and more 'why didn't we put the picture we wanted to use on the main page in the article'? The only place I can see to put it, though, is in the spot where the DXC image is now, and meh... -- Vary Talk 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The image on Cohen's shirt is copyrighted. Is that a problem? Need to crop off the bottom half? Do we need Cohen's name to appear in the TFA text on the main page? --74.13.125.144 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"investment scam"

As this is currently under investigation and nothing has been proven this should be re-worded to avoid implication of guilt. WP:BLP applies. Exxolon (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the summary suggests to me an implication of guilt. He was arrested, there is a scam. Not "he participated in a scam". —Verrai 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is a scam, someone did something illegal. No-one has been convicted in a criminal court of doing something illegal; some have been arrested for doing something illegal, but they are innocent until proven guilty in court. Until someone is proven guilty of fraud or some similar crime, it is an alleged scam/fraud/whathaveyou. Every single decent media source on the planet refers to ongoing criminal cases in this way. --81.157.142.106 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But not for any sense of moral obligation. Only out of fear of being sued. --Nricardo (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add an ongoing issues and events section

I'm proposing the addition of an 'ongoing issues and events' section to the main page. The reason is that there are ongoing issues which are current and relevant, regardless of when they start, which appears to be the guiding principle regarding how long links are displayed in the current events section.

Currently, a list is kept on the current events page as a sidebar. My contention is that some of these are of interest to most people who visit the main page, and deserve thus to be there. Featuring these on the main page would also generate more attention for them, driving up interest in developing them further, and with more depth.

At issue for me is the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009. I think its currency, broad relevance, potential impact, and probably lengthy duration indicate its importance with regard to current events. Further, the topic has serious depth, as how it affects different countries is complex and requires treatment.

Certainly, for this one issue, just keeping it sustained in the current events portal would work, and Im wondering what current events people think of that (this is crosslinked there). But there are other ongoing issues of interest, are'nt there? They aren't "news," in one sense of the word. But they are news, in quite another. Thoughts? -Stevertigo 22:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You may consider suggesting this at Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal. Spencer^T♦C 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Though the fact that it's the '2008 main page design proposal', and we're in the second month of 2009, suggests that sticking your head in a bucket of shit may be a more productive and less stressful use of your time. --81.157.142.106 (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm.. call me optimistic! :) -Stevertigo 09:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take: If an article/story is truly a major event, then there will be no shortage of updates or related stories which can force it back to the top, "artificially" keeping ongoing events on the template. A recent example was the war in Gaza. If there are no updates to "bump" the story, then it's debatable if it is actually important enough to merit a permanent place on the main page. Also, you'll have far better luck trying to do this just through WT:ITN then the main page redesign proposal. Random89 20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Plant and Krauss

Why not use File:KraussPlantNIA2008.JPG which pictures them both together?? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because when shrunk to the size for ITN, nobody will be able to tell what's going on in that picture. howcheng {chat} 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I still can't tell what is going on in that picture. It looks like those microphone stand are singing into the mouths of those two people? 173.49.91.134 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Date error (I think...)

"... that chocolataires, popular around the late 18th century..." I think that should be "19th century" (or "1800's). - Richfife (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You should post errors to the 'errors' section at the top of the page. I've posted this one. Algebraist 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Toa Payoh ritual murders - why no image?

Theirs two free images in the article (File:Toa_Payoh_Ritual_Murders'_Flat.jpg and File:Old Supreme Court Building 5, Jan 06.JPG, so why aren't they used? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted the first one, slightly cropped. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Arigato!!--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So...why was it a featured article?

If History of Evolutionary Thought is bad enough to get deleted for routine cleanup, why was it made a featured article in the first place? I mean - shouldn't the featured article be chosen on merit, and not for gimmickry?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

See History of evolutionary thought. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WIKINEWS ? !!!

Please tell me why wikinews writes only about deaths, new catastrophies and stuff like that.

It's not news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.152.35 (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about Wikinews or the "In the news" section on our Main Page? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If You are talking about wikinews and you do not like the content you can become a reporter. You simply Need to singn up for a wikinews account the wiki markup languge in that site is the same as wikipedia.--Koman90 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, yes, that's news. Don't know what you believe news to be...  GARDEN  12:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a section on Wikinews for the upbeat stuff you get on the local TV news between the main news and the weather. Kitten rescued from being stuck in drain, primary school raises money for cancer with sponsored food fight, farmer grows ten-ton marrow, stuff like that. You know, all that useless crap no-one cares about. --86.159.223.93 (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See WP:NOT#NEWS. --74.13.125.218 (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have you know they're talking about Wikinews, not Wikipedia. That's my two scents 16:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted feature article on history of evolutionary thought

The History of Evolutionary Thought link in the featured article goes to the wrong place, apparently a capitalization issue, which makes it appear as though the article was deleted. It seems the proper link would be to History_of_evolutionary_thought instead. -Chinju (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, it's been fixed now. -Chinju (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone fixed the link, but in the mean time I put in a redirect.

The link was fixed ten minutes before you installed the redirect. Probably wasn't needed, but thanks. diff Tim Vickers (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say the redirect is good, it's a resonably likely alternative capitalisation Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

300 is the featured article?

THIS IS MADNESS! 82.18.145.216 (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you'll find that THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Madness is here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately as a disambig it's not entitled to FA but Insanity is and the German wikipedia already has an FA on De:Wahnsinn. IIRC the German wikipedia has fairly strict standards so it should provide an excellent reference to help to bring our article to FA status, hint hint. Of course if all you plan to do is replace pages with 'fuck' then I guess we know where the real insanity lies Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the house of fun! --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS SPARTA! Duh. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's here. Seriously, try searching. :D  GARDEN  21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What is that thing on top of the page

It says something like "<centralnotice-template-plain_text_election_notice>". What is that? Is it supposed to be like that or is it a mistake? --71.190.87.35 (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a bug. Devs are working on this. Cenarium (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's gone. Cenarium (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

POD

I guess can't have it all, but as a common daisy, the featured pic doesn't seem Valentine Day oriented. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not? There's no reason why you have to spend a lot of money to give someone flowers for valentines day Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nil, where is your whimsy? It's digiflora: a digital daisy costs the same as a digi-rose. haha – anyway I wonder if I'm in a different time zone and something more commercially attuned is upcoming, :) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there was no suitable FP for Valentine's, so I picked a flower. howcheng {chat} 01:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think you guys are making a much ado about nothing :-P What about all the poor kids who want to give a flower to someone for valentines day and don't want to steal flowers from someone's garden and those who dislike the commercialisation of valentines day and prefer to keep it simply or ... Everyone else is telling them they need to send a rose, preferably red, for valentines day, and preferably contribute to the environmentally damaging commercial flower industry, why can't we tell them a daisy is fine too? Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

What are your thoughts on multiple articles of the day? Perhaps 'This Morning's Article' or something along those lines. (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC-5)

Having more than one featured article per planetary rotation is likely to be rejected just on principle; but one additional thing to bear in mind is that because Wikipedia is a global website, using "This Morning" would be wrong for half the world. If the "morning" article was displayed from midnight to noon, Americans would see "This Morning's Article" from between 5 and 7 in the evening, and it would have switched to "This Afternoon's" before many had even got up. --86.159.223.93 (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that problem already exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.98.42 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Many things could be argued. Do you intend to make such an argument? Algebraist 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We had an Obama/McCain double-bill FA shortly before the US election. It was a good way to handle that particular situation without preferring one over the other, but IMHO should be used sparingly. --144.53.226.17 (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

wanna ask question

were can i buy this book here in Philippines and how much its cost? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.201.134 (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking where you can purchase Wikipedia? It's an online encyclopedia that is not available for print purchase. However, if there is a particular article that you would like to have, feel free to print it out. Eric Wester (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 2.7 million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Picture

Why doesn't File:Pnyx.jpg appear on the main page if it's in the featured article? --DFS454 (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If reduced to 100 pixels, it looks... lile this ->

It'll look like crumpled paper above grass or something. –Howard the Duck 14:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's better than nothing, and it could probably be cropped a decent amount too. -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just A Small Point

As the spill occured off Cork (and as far as I know Cork is still part of the republic)the headline should be "The largest oil spill to affect Ireland and Great Britain in 13 years occurs off County Cork." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWOO (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that Ireland should come first? How about "The largest oil spill to affect the Birish Isles in 13 years occurs off County Cork"? J Milburn (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Red rags to some bulls! In any case, "Great Britain" and "Ireland" are the names of two islands, in alphabetical order, not a reference to any countries, nations, states or other political entities. Bazza (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; "Great Britain and Ireland" struck me as odd, too. "Ireland and Great Britain" or "the British Isles" makes more sense to me. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it. J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why should it say "British Isles"? I do not agree with the use of this at all. Why can't it say "the largest oil spill to affect Ireland in 41 years"? (See Betelgeuse_incident and List_of_oil_spills for figures.) Using the term "British Isles" can be potentially offensive to Irish users of the site, but nobody would be offended by the use of "Ireland" as the spill has yet to affect Britain. Any thoughts?? Dennisc24 (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with Dennisc24. As far as I have read it is only effecting Irish waters. Perhaps it should be changed to "off the coast of Ireland".--SWOO (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See discussion below. Aware that this was likely to happen I originally phrased it as neutrally as possible with no use of the controversial "British Isles" phrase which to me looks extremely odd; unfortunately someone appears to have changed it since last night. I am now attempting to iron out a problem which really shouldn't have been created in the first place. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)