Talk:Main Page/Archive 145

Archive 140

←

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

→

Archive 150

Samuel Johnson

I understand that every time a person's name appears in more than one section of the Main Page, someone whines that it's an example of WP:BIAS. Therefore, I'm not complaining about the fact that Samuel Johnson's birthday isn't appearing in OTD.

However, if it must be omitted from OTD, could the TFA blurb be altered to include his birthdate?

(I didn't post this in Errors because it's obviously not one... it's just something that's rather annoying to me.) Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The normal policy is to include the birth and death years only on the main page for biographies. Granted this isn't the main biography, but I think they should still be included here. Modest Genius ^talk 17:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Guiding Light

Is this really news worthy? Guiding Light is only known in the US and even in the US it wasn't watched enough to keep it on air. It's cancellation was because nobody was interesteed in it so why should it be worth noting so prominently?

I think so - the BBC were reporting it (teletext, I assume their website will carry it too) in the context of it being the world's longest-running soap opera. I'd never heard of it before today, either, but its longevity seems (to me, at least) to be notable.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

BBC news link. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember of course that that section is to showcase the articles involved, not to be notable news stories (although obviously that helps too).  GARDEN  15:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Padre Pio

Today is the feast day of Padre Pio, one of the most popular saints of our time, and a very big celebration for Catholics and others around the world. This should be mentioned on the main page.

It would seem it's the feast day of quite a few other saints too. Now I've not looked but I imagine featuring this feast day would lead us to include a load more which really isn't necessary. Sorry.  GARDEN  20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Benefiting Society

I propose that the main page has a small section which illustrates the impact Wikipedia is having in the real world. A suggestion is that it could be in the form of a news story, lets say an actual school where Wikipedia contributed to an assignment or project being completed, there could be a photo included. I'm sure there are better examples than this. The idea is that we have on the main page tangible examples of how Wikipedia is benefiting society. Isnt that the point of Wikipedia? It would be really interesting to see all the ways Wikipedia has value to people around the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.1.161 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Examples of this type of thing appear in The Wikipedia Signpost from time to time. Putting aside the issue of appropriateness on the Main Page, I'm not really convinced that there would be enough examples of such changes to keep a section like this fresh on a long-term basis. 195.225.189.243 (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose, to preserve, NPOV, the Wikipedia has an equally small sections that illustrates the horrors visited on the world by Wikipedia. Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Like what?  :/  GARDEN  20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Like right now. I'm sure I could be doing something more productive with my time than replying to inane threads on this talk page. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty scary.  :)  GARDEN  20:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Observation

There is a sudden lack of American articles on the Main Page... I can't find any in OTD (England, Bulgaria, Panama, Netherlands, Northern Ireland), ITN (Bhutan/India, Nigeria/Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, Turkey, England) and there seem to be only two in DYK (Little Butte Creek and Jamaal Westerman), others being Caribbean, France, South Africa, England, etc. TFA is Japanese (The World Ends with You) and TFP is Australian (File:Melbourne Skyline from Rialto Crop - Nov 2008.jpg). Even the OTD holiday is Russian ( Feast day of Sergius of Radonezh) and the previous featured articles are Italian, Antarctic and Australian (Italian War of 1542–1546, Ross Sea party, Cyclone Orson). I am thus inspired to ask if this is a record or how often this phenomenon happens—it is truly refreshing to see a mixture of countries across all sections of the Main Page, that not every country's native language is English, that the Southern Hemisphere is well-represented and so on (or perhaps I just haven't noticed before). --candle•wicke 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Wikipedia may be an American site and have tremendous bias towards it but the fact remains that wikipedia is global and should cover the world equally. Himalayan 09:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Lightning strike

Erm, is the lightning strike really pictured? It is a picture of *a* lightning strike. I for one was, for a moment, quite astounded that there happened to be a camera capturing such a good image of this particular strike!. User A1 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The picture of the Lightening Strike

This says it is an Arlington Virginia photo.

Yeah, the problem here seems to be that the image is illustrating lightnight strikes generally, rather than that one in particular. I will swap the picture now. J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone beat me there... J Milburn (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Articles and Commercial Products

The featured article is very often a plug of puff-piece for a video game product or company. Can articles regarding commercial products be excluded as featured articles (unless there is a real historical interest)? Encyclopedias generally do not include them. --Awernham (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But anything notable is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and as long as it meets the featured article criteria then it can become a featured article. The question then, is whether these kind of articles should make it to the main page. At the moment this decision rests with Raul654 (talk · contribs) and it might be worth taking this up with him. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also the issue of judging "real historical interest". Any article that is allowed to exist is allowed to be a featured article, providing it meets the guidelines. If anything, you should attempt to stop the "commercial" articles being displayed on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Puff-piece"? Forgive me if I misunderstand, but I tend to interpret "puff-piece" as referring to some hasty bit of hack writing that's used mainly to fill space. Are you suggesting that the quality of The World Ends with You is poor? Is the article unfairly biased in favor of the product like an advertisement? Are the assertions unfounded, the claims unsourced, the references unreliable? No? Then stop complaining. There is likely to be another historical, biographical, or scientific TFA tomorrow, which (curiously enough) is likely to be of interest to no more of Wikipedia's users than the video game article interests today. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A puff piece is an article or work which overly promotes one item/view (often without considering any disadvantages to said item/view). I don't think Awernham intended to disparage the quality of writing in the article. For more info see the article on Puffery. I don't see that the article is overly promoting the product. I am no fan of pop culture articles but I think its fair that if somebody put a lot of effort into writing it then it gets a chance to be a TFA just like (almost!) any other FA - Dumelow (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If a group of people put that much effort into writing an article of such high quality, than why shouldn't their work be on the main page? That's one of the great things about Wikipedia; we can be the best source of knowledge on a subject that would never get covered as well anywhere. Plus, like it or not, the video game industry, and its games, will be notable for a long time, much as the film industry. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To refute your claim that normal encyclopaedias do not include video games, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. But that's just video games, not to mention the numerous articles that Britannica has on companies, computers, cars, and other commercial products. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Britannica apparently has an article on the Madden video game series, but not one on John Madden himself! --Maxamegalon2000 23:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Count

What's going on? On Saturday, the number of articles on Wikipedia passed 3,038,000 articles. Yesterday, it dropped to just over 3,037,600 something. A couple of hours ago it was just just over 3,037,500; now it's at 3,037,423! The number of articles is supposed to go up, not down! What's going on?SPNic (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Probably mass deletions happened. –Howard the Duck 09:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

2000 German politician sub stubs were deleted. Himalayan 10:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to show us the link Hima? I was curious of the AfD and I am having difficulty finding it. :) Cheers!Calaka (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jennavecia/Notebook. Cheers,  public GARDEN  13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that!Calaka (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You probably want this version. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent Martin! I did actually browse through the history of that page and saw a few names here and there but having that list was what interested me (and I did not look far enough!). Do you think I should go ahead and paste that over to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/German_politicians and emphasize at the top of the page to ensure the articles created should be more than one line and have numerous sources?Calaka (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Purging of politicians has to happen from time to time. You will soon find them erased from any formal pictures and photographs. They were all enemies of the people.--Willski72 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow. That pretty Orwellian of you to say. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 12:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I am sure Willski meant it in jest. Anyhow, I will go on ahead and post the list at the bottom of that missing list page. No rush. :)Calaka (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was a joke, i thought of Stalin.--Willski72 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that the no. of articles that's shown beneath "Welcome to Wikipedia" on the Main Page is different to the no. when you click on the no. of articles beneath "Welcome to Wikipedia"?The Chosen One (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the number on Special:Statistics? They should both show the same number 6,915,066. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Query

I am inquiring about the possibility of installing [Hide] templates within the Main Page templates. Is this at all possible? I am inquiring merely on if [Hide] could be used to make the Main Page more compact, where you could click [Show] on say... "Did You Know" to view it.-- OsirisV (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. Such an idea was discussed during the 2008 main page redesign proposal and was generally not looked upon in the best of light - the sections on the main page are there to showcase the articles prominently rather than hide them. Sorry,  GARDEN  20:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It would technically be possible, if that is what you were asking. But yes, I don't think there's going to be any major support for this. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And even if they are used they would default to [SHOW], because of problems with accessibility. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

German federal election, in the news

Why is the German federal election (see Portal:Current_events/2009_September_27) not yet on the main page? It's today. If this had been the U.S. election, it had been on the main page hours ago. It seems any obscure U.S. event gets on the main page, while equally or more important European events are ignored. Urban XII (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, US election was put on the main page when the result was known. So it will be in this case. Patience ;-) --Tone 15:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the guideline for posting elections on the Main Page is to wait until there are at least some preliminary results. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To quote WP:ITNR, the guideline is to post "The results of all general elections..." (my emphasis added). We still haven't listed the Afghan elections either, since the results haven't been announced yet. Modest Genius ^talk 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's now clear Angela Merkel and the liberals won the election. The SPD and Frank Steinmeier have conceded defeat[1]. The main page needs to be updated now. I suggest:

• The Christian Democrats and the Liberals win the German federal election, 2009 and announce their intention to form a new government with Angela Merkel as Chancellor. The Social Democrats concede defeat.

Urban XII (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"Barrack Obama (pictured) elected President of the United States, according to projections"[2]

I think the projections are equally clear in this case. The comparison of Europe's largest country with some Afghan election is just plain ridiculous. Urban XII (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions should be made at WP:ITN/C. For what it's worth, we normally just state which party won the most seats (and the number thereof) rather than coalition partners, which are still not certain. Modest Genius ^talk 18:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That did not seem to be the case when Barack Obama was elected President. Technically, he was only elected a long time after, but since everybody knew that in reality he was elected President on November 4, there was no reason to ignore that fact. Similarly, it's clear that Germany will get a new government. We do indeed know who will be the governing parties and the head of government because the parties have announced this. Their opponent have publicly acknowledged defeat. Like the Barack Obama situation, we are only waiting for technicalities. Urban XII (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't go up, I'm just saying it should just state the winning party and leader. That's just my opinion though, not stated in a policy or guideline. Modest Genius ^talk 22:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The main result is that a new government gets formed because Christian Democrats and Liberals got a majority together. "Winning party and leader" is just meaningless, what does "winning" mean? Urban XII (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, maybe your definition of government is different from mine, but the US government was only "formed" once, in 1787 --Rockstone (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Edit: nevermind- I misinterpreted your question. --Rockstone (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

By 'winning' party I meant the party that gains a plurality of seats, as is posted in ITN for every other election (that I can remember right now). However, I again direct you to WP:ITN/C where the wording and when to post are being discussed. Modest Genius ^talk 23:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's basically irrelevant which party that gets a plurality, what matters is which government alternative (in this case three parties) that gets a majority. A proposal has been on WP:ITN/C for hours, but I think my initial point that "any obscure U.S. event gets on the main page, while equally or more important European events are ignored" is now thoroughly proved. Urban XII (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Told ya Obama's election was only covered by ONLY left-wing mainstream media... –Howard the Duck 02:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a reason for US events reaching the main page more often than European events. For one, there are more US citizens on the wiki, and two, the 2008 US election was a much more hyped and popular election than most. --Rockstone (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, more European events get into ITN. It's just everytime a U.S. event is nominated there, an admin will add it no matter what the "consensus" there is, which is normally not to add it (for "diversity"). Check out WP:ITN2009 for the archive. –Howard the Duck 03:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that Urban XII has been bitching about this here but hasn't commented the discussion on WP:ITN/C. –Howard the Duck 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Several election items are good to go at ITN: this, the Portuguese and the Aruban one in which the election results were released 3 days ago (I don't think European elections wait for that long if the results are released quickly). –Howard the Duck 04:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no "renewed" plurality for the CDU/CSU. There was a CDU/CSU/SPD plurality before, there is a CDU/CSU/FDP plurality now. Goodbye, SPD! Merkel's coalition will shift from a centre-left government to a centre-right government. 78.53.45.126 (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly mistaken. The CDU/CSU has a plurality before as they had more seats then any other party. The CDU/CSU have a plurality now as they still have more seats then any other party. The CDU/CSU/SPD had a majority before the same as the CDU/CSU/FDP have a majority now. (The CDU/CSU/SPD also still have a majority but the CDU/CSU prefer a different coalition partner) Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Stamford Bridge

You learn something new every day. I always thought "The Battle of Stamford Bridge" was what took place after every home fixture ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You share this confusion with a sat nav. A posh English gel (Di's niece) caught a taxi to Stamford Bridge from Althorp last year to watch the footie. But the cabbie only went and took her to the village in Yorkshire, not the football ground.[3] Ericoides (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody translate this into American? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you merkins have your own version of wikipedia?--89.241.135.21 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviousness

"The Byzantine navy comprised the naval forces of the Byzantine Empire."

Well, you can't argue with that. 04:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious, it's intended to be. Anyone not familiar with the Byzantine Empire might, in theory, assume that we're talking about a complex navy. There's nothing wrong with clearly establishing the topic of the article in the first sentence. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps. It just seems so tautological to me. And while I concede that you may have a point with the Byzantine part, the navy/naval part doesn't offer any clarification at all. It isn't so much stating the obvious as much as restating the same thing. At times, restatements can be be helpful, but I doubt that this is one of those times. 08:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.34.158 (talk)

Front page POV

To my surprise, the front page features some rather strong POV. An international fact-finding mission headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini has concluded that Georgia started the 2008 South Ossetia war and that Russia answered by using excessive measures. By exlcuding the latter part, the balanced tone of the report has given way to a strong Russian POV.Jeppiz (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I notified here of your complaint. --candle•wicke 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed already. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Related articles is messing everything up.

Related articles is covering up, covering over pages. Not a good idea.

-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? The Main Page looks fine to me...  GARDEN  22:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed as far as I'm aware there's no such thing as related articles on wikipedia. Maybe it's spyware on the OPs computer or some poor quality javascript add on the user installed in their WP:monobook.js (although I don't see any) Nil Einne (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to the SmarterFox Firefox extension, which adds a "Related Articles" tab which (I believe with the newer Wikipedia layout) doesn't work properly. Instead of having a collapsible pull-down menu in which it shows related articles, it has the pull-down menu open all the time with the links to related articles covering up content in the top-right corner of every page. Gold -- you may want to talk to the makers of SmarterFox; the plug-in was not created by Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 23:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Casuals United

I'm deeply disturbed that this article, which seems to take an unduly positive slant on the subject, possibly through misunderstanding of NPOV, ran in the DYK section today. Giving racist far-right groups a free advertisement is not what Wikipedia should be about. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 12:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of people disagreed, including the user who verified it. [4] --BorgQueen (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read the articvle, which is 100% criticism-free? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 13:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentences "The anti-fascist organization Unite Against Fascism have opposed Casuals United. Searchlight has argued that the group have links with the British National Party.[3]" sound like a criticism to me. No? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I shoud have said no substantial criticism. The group itself is quoted extensively, its claims are presented as true, and opposition is limited solely to naming the opposition. The connections with the BNP are only worrisome for the type of people that this group wouldn't appeal to anyway. Perhaps you're not British. To put it in perspective, if an article on the Ku Klux Klan extensively quoted them, including a statement by them saying they arose in response fears about black people raping white women, and then just said they were opposed by the ACLU, would you run it on the main page?

And yet, this article makes unchallenged claims such as "We are protesting against the preachers of hate who are actively encouraging young Muslims in this country to take part in a jihad against Britain", and otherwise presents them as if there was a real threat from mainstream Muslims in Britain. This is appalling.

Furthermore, the "fact" isn't even sourced, and thus directly violates DYK rules. [5] is the cite given for it. "Casuals United" doesn't even appear on that page. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 14:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has been removed from T:DYK. Meanwhile, I've notified the article creator to join the discussion. [6] --BorgQueen (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As one of the editors of the article, I'm surprised and disappointed at User:Shoemaker's Holiday's comments and what's happened subsequently. The allegation that "the article makes unchallenged claims such as "We are protesting against the preachers of hate who are actively encouraging young Muslims in this country to take part in a jihad against Britain"" is wrong, and, quite frankly, outrageous. The article makes no such claim - the words are clearly those of one of the organisers of the group, reported verbatim. Those views are not "opposed" simply because those opposing their activities tended to be opposing the activities of the English Defence League, not Casuals United. Personally I find those views abhorrent, but I wouldn't expect to put my own views in this or any other article. Essentially this article started as a spin-off of the article on the English Defence League, which has been a battleground between moderate editors and a few extremists (some registered editors, some IPs) over its political content. I must admit that I hadn't realised that the Casuals United article was coming up for DYK - if I had, I might have given more time to it. The point about the incorrect citation appears to be correct - I didn't add it, and I hadn't checked it. But otherwise I don't accept that the article, as written, takes an "unduly positive slant on the subject, possibly through misunderstanding of NPOV" - if other editors think that it does, I can only apologise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've now checked - the citation for the quote is not erroneous at all, it is this article, which is correctly referenced in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is cited, and that quote does appear verbatim in the source, which is what the DYK rules and WP:V require. They do not require that what is being said is true, merely that we accurately report what the group itself claims. Readers can make up their own mind as to whether the beliefs expressed in the quote are reasonable or not. Whilst I would like to see more criticism reported in the article, it's entirely possible that little actually appears in reliable sources for us to refer to, given the fringe nature of the group. Modest Genius ^talk 15:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As the person who expanded the article I wouldn't say that the article is positive. It described the group as a far right hooligan group which has been campaigned against by United Against Fascism. It also mentions alleged links to the BNP made by an anti-fascist organisation. This is balanced against a description of that the group believes itself to stand for. This is quoted to show Wikipedia is not saying that these views are truthful. Personally I find the views of this group appalling but that is neither here nor there.  Francium12  17:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, my next DYK will be on the anti-facism campaign Hope not Hate which I am currently working on! AGF! Somehow I think it will cause less controversy and won't be the victim of politically motived AfDs! What a dangerous precedent here. I am a liberal - can I object to DYKs about Conservatives and have them removed from DYK? I'm surprised at this challenge from such an established editor. I can however accept that the article could do with expanding re alleged BNP links - however it was only because of a lack of available online sources that I did not do this myself.  Francium12  17:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly this is a controversial topic but It would be nice if Shoemaker didn't resort to language such as "Shame on you!" on people's talk pages. That really isn't very helpful. Can be article reappear on DYK if these objections are dealt with? Otherwise it is just to easy for someone to object to every vaguely political DYK to prevent it getting main page exposure... Francium12  17:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to this, yes, I was surprised too that such an established editor resorts to an emotional outburst like that, but then this is not first time that WP:CIVIL is being ignored. There is really no need to lose one's temper over this. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has survived AfD as a snowball keep [7] :-) I'm still not entirely happy with the idea that all it takes is one editor with strong political views to get something removed from the main page though...I'm not being facetious or anything but can I just say "I object" to a current DYK and have it removed?  Francium12  23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of removals has came up before notably in the User:Bedford case. There was some discussion there, and in other cases. The suggestion I saw which made sense is that if admins feel there is a sufficiently serious issue then they should remove the item from DYK. This removal is without prejudice. If later discussion achieves consensus that there is no merit to exclude the item from DYK then it should be readded at a later date as part of the normal cycle. This isn't a perfect solution and does have issues of itself but avoids the problem of people feeling an item is punished for it being controversial and in recognition of the fact DYK items are only there for 8 or so hours so there is little time for the ordinary discussion procedures. Further discussion on future cases however is probably best dealt with on WP:DYK Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Human Evolution

Recently new finds have been announced that disprove the "missing link" theory connected to human evolution, and that humans evolved from apes. The event has received coverage in: National Geographic 1 & 2, BBC, [8] Yahoo! News] and the Guardian among others. This certainly deserves a spot on In the News". --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate article would be Ardipithecus- there is a section there, and I agree that this is suitable. I recommend nominating at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It was (under 1 October). The missing link theory was not really the focus though, the 4.4 million year-old human stood a better chance but wasn't posted. --candle•wicke 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That some news source mangled the science doesn't mean we should. Humans ddid descend from apes. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically, modern taxonomy dictates that humans are still part of the Hominidae, or great ape, family. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Humans did not descend from apes (at least not any extant ape). Humans and apes share a common ancestor. There's a crucial difference there. Modest Genius ^talk 01:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tosh and nonsense! An ape! No sir!--Willski72 (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

TFP license

Ok maybe this has been discussed already. can someone just confirm this for me that why is it that we can not put a fair use image on main page but it is ok to put one that is not in public domain... sounds like a double standard to me. everytime the argument is brought up the one reply i have seen throughout is that we can only use "free image" on main page. unless definition of "free" has changed then images not in public domain are also not considered free. (correct me incase im wrong here...) -- Ashish-g55 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're wrong here. Images under a liberal enough "copyleft" licensing scheme will qualify as free. Such images are not in the public domain. APL (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Free as in freedom is restricted under the license for commercialization (as stated). and i thought wikipedia's definition of free had to do more with freedom rather than payment free. doesnt matter how liberal this license is there are still restrictions on it. so to me calling this truly free is more of a compromise in order to get image onto mainpage. that might just me my POV though. anyways thanks for explanation. -- Ashish-g55 04:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to see Free content and Wikipedia:Five pillars. All content except for content used under NFCC is considered free content in wikipedia. We do not allow any other non free content (for example if someone allows wikipedia to use their content for any purpose it still can only be used under NFCC, ditto if someone allows it for any non-commercial purpose). The requirements for free content including allowing any derivatives and any reuse including commercial (this is often a big sticking point for people). Some content including all wikipedia text (unless specifically additionally released under a different license) does have certain restrictions including attribution and the requirement that any derived content be released under the same (or in some cases a similar) license i.e. copyleft. Some people (not me) believe that copyleft content is more free then content released under a less restrictive license. This is an old and still very contentious issue originating in the free software movement (the specific issue of source code isn't relevant to us, but most of the debate still holds) e.g. [9] [10] (corrected wrong link) [11] [12] [13] [14] Free software licence. While there are definitely some people (including me) who agree with the view that a non copyleft free license is more free then a copyleft license, many copyleft proponents hold the opposite view and are likely to vigorously disagree with the claim a copyleft license is less free as I suspect mentioned in a few of the earlier discussions and also [15]. This is an issue that has been debated to death and is not something best discussed on wikipedia. Suffice to say, wikipedia was founded under the assumption that even with copyleft and attribution restrictions we are still free content (a view held by quite a number of free content proponents) and the copyleft requirement in fact being desirable, hence the reason why all our textual content is under the GFDL formerly and now both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0 (well except for imported content which can be only CC-BY-SA 3.0). In other words, by our definition, and quite a number of definitions all images on the main page are free content. Not everyone may agree with this view, but it's somewhat irrelevant since it's only the the WMF's definition that matters in the end. As should be obvious, this isn't an issue of compromises but largely to do with fundamentals disagreements about what free content is and what's the best sort of free content. While public domain content is a useful source for us, particularly US Federal government content and old content, our big desire is for editors and the public to contribute content most of which is not in the public domain (and in some countries can't even be released into the public domain) but must be free due to our requirements. P.S. Just to emphasise, there is no restriction on commercial use allowed in wikipedia. Copyleft does restrict what commercial reusers can do and given their motives they are perhaps more likely to be concerned by it, but it also restricts what non commercial users can do. P.P.S. Just to be clear, I wasn't claiming the WMF demands we keep NFC off the main page rather that any content considered free content under wikipedia policy which ultimately the WMF controls is free content as far as we are concerned whatever other people may think. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe wherever Wikipedia uses the term "free", they actually mean it in the same form as "free software" (i.e. the word as defined/hijacked by the Free Software Foundation) rather than actual freedom -93.97.122.93 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Random featured article

Can we have a link "Random featured article" in the main page? - Rajesh, Sydney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.253.126 (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think that function exists. You'll just have to click on a random link from Wikipedia:Featured articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:GregU wrote a piece of javascript to do something like this. See the instructions here (disclaimer: any results from monkeying around with your monobook.js page are on your head alone.) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves Portal:Featured content is randomly generated.  GARDEN  22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed, but randomises once per day using the code on Portal:Featured content/SetDate oops, it actually randomises every time Portal:Featured content/SetDate is purged. Modest Genius ^talk 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this should be on the main page, but I'd like to point out I wrote a script on the toolserver for random Featured Articles a while ago (and one for random Good Articles as well). --dapete 15:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki does exactly this on the main page, under "Random Featured Article", so it's definitely supported by MediaWiki. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support putting a link like this on the main page, perhaps in place of the FA by email link? Modest Genius ^talk 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is actually mw:Extension:DynamicPageList (third-party). I don't know if this is installed here or not. howcheng {chat} 02:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

mw:Extension:DynamicPageList (Wikimedia) says no (look at the footnotes). With consensus you could try asking the developers to implement it although depending on how resource intensive it is this may not be possible Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How could this possibly be any more resource intensive than the existing random article feature? Modest Genius ^talk 23:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As a completely tech-oblivious guess I'd assume no more per-load, but then of course the main page gets loaded many, many more times per day than Special:Random. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And add a randomizer for Did you know? and Pic of the Day too. MMetro (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking as a link from the MP, not actually random on the MP itself. Perhaps I misunderstood the intention here. Modest Genius ^talk 01:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I Didn't Raise my Boy to be a Soldier.ogg

Hi, I uploaded a derivitive version of this file at File:Peerless Quartet- I Didn't Raise my Boy to be a Soldier.ogg. The major change is that I removed the loud click. Could someone look over the difference and switch the files on the page if the latter is more appropriate? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 04:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Unfortunately, I only had time to do the minimum prepwork on the file before DYK. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 04:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Updating design

Has Jimbo still not considered updating the design of the main page? For an encyclopedia "cover" it looks way less classy than it could be, the web design looks so 1996. Himalayan 14:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to Jimbo. What happened to the redesign page with all the different proposals? I do agree that the main page needs a huge makeover - not just colour-wise or whatever, but the content that's included there. Majorly talk 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The last major redesign discussion is archived at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. The discussion actually lasted for several months from July 2008 to February 2009, with many users submitting different designs, but ultimately no consensus was achieved, so the 2006 design remains. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, I created the proposal. The problem I can see immediately with those designs is that they are not that different from what we have now. What we need is something completely different. If I had my way, I'd abolish Did You Know or convert it to a "these articles need your help" section. I'd remove the news section, remove the featured picture, and have more than one featured article per day. I'd also introduce good articles to the main page, and make the sister project links more prominent. I'd also emphasise more on the community aspect of Wikipedia. That's just what I'd do. When I watched the designs coming in, in my humble opinion most of them were as drab and dated-looking as the current design. If we're going to change, it needs to be a big change, not just a change of font or colours. Majorly talk 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Granted Majorly, its needs a major improvement. I have no idea how a consensus was formed in 2006 as so many people have different ideas that is would seem difficult for everyone to agree. My main concerns is the ordering and the pastel colors which make it look weak. I can imagine the argument was something like "the simpler the better" but it is surely the page that gets most views on wikipedia so we have an obligation to at least make it look modern. I know tons of much less popular sites that in terms of design and layout put us to shame. Himalayan 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, IMO, any future proposal to remove a Main Page section may be close to impossible to pass through because it would literally create an outrage among those who either maintain or regularly contribute to that section. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, which is why we're stuck with this design forever. Majorly talk 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, we don't have a news section on the main page and there's no consensus to include one. If you think ITN is a news section your mistaken and this is an important distinction since if you propose to remove a section, you should actually know what the section is and does Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"In the news" with current news stories in the form of "encyclopedia articles" is definitely a news section. Majorly talk 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to get it out of the way, Majorly is completely right on this particular point. "In the news" is a news section. Currently, there are six items in "in the news". Five out of six are recently created articles that soley focus on a recent event, and two thirds of them actually have "2009" in their titles. The only article that doesn't solely focus on a recent event, and can be truly said to be an encyclopaedia article that just happens to have been recently updated regarding a current event, is Persecution of albinos. --86.170.66.48 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the above disagreement is primarily semantic in nature.

If one defines a "news section" as a section whose intended purpose is to report news blurbs, ITN isn't a news section. If one defines a "news section" as a section whose content pertains to news stories, ITN is a news section.

And of course, ITN is commonly perceived as a news section (by either definition), often in contexts that many of us view as problematic. —David Levy 20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you are free to your view and I see no point debating this frequently discussed issue again here. I will say what I said above and below. If you want to have any hope with any future proposal it is imperative you understand why many people do not consider ITN a news section (and a whole bunch of other things). If you dismiss these views or don't bother to try to understand them frankly I don't think you have any hope reforming the main page and it wouldn't be primarily the fault of any other editor. As with DL, I do not deny you are acting in good faith but having seen your attitude here I'm not surprised your attempts to redesign the main page failed. Just to be clear, I'm not saying I would be any better nor do I write this to put you down instead my hope is you and anyone else intending to reform the main page will take this criticism to heart and handle any future proposals better. N.B. A number of articles, even if covering 2009 only are created long before they appear on ITN. This is the case for many election articles (those which weren't probably should have been) and for many sporting events. Note that many articles do focus solely certain things, it's a natural part of wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the redesign page with all the different proposals?

What happened? Chaos ensued, and the entire thing fell apart. You know, precisely what I attempted to warn you about (prompting you to belittle me and opine that I should "leave the discussion").

To be clear, I'm not gloating. I wanted very much for consensus to develop. I just hope that we can be mindful of the pitfalls the next time around. —David Levy 16:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, I don't think you'll ever have consensus for a editor-centric feature like "These articles need help" feature on the main-page.

On a similar topic, I enjoy linking to this image. APL (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know there will never be consensus, which is why we'll have to stick with this dated design forever. Majorly talk 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I meant that, an "articles that need help" feature, specifically, was a radical departure from the current intent of the main page. APL (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) In more general terms of the previous redesign attempt, I think there's a lot there to learn on better ways to organise a redesign in the future. That proposal seemed a bit too chaotic to me. We ended up with a large number designs, some looking very similar to each other, some with seemingly major issues that many editors picked up. For example, while there was no consensus either way on the 640x480 issue, there was consensus that 800x600 should be supported but despite that there were designs with major problems at 800x600. Some designs just seemed, for lack of a better word ugly or never likely to work. While wikipedia works on the idea anyone can contribute I think this is one case when it was ideal that people making designs had some experience and understanding of designing web pages since people are put off when they come across a proposal for a redesign of the main page (or any very major major page of a very major website) with many obvious problems. Commonly people appeared to be working on their own design with little collaboration. Goals etc were only really discussed after the proposal had been going for a long while. IIRC this isn't surprising since the proposal was originally organised as a competition and in fact many people picked up early on that this was likely to be a problem Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Archive 1. Removing a section would definitely be quite difficult but I wouldn't say impossible but it would definitely require something substantially better without major issues and a good explanation for why you are proposing and a good understanding of how and why things are the way they currently are and how they work and it would definitely be a very long process likely with some rather hot debates. It would be important IMHO in such a situation editors consider all aspects. For example, if you propose to emphasise the community aspects of wikipedia, is this going to work against the policy that the main page is for readers not editors? Are you proposing we change that long established policy? Do you understand why you have that policy? Et al. If an editor (or group of editors) is proposing such an extremely major change and hasn't understood those issues I don't think they will have much success. (Ditto with the ITN section issue). This doesn't mean one editor has to slog thorough the whole process but a group of editors will need to work in an organised fashion for a substantial period of time IMHO. The previous successful Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page redesign attempt is probably a better example then the 2008 redesign proposal IMHO (although it will be a lot harder then 2006 I'm sure). Perhaps something can also be learnt from the template box redesign in 2007 Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes/Archive 1). As things currently go, there probably should be some collaboration with the usability initiative if anyone wants to make a new proposal at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it could have been prepared better. It didn't help when people like David Levy showed up just to say "This isn't going to happen". An attitude like that makes it certain it won't happen, and it didn't. A little help and guidance would have been appreciated, rather than a "told you so" person nitpicking at everything. It could be done with careful planning and better collaboration. Majorly talk 17:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to warn you that your approach was likely to fail (as it had in the past), you dismissed my advice and proceeded with your plan, and now you're blaming the proposal's failure on "people like [me]," claiming that we actually caused said failure by criticising the unsuccessful strategy. Wow.

I never said "this isn't going to happen" or anything of the sort. I did my best to provide help and guidance, and you told me that because I disagreed with you, I should "leave the discussion."

And again, I'm not gloating. I'm trying to convince you (and anyone else who might embark on such an endeavor) to not ignore history next time. —David Levy 17:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing no such thing, but you're free to believe whatever you like. Fact is you were totally unhelpful in the discussion. I asked you to leave it because of that precise reason. I don't care if people disagree with ideas. I do care if people try to shoot down good faith proposals with the awful excuse of "it didn't work once so now it never will". In the end I was so tired of your agenda to prevent the proposal from going anywhere, I stopped watching the page. Majorly talk 17:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I didn't seek to "shoot down" the proposal. I pointed out that you were proceeding in the same manner that almost derailed the previous main page redesign proposal, and I urged you to adopt the approach that subsequently proved successful instead of repeating the past mistakes. Unfortunately, you interpreted any and all criticism of your strategy as "unhelpful," explicitly stating that you didn't care about what had happened during the previous proposal and wanted it to not even be mentioned.

After you abandoned the proposal, I did my best to pick up the pieces and get it back on track, but most of the participants had already departed (long after I'd taken a break, incidentally).

One thing that I never questioned was that you were acting in good faith, and I'm truly disappointed by your accusation that I had an "agenda to prevent the proposal from going anywhere." —David Levy 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith on all parts. The fact remains that the main page looks so 1996. For a front cover of an encyclopedia it seems very weak to me. I understand how people may want it to look simplified but the very design and those pastel color combinations make it look inherently amateurish. I doubt people will form a consensus on anything updated so we will be stuck with wikipedia layed out like an early web site into the future. In 2030 it will still be looking like it is 1996 at this rate... Himalayan 16:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the current design looks outdated. It certainly could be made flashier, but it's essential that we not sacrifice accessibility (and the use of non-free technologies also is out of the question). —David Levy 17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with DL here. The main page was last redesigned in 2006. Wikipedia didn't even exist in 1996. It seems unlikely therefore that most of the people designing it we thinking of a 1996 design. And at least wikipedia avoids the use of Flash and other highly problematic things which makes the website inaccessible to a number of people. And as someone who actually used the internet in 1996, I can say most web designs were a lot crappier in 1996. You don't have to take my word for it however. Let's look at The (US) Whitehouse, Microsoft, Netscape, CERN, CNET and in the spirit of APL's reply Yahoo. Some of these may not be archived perfectly and may be missing images etc. However you should be able to get a general idea. If you feel that the main page looks like it's from 1996 that's up to you I guess but from both memory and a refresh of my memory from these pages I don't and suspect many independent observers will agree. As for your comments on pastel colours, my memory is that many websites of that era (as a small minority do now) were in fact rather bright and garish (often with flashing colours and text etc, and sometimes some crappy MIDI playing in the background although perhaps that all came a bit later). Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think the 1996 comment is off the mark. The current design is simple, clean, and understated. It's fine, though it is probably due for an update. It would be unwise to work on anything until after vector skin becomes the default as it adds a lot more whitespace (or, rather, it has thus far) and designs which are 800x600 compatible with the current skin many not be with vector. Anyone looking at this area should also take a look at the some of the other language wikipedias: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. It seems almost everyone else likes the pastel colors, but there are a number of interesting design characteristics other than different colors in use. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not start a Wikipedia:Project New Main Page Design? A page where interested users cooperate to create a working new design, instead of several different suggestions and voting on them? It would be a perfect idea to have a new Main Page design in time for the eventual new Vector-design. -- Jsdo1980 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC) --Leon63 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)--Leon63 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. On a side note, I like the Simple English Wiki's main page. With a few exceptions.—NMajdan•talk 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that active on enWP, so I don't think I'm the right person to start such a project. -- Jsdo1980 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

On Server Loads

I remember reading something by a dev about discussions of server load. He said "Don't worry about server load. People are paid to worry about server load, and they do it well. There's a bunch of stuff happening that is obscure to the normal user, and that's the way it should stay. If you happen to do something that puts a strain on the server we'll let you know if it's a problem." - perhaps someone here can remember what this essay is called and where it is. 87.115.68.252 (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Line spacing in the featured article box?

For some reason the featured article summary box seems to have different line spacing than all the other boxes... anyone have any idea why? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks okay to me (I believe I'm on IE7 here). Which browser and OS are you using?  public GARDEN  11:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It happens to me with IE8 x64 & x32 and Firefox 3.5 on Vista x64 with the interface beta. It doesn't happen when I leave/disable the interface beta Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Firefox 3.0.14, using Beta. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I also see it. Firefox 3.5.3 APL (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have the problem with Firefox 3.0.14 using Vector skin. With Monobook, it is fine. --Kusunose 13:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Werdna on IRC seems to have spotted the offending lines in main-ltr.css - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

#content {
	line-height: 1.5em;
}

I just spotted that it only seems to happen when I'm in "try beta" mode. If I "Leave Beta" it looks fine. APL (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem with Safari 4.0.3, but only when using the beta mode as well. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the same thing, and I saw it the last time today's featured article didn't have a picture with it (which was only a few days ago). It wasn't fixed then, so I just assumed it was intentional. -- tariqabjotu 19:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarification the interface beta uses the Vector skin and as mentioned in MediaWiki talk:Vector.css the stylesheet [21]. This is probably best reported to the interface beta team but I wonder if it might be better someone who understands it better does that Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to only occur when the div tags are used (permanent link) and as mentioned above only when there's no image. I don't know enough to work out why however. Update okay actually it appears it's not the image rather adding an empty line (enter) to the beginning of the transcluded page prevents the issue User:Nil Einne/Sandbox [22]. Edit2: Testing this is somewhat complicated by the fact the empty line at the beginning is often hidden in the edit box but may still be there. Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Please add a link to 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to that section. — goethean ॐ 16:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Its already there. wins links to 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. -- Ashish-g55 16:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed that 8 minutes before you suggested it (based on a suggestion at WP:ERRORS). Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 16:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

STEPHEN GATEY IS DEAD

put on front page

from betty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.24 (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

For those unaware, the IP is talking about Stephen Gately, Boyzone singer, who died on Saturday. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ITN/C please.  GARDEN  08:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, don't; it has already been suggested and opposed vigorously due to his failing of the death criteria - that is, he wasn't a key figure in his field. A member of a very famous band but individually not all that important unfortunately. A great loss however.  GARDEN  08:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoever he is, he's more important than the silly unimportant video game that is featured - Wikipedia is being drowned in trivia-fiction. 78.149.255.35 (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well he's not fictional!!! And he's been everywhere this past few days. Barack Obama is still there for flip sake. And some deal between Armenia and Turkey. And now there's another european battle. If nothing else is happening include him. Makes sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.240 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. Modest Genius ^talk 01:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Smash Bros. "Logo"

I assume that god-awful excuse for a FA image isn't actually the logo for Super Smash Brothers, or else you wouldn't let it be on the Main Page. So I ask you why it is there at all? How is a MSPaint-generated (by the looks of it) image purporting to be the logo of the FA, but not actually the logo, on the Main Page? What an idotic attempt at skirting the fair use rule. Just get rid of that rule finally, for Christ's sake. --118.208.15.108 (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that simply isn't going to happen. That symbol is instantly recognisable as representative of the series and Wikipedia is copyright-aware and therefore will not be showing the actual logo on the main page any time soon.  GARDEN  09:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you see here, the symbol is pretty much an exact copy of a major symbol of the franchise (right proportions, etc...) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing w/ it being recognisable. By "not actually the logo" I meant, taken from an offical source as opposed to made from scratch. --118.208.15.108 (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I explained below, many of our logos are not simply taken from an 'official source' (whatever that means) because amongst they are often of poor quality and are generally unlikely to be SVG which is preferred when the logo is simple and accurately representable as this one Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, quite a number of official logos are either made or extensively modified by our contributors since the available logos may be of poor quality, JPG files with artifacting, etc. Some may be made in MSPaint, but many are not. It is rather unlikely this example was made in MSPaint since it is an SVG file and Paint isn't a vector program not can it save to any vector format including SVG. Ultimately of course we don't care what program contributors use (although vector graphics are usually preferred). Quite a number of logos are available for use under free licenses and available on the Wikimedia commons because they are simple enough to be ineligible for copyright in the US which includes this example and other stuff which many people would recognise, e.g. File:Google.png or File:Colgate logo.svg or File:CD logo.png. (These examples are text and I couldn't find any other good non text example, that's probably because text logos are common & also the most likely & clearcut examples of being ineligible for copyright.) These logos will still be protected by trademark in many jurisdictions including the US but that's a different thing from being non free which policies and guidelines recognise Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#Graphics logos, Wikipedia:Don't confuse Trademarks with Copyrights & Wikipedia:Logos. Note that is an image is protected by copyright, getting a wikipedian to reproduce it is unlikely to be of any use since it's likely to be a derived work and therefore not-free. Given this and the above, while there are examples where we use images many may regard as significantly inferior that we wouldn't have otherwise used, this doesn't seem to be a good example to me. P.S. The logo is visible in the background of the image Scapler is referring to for those who aren't seeing it, like me for a long while Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"[If] an image is protected by copyright, getting a wikipedian to reproduce it is unlikely to be of any use since it's likely to be a derived work and therefore not-free." Exactly. So what is the point of reproducing the logo at all? Either you would use the real logo - which isn't allowed for all the reasons you cited - or you would use a differnt image altogether. --118.208.15.108 (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, the image is not protected by copyright in the US. And as has been explained by others, this is the real logo. I didn't cite any reason why the real logo isn't allowed BTW. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you were syaing now. As far as I could find on the web, I do not believe that Nintendo has ever published anything with this logo as a seperate image not superimposed over a background. Thus, an image from an official source would, at best, be less clear and obscurred and, at worst, no longer be public domain, because it would include other, less simple, aspects of a cover. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's no mention in the article summary of what this image is or what it has to do with the article's subject. The featured article itself doesn't even contain the image. All other issues of copyright aside, having a picture that, to an unfamiliar reader, has no apparent connection to the game and no explanation for its presence other than this talk page seems less desirable than having no image at all. -- 208.123.162.2 (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unless the image depicts the very topic of the FA, there really needs to be a (pictured) somewhere. And if there is no such place because whatever the image contains is not mentioned, that is a very clear indication that it is not a good choice of image./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly common problem regardless of the topic or availability of free images. One of the issues is main articles don't really have a simple way to depict them and the small size of the thumbnails means they're usually not really that clear. For example, from looking at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2009 with about half a months worth of FAs. Byzantine navy, Chinese classifier, Plymouth Colony, Ununoctium, War of the Fifth Coalition all lack "pictured" and it's likely to be clear to many readers unfamiliar with the topic precisely what is being pictured. However Chinese classifier and "War of the Fifth Coalition" are probably the only cases where it's likely the reader will significantly understand what is being pictured with the addition of a "pictured" or in the WotTC case with something like "painting depicting Napoléon at Wagram pictured". Perhaps "Ununoctium" as well but I'm not sure how many of our readers will understand what "radioactive decay pathway pictured" means. I suspect most of those who do will like me already have guessed it. Note in none of these cases are better NFCC images used in the article AFAIK. In other words this is a wide-ranging issue which is probably difficult to 'fix' and only in some instances has to do with disallowing NFCC images on the main page and if you want to change this, you need to raise it on the TFA talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why so many games?

Hi all... Just wondering why so many video games are featured in "Today's featured article"? They're starting to get obvious favoritism as a regular topic and that may not be fair to everyone involved in creating and reading Wikipedia. -Just one man's opinion...Paradise coyote (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all about the quality of the article, not the subject matter. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus, this month, only one video game was featured, and only two last month. That is out of an entire FA category. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a disproportionate amount, when one considers the massive number of subjects we should and do cover. It just so happens that an awful lot of Wikipedians are gamers. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say that a video game is not important enough to be the main article on the front page. Its just a video game - trivia! froth! nothing important! Will be forgotten in a few months! The problem with Wikipedia is that it is corrupted and spoilt by all the big volume of stuff from the fictional realm. I think Wikipedia ought to be split into two seperate halves - factWikipedia, and fictionWikipedia. 78.149.255.35 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what kind of an encyclopedia would possibly cover literature? We need to get this Charles Dickens nonsense out of here. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because video games are newer does not make then not notable. They are a unique form of cultural media, and can be compared to literature or film. Like it or not, they are a large part of modern culture, and influence the life of many people. As far as being forgotten in a few months, the Super Smash Bros. series has been around since, and is still remembered from, 1999. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure they can be compared to film, but they can only be compared to literature of a highly collaborative nature, not literature in the sense of an individual composition.Paradise coyote (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call, we should not allow any main page articles on anything of a collaborative nature. God forbid the Iliad ever make it to the main page. And if it did, it would probably be just from footnotes... Random89 05:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant it, not in terms of method of production, but purely in terms of it being a media outlet that is a form of culture, and thus is now a notable part of history. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is Wikipedia uses the "featured article criteria" which are basically a measure of how many footnotes the article has, as a stand-in for its quality or importance. So any article with enough footnotes (including a few I won't name that are basically product advertisements) eventually gets to the front page. 66.127.53.204 (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, if you don't like the topic, pick an article in a topic that you find appropriate / interesting and hen work it up to FA quality. Start typing and stop complaining! --74.13.130.90 (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that FA requires "brilliant prose", good writing, and good footnotes as well of course, because that is what makes an article RELIABLE, which is the most important part. As for importance, any attempt to declare what is most important would be the essence of original research. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That part about importance is of course incorrect, as Wikipedia editorial processes can and do assess importance of article subjects just as they assess reliability of particular sources and in principle assess neutrality of articles (though they are often weakest at the last of those). See for example:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Priority_scale
• Category:Chemistry articles by importance
• Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance
• Wikipedia:Vital articles
• etc.

The taint of original research is actually with the opposite view, i.e. that articles about video games or sitcom characters are of equal importance to the main topics of history, science, etc. Unfortunately, WP's larger scale (cross-subject) editing policies are built around exactly that original and bogus concept of equality, to the detriment of the actually important subjects. 66.127.53.204 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And many Wikipedia articles are spoilt by enormously long lists of fictional references - for example in an article about Something you get a few paragraphs regarding the facts about Something, and then pages and pages of lists detailing where Something has briefly appeared in movies, tv shows, video games, comics, and so on. I think Wikipedia ought to have a policy of in addition to having the standard something article, having a mandatory Something (in fiction) article where all the (to my mind) worthless fictional dross can be swept. 78.146.56.252 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All those importance assessments are solely for internal usage and prioritising efforts of those who choose to use them. I have remarked before in other places that you can be assured they will have major problems if anyone ever attempts to use them for other purposes like deciding what to place on the main page. We do consider some degree of importance for ITN and SA/OTD but only in a general way. I actually agree with you that there are a whole load of other articles more important then nearly all video game and sitcom character articles. However it's a moot point as we never claim that they are of equal importance. In fact, I'm not aware if even the most rabid of video game article supporters has ever claimed all video game articles are of equal importance to every other article. (Many may not agree with their assessment of the importance of video game articles but that's a different thing) Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus, articles on video games and the like are useful in that we are most certainly (or at least in a very small minority) of encyclopedia that provide in-depth coverage of these topics. I cannot think of a more definitive reference for many games than here. But, as this argument is really not accomplishing anything, I shall leave for article building. Hazzah! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You forget that few people actually searching for video game articles are doing anything close to scholarly research. No disrespect to pop culture articles (look at some of the rubbish I've written) but I'm not going to sit here and pretend there isn't an issue. J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous discussion. Thanks very much folks.Paradise coyote (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

thats all folks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.240 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Presidents Cup

Hello, Admins of the Main Page, I think this needs to be included!98.240.44.215 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Where? Here? --candle•wicke 00:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree this does need to be include because eight Presidents Cups have now been played, and the Internationals have won just once, along with the tie in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.113.162 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The President's Cup is an event listed at ITN/R, which makes it eligible to be 'automatically' posted in ITN. However, all news items, whether on ITN/R or not, must have suitable WP articles, as per ITN's criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article (October 15)

Today's featured article violates both the first and the second rule of Fight Club. Lovelac7 05:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleaver :) ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 08:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Today, October 19th

Hi, they just bring a radion special that the disco turns 50 today, shouldn't that be on the jubilee list?--Flammingo^Hey 06:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

lol, there's en-4 on the userpage. On the matter: I don't know what the criteria are, but I'm sure the events "on this day" are selected either randomly (because literally millions of things will have happened on each calendar day) or are selected by importance. This didn't make the cut, and probably because there isn't likely to be a solid "start" of disco, whether as an entertainment venue or music style. 79.71.70.17 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they're selected for variety, not strictly importance. APL (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries for the criteria used Modest Genius ^talk 10:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Table of contents button

Am a crazy, or did there used to be a button near the top of the page that skipped one to the table of contents here? What happened to it, if so? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it did indeed used to be there, though I haven't checked in the histories. It's there now, anyway. Algebraist 23:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That has to be the strangest, most convenient timing ever. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see it now, not sure what the problem before was. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's there now for the obvious reason that I put it there. Algebraist 00:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well then, you rock the world! I wonder why it was ever removed in the first place? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It was removed here. Korg (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mary Toft featured article

I don't like to rabbit on about it, but should we we littering the front page with hare-brained stories like this? It's totally ridiculous to suggest that she had a bunny in the oven. 86.152.23.225 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

DO HO HO. Lokentaren (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You should see the rubbish we're kicking around tomorrow. The system is decidedly broken. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

How much did Ms. Toft pay for this blatant advertisement to be placed on the Main Page?! She clearly is just trying to increase public awareness of her (if I may be so bold) outrageous claims. Should we be perpetuating this sensationalism? Should we be helping her in her quest to attract the attention, sympathy, and filthy lucre of the world? I say no! Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 12:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let us not rabbit on this second attempt to annoy Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells in four days. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well hare we go again! --140.203.12.242 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nudity in Wikipedia

Sarcastic "omgnudity" post. Conversation related not enclosed.

dear madam (i refuse to speak to men in case they have no clothes either). there are naked men all over the wikipedia. this is an outrageous use of the word 'hole' and to work in 'treatment of buttocks', 'swimming naked' (more than one use) and 'boxers' means the wikipedia is going downhill very fast. a hidden link to skinny dipping is included as well which is a cheap and cynical way to encourage the disgusting removal of clothes by children who know no better. 'homoeroticism' is obviously pushing some sort of gay agenda or something what with all these pieces of genitalia flying around and buttocks wiggling across the screen but nobody thinks of children here anyway and i'm frightened they might grow up and think they are women or men or something. i will be urging my pupils to close the wikipedia today and pick up the bible instead. i've already wasted an entire week telling them to put down their computer games and films and now this monstrosity is put in a position before their eyes where they will obviously see it and develop a new addiction designed to annoy all good thinking people of this world. i will not be responsible for my actions when i leave the room if children start removing their clothes. i am fed up of the wikipedia's encouragement of this behaviour. i will not be renewing my wikipedia subscription as a result and am strongly considering learning spanish or french or german as i'm sure they don't have this filth on their wikipedias. i will never swim again now that i know men are carrying out this disgusting lewd act without covering their privates and looking at one anothers naked bits at the same time. yours sincerely, disgusted person in position of authority who has young children of their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.222.128 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation's vision statement is: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."[23] While The Swimming Hole may deserve its Featured Article status, featuring it on the main page and including links to the articles on homoeroticism, depictions of nudity, etc. will undoubtedly counteract this vision. Let me explain. Wikipedia is not censored, which is good, but many readers of Wikipedia operate in censored environments, e.g. workplaces, schools, homes and even nations. Currently, most content filters block specific articles on Wikipedia. If the Main Page continues to feature near-pornographic content, however, it is likely that many users will find Wikipedia blocked altogether. At the very least, this will further lower Wikipedia's reputation.

If someone wants to read about "swimming naked" or "butts", they should be allowed to; Wikipedia is not censored. However, this type of content, which many readers may find offensive, should not be forced in front of anyone's face. Why should an elementary school student going to Wikipedia to look up Mahatma Ghandi's birthday be greeted by naked men and vocabulary such as "homoeroticism"? Just because Wikipedia is supposed to feature all human knowledge doesn't mean it should place in front of readers information that is offensive to them. After all, Wikipedia is written for its readers, not to achieve some abstract goal.

It is my opinion that overtly pornographic or "racist" Featured Articles should not be summarized on the Main Page. Thanks for reading my ramblings, if you got this far. 24.62.217.160 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Main Page is obviously censored (or whatever word you want to use to describe the lack of outright porn or vomit). I'm told that it's not a contradiction because of some (invalid, in my opinion) Wikilawyering about the definition of an article; in any case, the Main Page does have a line whether we have crossed it this time or not, and whether or not you call it censoring. WP:CENSORMAIN Art LaPella (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not pornographical or adult at all. This describes a famous painting by a famous artist, Thomas Eakins, with comparisons to his other works. Depictions of nudity in art have been around since antiquity. This is art, not porn. This is not mass distributed to get people off. This is a work of art by one of the most influential American artists (sourced on the Eakins page). And for the "homoeroticism" part, its a literary term (see Homoeroticism). Does having this word on the main page mean we are promoting a gay agenda? No more than having "pathetic fallacy" would mean that we're trying to implement weather control. Its a literary and artistic term. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, who else eagerly awaits the day when a video game with homoerotic nudity is featured on the main page? Now that would make things interesting. Nufy8 (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I'm pretty sure this guy is joking. Calm down. --Lokentaren (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You might take it as a joke, but it could be serious, especially the not having perfect English, and bible mention. Remember that views which you may find comical may be passionate, heart-felt values of others. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm doutbful the first post is serious. "Subscription"? "i will never swim again"? "outrageous use of the word 'hole'"? No a clearcut case of WP:DFTT IMHO Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In that giant block of text at the top of this page that no-one ever reads, perhaps it would be prudent to add the following: "If you are here to make a joke, please note that the majority of Wikipedia editors are American, and most of them have Asperger's Syndrome. It is therefore likely that any comment involving irony, satire, bathos, etc will not be understood. Please direct your humourous observations to an audience more able to appreciate them, such as an arragement of potted plants." --86.170.64.57 (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Come come now, I'm American and I'm the one who pointed it out. Wikipedia is just the sort of community that carries its head too far up its own ass in patent paranoia. Lokentaren (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The bigger issue perhaps is that we do get a whole load of legitimate complaints of this sort. It's pretty clear 86 wasn't serious if you read it carefully as I mentioned but 24 is a different and we don't know. Given that people do make such complaints and that presuming someone is trolling or joking without good evidence could easily be construed a violating of WP:AGF, it's not surprising people commonly accept such complaints as serious. Ultimately wikipedia is not really the sort of place for jokes. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And it should be Mahatma Gandhi not Ghandi.

Perhaps (as was pointed out on a previous occasion) there should be an occasional reminder that the url www.wikipedia.org exists to avoid all exposure to main page topics which might be deemed inappropriate (which, for all I know, might include the Offside Rule). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the problem here is not nudity but jargon. The term "homoerotic" is rather technical and has a somewhat disputable meaning (for example, is a Penthouse centerfold with two women really homoerotic?) Applying the term retroactively to a painting from the late 1800s is something of an anachronism, sourced to an "undergraduate journal". Perhaps plainer language would have been more accessible to readers. Wnt (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)