Talk:Main Page/Archive 115

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 110

←

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

→

Archive 120

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

can i have a list of the wildlife in israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.90.190 (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Biota of Israel Laïka 15:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

For future reference please take all questions like this to the Reference Desk TheGreatZorko (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Today's DYK includes the entry "...that Google's knol project is widely seen as an attempt to compete with Wikipedia?". This entry seems very out-of-place, in that while it does not fail Avoid Self References, the way it is worded seems to denigrate knol ("an attempt to compete"), and the phrase "is widely seen" feels weasel wordy. Perhaps a better alternative would be "...that Google's knol project has been variously compared to Wikipedia, About.com and everything2?". Laïka 14:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are problems with the current phrasing but has anyone actually compared knol to everything2 or about.com? Most of the articles I've read and I'm not talking about stuff on wikipedia have referenced wikipedia and/or talked about Google's continuous rise in controlling everything on the internet Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading the article it appears it is indeed the case. Now that I think about it I may have read a reference to citizendium altho I can't recall if this was in an article or a user comment somewhere Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Or veropedia. --74.13.124.202 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A motorcyclist? Why? Just about the most boring photo ever... 194.105.120.80 (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whose is the opinion about his clothing, and why is it given here? He's not wearing shoes, he's wearing boots.217.43.173.159 (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I also found the editorializing out of place and non-encyclopedic. —Nricardo (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, the text wasn't brilliant, but the pic passed FPC. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is rather boring - if the rider were coming more towards us it would be much better. Shame that the FP is based on technical excellence rather than actual interest. violet/riga (t) 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the FP criteria is "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." I would say it fails on that. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I also find the motorcycle picture to be too boring. The criteria for a feature probably should be made more stringent. sriks8 (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody is free to participate at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. If you're seeing pictures pass you don't think meet the requiements, that would be the best way to address the concern. If you'd like to see the critiera changed, the best place to raise that would be Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a story on a report in to "major league baseball"? No one outside the USA plays Baseball, let alone cares about a USA league in such a little known sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.192.45 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an non-american, neither statement is true. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 20:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And the featured article too. Prodego ^talk 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent that national sports issues should be featured as news if it affects a significant number of high ranking teams; the Mitchell Report is comparable with the 2006 Serie A scandal, and the Serie A scandal was easily notable enough to be mentioned in In The News. Laïka 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Baseball#Baseball_around_the_world. Yep seems like no one cares. I mean almost 20 worldwide leagues is nothing.65.12.253.21 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, when one takes into account that 20 countries in the world having baseball leagues accounts for less than 10% of the world's nations, it is pretty much nothing, to be honest --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 04:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, these 20 countries are rather "big" countries, eh? U.S.A., China, Japan. This qualifies the "international" criterion rather fine. --Howard the Duck 05:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Major League Baseball is a US-Canada league, but the players in the league come from dozens of countries around the world. So, yes, it definitely has an international impact. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with that, as a second non-American user I follow it quite closely. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 23:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful for us Europeans to think of this story as being about Drugs in Sport rather than about Major League Baseball per se, hmm? I couldn't care less about baseball, but let's not be parochial, it's a big story. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the non-Americans do not know other people are playing American games, eh? This is like the fourth complaint already, LOL.

BTW, this type of complaint comes up every time an American sport gets posted at the ITN. Among the American Big 4 leagues, only the NFL seems to be the most parochial, but it is also broadcasted around the world. So by virtue of the international coverage, American sports will make it to the ITN, whether Euros complain the whole duration of Christmas and like it or not, despite it is "one" country. --Howard the Duck 04:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that, given the Accords which bear his name, and their application in places like Northern Ireland and the Middle East, Senator Mitchell seems to specialize in minor hubbubs involving only one or two countries.

Joking apart, this story has obvious cultural implications that make it bigger than baseball, so that even Europeans shouldn't object to it. It's not a quarterback breaking an arm or some such. And hey, at least it's not NASCAR! 86.42.83.73 (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree on the NASCAR part. Since NASCAR is the most boring sport ever invented, it shouldn't even be suggested at WP:ITN/C. Hahaha --Howard the Duck 06:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit close to an endorsement of any news about US sports being notable. The more reasonable argument (and one I completely agree with) is that the story itself is internationally notable (or at least notorious), rather than a blanket argument about the notability of baseball. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not even "a blanket" endorsement "of any news about US sports being notable", several leagues were omitted, such as NASCAR, IndyCar (although the Indy 500 seems notable enough), the National Lacrosse League, the Arena Football League, the NCAA (the collegiate sports seems to be as big or even bigger than pro sports in the USA but they're arguably more of a parochial in nature) and lots more. Also, baseball is rather played in several places, sure not as much as football (soccer), but it more than satisfies the "international" criterion, same for basketball and ice hockey. NFL is rather hard to make a case for inclusion, but it is shown on several places, heck even Mexicans liked it.

Now someone may ask, how about my <insert favorite league>? Sure, the Premier League may be as popular or even be more popular than the National Football League in places such as Malaysia, how can you reconcile that? ITN people had devised a pseudo-rule in which the "highest level of competition" and the "championship or final game" can only be added -- hence, the Premier League won't be added, but the winner of the UEFA Champions League should (this year's FA Cup was added only because the top 2 teams in the Premiership faced each other, not to mention the reopening of Wembley.) Same case for the H-Cup.

Now how about the recently concluded FIFA Club World Cup? Surely that's the "top level of club football", right? However, it seems even the fans of AC Milan didn't care as much; they'd rather win the Scudetto. --Howard the Duck 11:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the (pretty reasonable) rule about posting results, but that is irrelevant here. This is a particular story about baseball, not hte reulst of a championship. The argument should be about the notability of the story (annd I don't think there is any problem there), rather than trying top justify the notability of baseball (and US sports) in general, unless you think demonstrating the notability of baseball is sufficient that any story about it should be ITNed? ReadingOldBoy (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's why the ITN people devised the "highest level of competition" pseudo-rule, ergo the winner of the New York - Penn League won't even be considered. --Howard the Duck 12:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But that is irrelevant to stories like this that are not about results. Here the story needs to be judged on its merits. I don't think the rule (about results announcements) helps here. Unless who-has-the-most-drugs-cheats is the highest level of competition in baseball now? ReadingOldBoy (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a top story in several news TV stations (not just from the U.S.) so it was ITN-material. --Howard the Duck 13:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Howard, I don't think that was a complaint so much as a recommendation to Europeans to stop complaining. Personally, I think any sports articles which only affect a few nations (such as American sports, Formula 1, ice hockey, cricket, rugby and anything involving UEFA) should be cut from ITN. ;) 81.174.226.229 (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But these events satisfy ITN's criteria of "international", so ITN's criteria would have to be changed in order for this to happen.

The complainant in this case came from England so I was right about Euros (LOL). And this would not be the last complaint I'll be seeing here, especially since the Super Bowl is fast approaching... oh, the horrors! --Howard the Duck 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So basically you're saying you don't want any sport on ITN? Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am. But reread for irony and look for the winking smiley at the end.81.174.226.229 (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Heck I'd rather see the news of Jessica Alba getting pregnant, it was big news in the world of pervs. --Howard the Duck 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes Howard, the complaint came from England, but the very first rebutel to the complaint came from the country just west of England, so you're right, all us Europeans MUST be anti-american. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One rebuttal from a European doesn't remove the fact that majority of the complainants are Europeans. A quick scan at Portal talk:Current events shows us that 2 of 4 (the other 2 can't be determined) complainants are Europeans. And don't forget User:Jooler, who wants the complete elimination of American sport in the Main Page, who's a Brit. --Howard the Duck 14:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Did ITN even cover the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy? I would at least figure that certain well recognized sports should get their due.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was covered... not sure though. --Howard the Duck 16:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's monday morning, 17th of december, and the featured article "The Simpsons" on the main page shows a bit of vandilism. The vandilised version reads "lifestyle epitomized by its titular family". The actual article has been corrected (at around 9.20 am) but this correction is not reflected on the main page. Can someone with authority please reload the copy of the Simpsons for the main page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob The Tough (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's okay, titular just means they are connected to the title of the show. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"titular 1. Of, relating to, being, derived from, or having a title" 72.10.110.107 (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected (though it still seems like a bizarre word to me). Sorry for the hassle. --Bob The Tough (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It may sound odd, but it's a perfectly cromulent word :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was almost as offended by that as when I clicked "Random Article" and found myself staring at a pair of boobies. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-19 15:16Z

Luckily you didn't next find yourself staring at tits or perhaps a cock or pussy then Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Or heaven forbid at tits, cock or pussy...172.189.185.117 (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you look up a word before telling everyone? And also, it can't be vandalism because you can't edit the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bllasae (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Gotta love this first line "Bupropion is an atypical antidepressant that acts as a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and nicotinic antagonist." Yeah...perfectly understandable to the majority of the population, that's right. My impression of what Bupropion is is that it is a drug located in a shrine, it has been involved in a doping scandal inolving incubation, and it served as the antagonist in a story about nicotine...how close am I? Benjamin 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What I basically read is "Bupropion is an unusual antidepressant that acts as a WUT and WUT, and acts against nicotine" It's standard to explain terms exclusive to the field of study, and since the article doesn't do that, I'm questioning its status as a featured article. All other chemistry-related articles don't explain terms, so maybe it's some kind of standard not to bother with explanations. --Teggles (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It is odd that it doesn't explain what is being said. I mean, at least half of the people that go to Wikipedia today are going to be like, WTH is this s***? Something about anti-depressants? I think that something should be done about that...can someone with the appropriate knowledge explain for vulgus out there what all of this means? Benjamin 04:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the nature of the article means it's probably somewhat difficult to summarise without be so generic it's meaningless. You might want to try reading the whole article and the wikilinks and see if that helps. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It was perfectly understandable to me... but then again, I'm a chemistry person. Just because its not an article about common knowledge doesn't mean that it can't be a good article. Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, when a neurotransmitter is released into a chemical synapse (which is a junction between neurons) it acts on receptors to pass the message from one neuron to the next. To stop this action (so the response isn't prolonged) the chemical synapse is either degraded, or taken back up by the neurone that released it. A reuptake inhibitor stops the neurotransmitter being taken back up, therefore prolonging the response. Hope that sort of helps you understand it! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

...that Rudyard Kipling wrote a short story about a group of World War I soldiers who were committed Janeites, that is, fans of Jane Austen novels?

What is the name of the short story?? --DelftUser (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Janeites article- it's called "Janeites". MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is for English people, we should have the British Monarch's birthday and the US independence day on 4 July as two holidays that can be changed to blue. This works because all English speaking countries are either US territories or part of the Commonwealth!!! Also, I know that Christmass is a religious holiday but in the Commonwealth and in the US it is very much a secular holiday. Or say Halloween, where the background can be changed to orange (for pumpkins) and for christmass it could be green red and white (for snow and for mistle toe). Tourskin (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And st patricks day!! make it all green!! for realTourskin (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

While it would be good, the problem is holidays are not always international. Let me break it down:

• The Queen's actual birthday is nowhere as big, nor is the equivelant, of the US's Indepedence Day. Yes, there is a "Queen's Birthday" public holiday, but a) it is not actually the Queen's real birthday b) different places celebrate it at different times c) not all places in the Commonwealth do have a Queen's Birthday day. Each country usually has its own national day, so like how the US has Independance Day... Australia has Australia Day and New Zealand has Waitangi Day for example.
• Halloween is mainly an American thing, and would be very unprofessional.
• Christmas could work, even though in the Southern hemisphere Christmas is in summer (as you are suggesting wintery imagery, though the association of Christmas and Winter does exist here in Australia due to American influences).
• St Patricks Day is an American thing, really

I take serious offence to my country being labelled either a US territory or part of the Commonwealth, and St. Patrick's Day is not an American thing. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol sorry I forgot about Ireland having a large number of English speakers but yeah theres something for everyone in my list. There's nothing else British. And Halloween is not an American thing only. Tourskin (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Halloween did actually originate in Ireland as well, its an old Celtic feast. So if we do change the page on Holidays, Ireland will be featuring quite a bit.... if I have anything to say about it. :D Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Halloween did not originate in Ireland. The 'end of summer' festival on October 31, ie what we now call Halloween, has been celebrated throughout much of Europe since pre-christian times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.205.12 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC):(

Yes, it was celebrated throughout Europe... having originated in Ireland, I encourage you to read this very encyclopaedias article on the subject. I think you'll find that Halloween is the modernisation of Samhain. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 00:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Samhain is an Irish Gaelic word and it names the end of summer event in Irish (and Scottish) culture, but it doesn't follow that the marking of the event originated in Ireland. Have a look at the entry for SAMON[IOS] in the Coligny calendar article. Samonios is a Gaulish word naming the same event. Are we to believe the Gauls borrowed all this from the Irish? I think not. The end of summer was an event that appears to have been commonly observed in all the Celtic regions. Its real origins are probably associated with the beginnings of agrarian culture in Europe.

Well I'm gonna stick with the generally excepted origins and not your beliefs my friend, also, please make proper use of indentations. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Stick with what you like when you don't have anywhere else to go - you haven't refuted anything stated. And don't tell people what to do you pompous twat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.134.188 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you want to argue for the sake of arguing, on this sub-thread that has nothing to do with the topic at hand I might add, fine, All Saints Day was celebrated throughout pre-christian Europe as you rightly said, however, the date was standardised by the church to that used by Samhain, and became the fest we now know as Halloween. Secondly, indentation is a standard on Wikipedia that is adhered to by all members, if you think thats the last time someone will point out one of more then likely many gaps in you knowledge of these standards, think again. Thirdly, make a personal attack like that again, and I will happily report you, and you will be disallowed from editing. This entry is an example of how to respond to someone who disagrees with you, while still adhering to etiquette, and as you will notice, I found no need to lower myself to personal attacks (of which I can think of a many that clearly apply to you), I suggest you take note. As I can see you haven't taken note of my last statement, please make proper use of indentation. Also, did you know that you can sign your comments by adding 4 tildes to the end (~~~~), just another little Wikipedia standard you should be aware of. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 14:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I had known that St Patrick's Day has its roots in Ireland but I was under the impression that it was mainly celebrated in America (we don't celebrate it here in Australia, and I've only heard of it mentioned in American TV shows). Turns out I was wrong though, according to St Patrick's Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.82.107 (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No worrys man, I'm a fan of your idea, as I am with most new ideas that are brought to Wikipedia because I think the place is stagnating slightly, but having said that, innovation must be done right, or not at all, so the holidays must be at there historic roots as well as there more popular ones (only both could be considered encyclopaedic) if we were to decorate the main page with them. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another way to approach it would be to consider different designs for days other than holidays, something more international in flavor anyway. I have no idea what this would entail, just a thought. 67.173.131.28 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So what, specifically, do you all want to do to the main page on these days? I agree in principle, but I would like to see reasonably subtle changes (like google) rather than complete reskins (like, say, uncyclopedia). If people don't like the idea of changing the main page, maybe there could be some kind of preference thingy to govern it (it could be either on or off by default)? Bistromathic (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What about all of the Chinese people who speak English? There are almost as many English speakers in China as there are in the USA. And according to England's PM, Chinese English-speakers will outnumber all others combined in twenty years. Cigarette (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

MichelleMorganDawn (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)In Canada we celebrate St.Patricks day.

Disagree Way too cumbersome the main page would change everyday of the year and even conflict some days... Just because it is the "English" Wikipedia doesn't mean other non-"English" cultures cannot be reflected in the main page. You have all kinds of things during the year in all countries around the world and how do you rationalise a holiday's importance? E.g. Guy Fawkes Day is recognized in some English speaking countries but not others. Also India is an English speaking country and they among a few Caribbean countries celebrate Diwali/Divali and that is a *very* important time in India but it is days-- long. Also Emancipation Day in the British Empire is celebrated on different days by different countries how do you choose??? And lets not talk about British practice of a) holiday, b) bank holiday and so on... Or if a Holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday etc... etc... CaribDigita (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that it could be simple recolourings to reflect the holiday (if that holiday has specific colours associated with it), and perhaps have a related featured article if one exists (which is something we pretty much do anyway), and perhaps to use the google example above, we could change the wikipedia logo appropriatly aswell. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys are still talking about this? Fine, add colors for Chinese new year. Tourskin (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Um did someone really say that Chinese-English speakers will outnumber all others in 20 years? Seems unlikely to me given that India's population may outnumber China's by then and even if it doesn't it will be very close and when you take all the non Indian, non Chinese speakers... Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not something sutble like a logo change such as what Google does? (See here) TheGreatZorko (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We already recognize holidays in the "On this day..." section. That's enough for me. snowball71 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Three prominent items on the Main Page are Today's featured article, In the news and On this day... When looking at these items, I think its useful for the reader to be aware of the current date. (It actually says the date in the On this day... section already.) Is there an argument for displaying the current date (and maybe the time the page was loaded) somewhere near the top of the page? Perhaps above and aligned with the right of the box containing the Welcome to Wikipedia message? I think this would be a useful addition to the user interface. Nicgarner (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The date and time, though, would be UTC which is known to cause confusion to some people. For example, readers in California would be told that today is, say, Friday whilst to them it is still 6pm on Thursday. Bazza (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

True. Is that not already a problem with the date as it is displayed in the On this day... section? Can technology not do something to help with this? I'm not very technological, but I know that the time can be displayed based on the users computer time. I know that's not a good solution, because the users computer clock might not be correct. Is there some way that the location of the user can be detected when the page is requested, and display the time as appropriate? Nicgarner (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can. See geolocation for more information about this. This is something we already takes advantage of, such as in the case of geonotices. It's not 100% accurate (for a general picture-go to www.ip-adress.com, and see how accurately it determines your location, browser, and operating system) and some users express concerns about their privacy, but it works pretty well. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I guess if anyone cared enough to be interested, there would have been more comment. I think it would be a useful addition to the Main Page interface, but looks like no one else does. Or is there somewhere better I should be raising this? Nicgarner (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no,this is the place for it, I've already given my (supporting) views on this above. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Changing the main page up for certain holidays will prompt some to ask that some minor far flung event be given a theme. And then, at the end of it, the Main Page looks different almost every day. If you want to celebrate something, change your signature. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{ho ho ho • under the tree}} 16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's what we use criteria for, we could have that it must be respected in at least 6 country's across or something of that nature. Follow your logic and we shouldn't have anything on my main page at all. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 22:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That what I meant when I said "no". Pacific Coast Highway ^{{ho ho ho • under the tree}} 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree Leave one day out and get hate mail. Or observe one day in the wrong way (e.g. Memorial Day in the US) and commit a NPOV violation. Also, which holidays will be considered in the first place? The English-language Wikipedia encompasses quite a large number of the world's many cultures. HiramShadraski 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea. Marlith ^T/C 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the points anon has already raised, note that many member's of the commonwealth do not consider the Queen their head of state. Some have their own monarchs for example others are republics. She may be the head of the commonwealth but she's most definitely not an important figure in national terms for many commonwealth countries some with significant English speaking (native or secondary) populations including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Malaysia... Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, people seem to have forgotten WP:NPOV here. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was a response to me but in case there was confusion about my post, my point was it's quite clear simply highlighting the Queen's birthday would not somehow appease all commonwealth countries (as tourskin suggested) because it's a fairly irrelevant thing for many commonwealth countries including many of the ones with large English speaking populations (in addition to the point anon raised about the fact the actual Queen's birthday is meaningless since each country which does celebrate it have their own date). I'm not saying the idea was ever going to work, it wasn't but I do think it's important to consider it's flawed to assume the Queen's birthday is a meaningful event to all commonwealth countries. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well one point to note, is that the four examples given above are just that, examples, there not proposals by any means, we havent even discussed what will qualify a holiday for inclusion yet, its just been a process of finding out where people stand on the idea so far. Ive made a few suggestions so far but no one seems interested in the topic of what will qualify a holida, or even what we might do to recogise it. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 01:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes examples. The Queens birthday is all i can think of - england is too lame to celebrate anything properly, except 5 nov. I know this having lived in england for 14 years.Tourskin (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, think it's in interesting idea, and maybe fun to do. Clearly we'd have to pick only the most universal holidays, perhaps religious ones. National holidays, are, sadly, unimportant.

And we could do things like Earth Day, and New Years day; however, I do suggest that, in the event it is decided to do something like this, we only change the main page's logo (like google is fond of doing), rather then the whole page, as that would mean a major effort. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Honeymane with one small difference, if an included holiday has certain colours associated with it, I'd say we should change the background colours of the modules to reflect those, green and red at xmas and all that (if xmas was to be included of course). Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, is this discussion still ongoing? Is anyone going to explain how the idea relates to an encyclopedia? —David Levy 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't David, it relates to a website called Wikipedia, more specifically, the main page of that website, and here we are on its talk page. The fact that its an encyclopedia doesn't have all that much to do with it. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. You appear to acknowledge that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but you also acknowledge that this idea doesn't relate to an encyclopedia. In that case, how is it relevant to Wikipedia? —David Levy 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well basically this will help show that we have a fun side, which is something that Wikipedia does lack a little, from personal experience I know that some people feel that we're just a little too serious (on the talk pages, the content has to be serious obviously), and that prevents them from becoming more regular editors, just the mere site of the Wikipedia logo in a Santa hat (or any other holiday based paraphernalia), would show that there is evidence to the contrary. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A major issue for Wikipedia is that many members of the media and general public don't take it seriously. This idea's implementation would reinforce such a perception.

But worse still, it would be a huge distraction from writing an encyclopedia. The last thing that we need is something else to bicker about, let alone something with absolutely no encyclopedic value. —David Levy 02:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. Perhaps my wording suggested otherwise, but I wasn't talking about people taking Wikipedia seriously, I was talking about what people perceive to be the general response to new editors, which is to say, they believe that newcomers making changes tend to receive a fairly negative reception on the talk page, i.e. they tend to get bitten by established editors, but I'll respond to your bringing the topic up regardless. I don't see how this idea could dis-improve peoples perceptions of Wikipedia, for the following reason.

So long as we choose universal (or at least near universal in the English speaking world) holidays, and use intelligent iconography to celebrate them, this can only improve perceptions of Wikipedia, perhaps "cute" or "fairy tale" iconography will damage Wikipedias persona, I will admit, but intelligent, reasoned, historic iconography will not. I've brought up the topic of choosing the criteria for the holidays several times, but no one seems to want to talk about that, perhaps they want to leave that until the idea has been accepted, but I don't think it will be, without that having been discussed. Once that criteria has been met, it wouldn't need much maintenance, only a place where new holidays can be proposed, and if accepted, designs for the logo can be proposed. This wouldn't require much effort either, as only a handful of graphic designers are regular contributers, (if you hadn't noticed this my response to your point about the distraction from writing an encyclopedia by the way).

Although personally, I still say this idea will benefit Wikipedia as an organisation and not so much as an encyclopedia, you seem to be a little hung up on that fact, so if you really want me to try and highlight something that will benefit the encyclopedia, I'll do my best. On the holidays in question, we could redirect the Wikipedia logo, not to the main page as is currently the case, but instead, to the holiday article in question, this will increase traffic and hence development to that article any vandalism incurred, would be kept at bay by the good editors that are reaching the page through the same method. Also, to help the people looking for the Main Page, we could simply place "If you are looking for the Wikipedia Main Page, and were directed here through the Wikipedia Logo, please press here to go to the Main Page". This is only a suggestion, but I feel it would work.

This part of my response is not in response to David, this is a call out to everyone involved in this discussion. I think its time to discuss what (provided the idea is accepted by the community of course) will be the criteria for an included holiday, as I really don't see this discussion going anywhere constructive, or at least close to the developed state the idea will need to be in, before we can make an actual proposal. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but have you considered the possibility that people have ignored the discussion because they don't regard this as a viable idea? That's why I initially declined to comment.

As has already been noted, the English Wikipedia does not exist solely for the benefit of people who speak English as a primary language. Regardless, there is no such thing as a "universal" or "near universal" holiday, even within said group.

When I referenced the distraction from writing an encyclopedia, I wasn't referring to the effort on the part of the individuals responsible for designing the graphics. I was referring to the time that we would waste arguing over what holidays qualify, how to represent them, how to deal with overlap, et cetera. This would literally be a daily occurrence.

We already link to holidays' articles on the main page, so this wouldn't really bring anything of encyclopedic value to the table (and altering the logo link's behavior would be confusing and inconvenient). Realistically, the entire idea is based around the opinion that it would be fun. Perhaps it would be fun for some, but this isn't a social website. —David Levy 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have considered that, but a month without being archived and abandoned means there must be some interest in it.

There are several days that can apply, Earth Day, for example, would apply, I'll admit I cant think of all that many, but I don't pretend to be an expert in the field. When I mentioned holidays at least existing in the English speaking world, I meant that its unlikely that holidays from non-English areas wouldn't be proposed, because of the language barrier.

Yes but once we have a set of Criteria, there would be no need to discuss any one holiday more then once, once some new comer comes along and proposes a holiday that has already been discussed (and the majority of these discussions would be "What About -> Not Universal Enough" in fashion), the only thing needed to do would be to link them to the discussion that has already occurred (unless they can argue a massive growth in popularity).

It's also not an unsociable website, which is a point I've brought up several times, that that is one of the general opinions of Wikipedia floating about the internet.Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, discussions from this page are archived by a bot after three days of inactivity. As soon as someone replies (regardless of what he/she says), the clock is reset.

So you want us to go through a year of bickering? Then what will we do when some holidays fall on different Gregorian calendar dates the following year (and overlap with each other)? If we include Christmas, will we also include Hanukkah and Kwanzaa? If so, will we do so for their entire durations? If not, this will offend some observers. If so, it might upset some celebrants of Christmas (who would receive only a single day). Or should we observe the Twelve Days of Christmas? If so, this likely will generate complaints that it's receiving preferential treatment (not to mention consuming the entire duration of Kwanzaa). And what will we do in years such as 2008 (when Hanukkah overlaps both Christmas and part of Kwanzaa)? And of course, we'll have to include Boxing Day, right? That always falls on the first day of Kwanzaa. And how shall we address the fact that some holidays (such as the aforementioned Hanukkah) begin and end at sunset?

This is but a tiny taste of the issues that would arise.

I don't understand what you mean by "unlikely that holidays from non-English areas wouldn't be proposed, because of the language barrier." If you meant to say "unlikely that holidays from non-English areas would be proposed, because of the language barrier," I disagree. The English Wikipedia has a very large number of readers from countries where English does not predominate.

You also seem to have some misconceptions of where English is widely spoken, as well as what holidays are widely observed by English-speaking people. For example, our Indian readers and Hindus from around the world would want to include their holidays, and it would be unfairly discriminatory not to (assuming that any religious holidays—including Christmas—are featured).

Then there are national holidays (some of which also are religious in nature). You need to realize that we cannot discriminate on the basis of "English speakers." If we include any nation's national holiday, we need to include every nation's (or at least those that are requested). Again, the issue of overlap would be quite problematic. Would we even have a standard main page design any longer?

If we exclude all religious and national holidays, what are we left with? Not much. I don't even regard Earth Day as a "holiday."

This idea simply isn't feasible. —David Levy 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of how the archival works, that was the basis of my point about the conversation.

A strict set of criteria will remove most bickering, we have standards for DYK, ITN, etc, and its rare that a disagreement goes on past a few posts, because of that criteria.

I wouldn't have imagined any religious periods being added (although I have used them for examples above I know), holiday is a bad phrase to use, its days like Earth Day that I personally want recognised, speaking as an atheist, and therefore not inclined towards any religion, I wouldn't include any religious holidays because that's an obvious split in the population, and no majority's exist, same goes for national holidays, not internationally recognised, therefore easily pruned. Just as an example of how criteria would stop long discussions, from your own example above, Boxing day would immediately be rejected because its only recognised in the Commonwealth. Earth Day and World Biodiversity Day to name another possible example, are internationally recognised in multiple continents and is not contained in a single organisation, such as the commonwealth (there's an idea for a criterion right there).

This idea is perfectly feasible, because were more than intelligent enough to make it work, if it was brought on board a low-maintenance wikiproject with low man power required, will be able to oversee it. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 02:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this discussion's continued presence is not necessarily indicative of community support. (If, after two days and twenty-three hours of inactivity, someone drops in to say "this is a bad idea," it stays for another three days.)

Indeed, you did use religious holidays as examples. If we exclude religious and national holidays, that certainly eliminates many of the potential problems, but it also substantially reduces the "fun" factor that appears to fuel most interest in such endeavors. —David Levy 03:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(bring it back out)Sorry, I added a note in the wrong place thanks to an unusually timed edit conflict :). As far as I'm concerned, this is the list of potential holidays. Obviously we can't include them all, so some other criteria will also be needed, for example, I don't foresee European Day of Languages being included, because its only recognised here in Europe. Well if its conceded that the fun aspect is is a problem, then I'm happy to not have any, I still say this idea is well worth it. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 03:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not very convinced. Perhaps I'll feel more assured if I see the exact criteria. A lot of the holidays on your list don't even have their own article. And, for example, January 15 is listed as Martin Luther King day. I don't feel that's international at all. I'm kind of sceptical towards this right now, but might change my ind if I see the proposed criteria.
But in my opinion, the on this day section is sufficient to recognise the holidays. It might also be interesting to glance at Wikipedia:Christmas 2004 which was very quickly rejected.
I'd suggest creating a main page alternative, and see how that goes, before changing the default one. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Wikipedia:Christmas 2004 sort of echoes Davids concerns over including religious holidays.

True, not all have articles, thats an easy rejection point for it.

You're right, Martin Luther King day isn't all that international, but it is internationally recognised, similar criteria to ITN could be used really, such as it has to be of international interest etc. I'll draw up a proposal for criteria when I have time, but if anyone else feels they can do it be my guest. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 16:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

they should have a best user page part on the main page or a most active user part you know what i mean? --ジェイターナー ^✉／_✐ 13:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• WP:MYSPACE —Dark•Shikari^[T] 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The first suggestion is against several long established policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (a social networking site) & Wikipedia:User page. User pages are intended for communication between users in the process of building a better encylopaedia not to 'show off' your 'l33t' user page. Besides that there is unlikely to be any way you can find consensus on the best user page. The second suggestion again has the same problems and it also risks encouring Wikipedia:Editcountitis which we want to avoid. But there is Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits if you are interested. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention such awards would inevitably lead to drama....-Wafulz (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose people would save there edits after every letter that they put in, lol.--ジェイターナー ^✉／_✐ 12:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it deserves a place on the main page news. It has to be the first time a first nation has seriously declared secession from the United States. Zazaban (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

News items are to be suggested at WP:ITN/C. Please make sure it meets the criteria (such as having an updated encyclopaedia article about the event. In your case, I would suggest improving Lakota people#Independence movement or even creating a separate article about it). Thanks! Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the page has only 247 characters and i wonder how it got itself nominated under the DYK criteria ?

According to the ever reliable Microsoft Word, it has 1,548 characters (1,305 if you exclude spaces), excluding references, surpassing the 1,500-mark standard for DYKs. --Howard the Duck 14:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You got a result of 247 because you accidentally did a word count instead of a character count. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops..I mistook characters as a criteria to be words. Anyway, what is the rationale behind 1500 characters as the threshold ? sriks8 (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So that it is considered large enough to be put on the main page, and so that someone looking at it, would have a decent amount of information to go by. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

File:WikipediaNewstoday 1.png

Is there anyway to have the picture in the news section related to the first item in the box? As it is, an initial glance looks as though Hugo Chávez was the gunman that killed nine people in Omaha. --Bob (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The usual goal is to have an image for the first item with an available free picture. It usually works out relatively decently, but every once in a while we end up with a long-ish run of stories with none, such as now. Nothing really to be done about it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Barring someone who knew Hawkins personally and has a photograph that they're willing to release under a free licence, the only real alternative would be for someone living in Omaha, Nebraska to head down to Westroads Mall and take a picture of the site (the one we have currently is *very* dodgy, copyright-wise). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If we just want a new image, a photo of the PM of Togo would be good Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could the Chávez story be placed top? Or are there other criteria for story order? 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stories are always placed in chronological order Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This "policy" does need to change. It makes us look quite stupid on people's very first visit to Wikipedia. The photo usually does not match the first news item, and the problem is fixable. Make the story with the photo first. Tempshill (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been several suggestions for change previously, so far none of them have gotten much support IIRC. In any case, I'm not sure if everyone is convinced it's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

An image of the flag of Omaha or an image of an AK47 (the weapon believed to be used) could both be used, or something like this - just be creative, but make it look better, please. --Bob (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Several admins are against the use of flags since it's argued they don't add much. Maps have similar problems to flags (it's been argued they don't mean much if you don't already know the geography of the area and if you do, you don't really need a map). As for the gun, I don't think you'd find much support for that for numerous reasons. For example I suspect you'll have similar opposition as with a flag or map (it's a generic image which doesn't tell you much about the specific story). As well as the fact it may be seen as either POV pushing or perhaps morbid. Finally it AFAIK remains unconfirmed that the gun was an AK-47 with some conflicting info (Plus AK-47s can vary quite a lot in how they look). Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And a generic old image of Chavez is better because... --Bob (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the feeling is that as the item is about Chavez it's specific to the item and shows something which is meaningful (not everyone knows what Chavez looks like but many might be interested in seeing him and for those that do, it will tell them the item has something to do with Chavez, some people may recognise Chavez but may not know his name). On the other hand with a flag, most people don't know or care what the flag of Omaha looks like. And if you do, you'd probably recognise the word Omaha just as much as you will the flag, and it doesn't really tell you anything about the item which only losely has to do with Omaha (it occured in Omaha but it has nothing to do with Omaha). Similarly with a map, if you already know what Omaha looks like then showing it probably doesn't provide more info or is more easily recognisable then saying Omaha especially at the size we're talking about I don't think many people will recognise the flag or the map but will not recognise Omaha. And if you don't recognise the map, you probably don't really care to learn where Omaha is and again as with the flag, the story doesn't really have anything to do with Omaha. In this case, the Chavez connection is perhaps a bit loose as well since it was a constitutional referedum supported by Chavez not an election which Chavez won but it's arguably still a lot stronger then Omaha to the story. Or to put it simply, the flag or map are more decorative then functional whereas the picture of Chavez is more functional. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

even though it is out of date and badly positioned? I gave examples of some things to use, I also said be creative, as it currently looks shockingly bad and amateurish. Your arguments against using a map are also applicable to that precise image of Chavez. Also, please drop the geek-speak, not everyone understands computer initialisms (I certainly don't) --[[User:Grcampbel

You could use Wikipedia to look them up. LOL. Really, though, Nil Einne is right that the photo of Chavez is more relevant to the Chavez news item than a gun or map would be relevant to the mall shooting news item. It sounds like "relevance to some item in the news section" is Nil Einne's criterion for what picture should be in the news section. I'm not sure if that's the best approach, but let's say it is. We at a minimum need to have the story associated with the picture right at the top. No news website in the world puts a lead next to a photo that does not match. And, yes, "Wikipedia is not a news website", but this area of the main page is a news website. Tempshill (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The same ITN template looks great at Portal: Current events. --74.14.19.109 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see how there is any problem with this template on Portal: Current events. This illustrates one of the problems which a lot of people fail to realise. The template works fine in many cases and changing it simply for one version of the main page is not considered good practice or acceptable (there are versions of the main page when it's not a problem as well e.g. Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (PDA version)) Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually ITN is implicitly NOT a news website. This is a common misconception and is one reason why people have suggested it be renamed. Also, I'm somewhat doubtful the suggestion for changing placement of the story will get much support. We already get sufficient complaints when a image stays for too long. Yet if we were to effectively selective highlight one story at the top of a page for a long time because we don't have any new images, we're liable to get many more complaints. Even worse, since very often we only have images for US items, you can just hear the screams of US bias that will result when we selectively highlight US stories. Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

IIRC is hardly geek speak... Whatever the case, you say to be creative. But so far, no one has come up with a suitable suggestion for an image which is sufficiently relevant to a more recent story in the eyes of admins (hint, this is NOT me). Until and unless someone does, things are not going to change. Telling people to be creative is somewhat pointless since obviously the people involved are not 'creative' enough or the problem would be resolved. If you're so sure it can be done, why don't you come up with something that is sufficiently relevant to a more recent story? Remember wikipedia is made by unpaid editors which can include you, not by a paid workforce. There's little point telling people to 'fix' something if you don't have an acceptable solution and one is not obvious to the people doing the 'fixing'. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I just butt in and say here that it's probably the first (and last) time that I show off the addition I made on Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ back in April?[1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So the photo should not match the lead in that box because it screws up formatting on another page. This is a lazy and half-assed reason to make Wikipedia look stupid on the main page. Tempshill (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL... People are complaining because they think the picture of Chavez makes it look like he killed nine people in Ohama and then waved to the crowd? Never would have crossed my mind. And no, Tempshill, it's because we don't have a good free image about the shooting, and anything we did have about it (a picture of the mall, for instance) wouldn't fit the item very well. Chavez is just fine where he is. Grandmasterka 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try again without being Mr. Inflammatory. This is the main page of Wikipedia. When people look at the ITN box, and they see a photo that is mismatched with the lead, they say, "Haw, haw, Wikipedia is stupid," the same way that occasionally occurs with the algorithmically generated photo matching on Google News. We need to make the main page of Wikipedia look good. A mismatched photo looks like amateurville. Any reason given to justify a mismatched photo is misplaced, IMO, because it needs to look good, and a mismatched photo looks terrible. Fears about increased complaints because the Chavez story would be the highest story for longer - then move the photo down to sit next to that bullet point. Tempshill (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty simple, and Fyre2387, Tempshill, and others are right. The ITN picture should match the lead ITN blurb. If the the lead has no picture, fine - no picture. This is pretty elementary. --Elliskev 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree DmitryChestnykh

I wrote a proposal for this at Template talk:In the news#ITN photo proposal if people would care to weigh in, support, or denounce it. Tempshill (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Um did you bother to read the FAQ answer at all? It didn't occur to me to link to it so it was good for Zyxx to point it out. It specifically address why we cannot move the photo down. Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Tempshill, Elliskev and DmitryChestnykh for demonstrating that this concern stems entirely from the mistaken belief that ITN contains a "lead" item. Obviously, this confusion is something that should be addressed, probably by removing "news" from the name (as had been discussed on several occasions). —David Levy 18:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead, lede, first story, whatever. Semantics. The first item in the list. Sheesh. The point still stands. --Elliskev 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not nitpicking. Your expectation that the image will pertain to the first item listed appears to stem from the mistaken impression that ITN operates (or could reasonably be expected to operate) like a newspaper or news website (placing the story designated the most important at the top). —David Levy 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No... My expectation that the image will pertain to the first item listed is based on two things - how people read (top to bottom) and the proximity of the picture to the bulleted item at the top. I don't really care how ITN operates. I care about the layout being less than ideal. --Elliskev 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And your idea of an "ideal" layout has nothing to do with what you're accustomed to seeing in newspapers and on news websites?

We label the relevant item with the word "pictured." For people capable of reading English text, I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. Yes, the image might appear incongruous at first glance, but people are supposed to actually read the section. —David Levy 21:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, we're not going to agree. You're assuming a lot about my sense of "ideal". This is a disagreement about style. I think the style we have now sucks. Categorize my opinion all you want. It won't change my mind. --Elliskev 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Elliskev is right and David Levy is wrong. People read top to bottom, and expect the tightest possible proximity between a picture and the associated text. That's because, as David Levy haughtily puts it, those of us who can read English text have been raised to expect this in roughly 100% of the printed material we read. People have not, on the other hand, spent their lives carefully reading through many bullets of information in order to figure out what a nearby picture is about. Tempshill (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is wrong? Okay then. Thank you for saving me the time that I would have wasted by attempting to discuss this with you. —David Levy 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm simply disagreeing with you. —David Levy 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to point something out to a few of you, David Levy is providing a valid service in this discussion. If we implemented every change that was suggested here on the Main Page without these kinds of discussions the thing would more then likely be totally illegible at this point. David (as a user who seems to be fairly anti-main-page-change) provides a counter point to whatever the suggestion is (normally), and if you can prove his points wrong, youre usually well on the way to getting your suggestion implemented. I myself made a suggestion about page balance a while back (not to do with the pictures, but instead to do with the layout in general), and the whole discussion was pretty much me and him arguing about it. I still don't agree with the points he was making at the time, and I still don't like his style of debate, but the service he provides here on the main page is one that has to exist... he shows that there is another side to the argument. Just my two cents. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just line the picture up with its appropriate news item? 87.244.93.97 (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/5746/lineupvf5.jpg Like so! Easy enough to change, and makes a damn sight more sense than the current setup. 87.244.93.97 (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Will the template layout still work on Portal: Current events or Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (PDA version) with a picture that goes with the 4th or 5th bulleted item? You might get quite a bit of unsightly blank space there. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that guy was Hugo Chavez so I assumed he was the gunman. I agree that it's a bit weird when the first picture doesn't line up. It's nothing to do with news stories and everything to do with how people read. 81.153.124.23 (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So go read the word "pictured" further down. --74.13.128.88 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it contradicts the expected format and readers will naturally assume that the first picture is the relevant one. There's nothing wrong with that, it's an almost universal thing unless you're used to Wikipedia's silly quirks. I do agree that it makes the main page look amateur. But then most of the photos used here do, as they're usually low quality and of limited relevance. 81.153.124.23 (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be or might not be universal on the internet, but it's extremely familiar in the context of non-fiction books, reference works, etc. This style may strike some as old-fashioned, but there's nothing amateurish about it. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this page has a comperable context. In such books it can reasonably be assumed that the reader will actually read most of the page or section where the picture appears. Whereas we can reasonably assume most people just scan the content on this page, which changes daily. Also most such books will include a caption to provide context for the image to the reader that picks it out visually rather than reading the text.-doradiia (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

81 has a point, so the pic must correspond to an item or not to have a picture at all.

Or, how about adding a border around the pic so the reader may think that it is not related to the top item? Or having colored rows (might look ugly though) --Howard the Duck 13:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This applies equally to the Did you know... and On this day... sections doesn't it? It is confusing to people not aware of the policy who may never see the inconspicuous (pictured) tag. Even for someone like myself who is aware it this is still inconvenient. We should keep in mind that most people will not read the entire section. Most people will merely scan the page. The pictures tend to draw the eye, however. Forcing wikipedia users to play where's waldo with the (pictured) tag just to figure out what the picture is about strikes me a slightly hostile towards the users... particularly new users who may very well read the first bullet, assume it's connected, and move on. I understand that technical and style issues under discussion have thus far prevented the suggested remedies. May I suggest at least making the (pictured) tag more prominent so that it stands out when scanned? I also feel that a border around the pic would help seperate it conceptually from the top bullet, even if there is no accompanying highlighted bullet background. And finally, (though I personally feel it would be ugly) a caption under the pic could greatly ease confusion and facilitate the page's utility. -doradiia (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a problem on DYK, since the admins can easily choose the hook that has a pic. For OTD, most of the time, the first entry (the event that happened the earliest) doesn't have a photo so the pic will come from the next entries. --Howard the Duck 15:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Under such a proposal to have the image always be associated with the first item, either the listings on "On this day" would have to appear out of chronological order (which is not an option if you want this section to maintain some credibility) or the pictures would have to be removed completely because there is usually no associated image for the first item on each and every day. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking of adding a border to the photo will "physically separate" it from the first item so it'll not appear as part of it. --Howard the Duck 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

yes its very funny, but a bit offensive to the guy. david levy and ferdia o brian have alot of opionins about this maybe they are bored with life outside wika. also wika is a form of witchcraft which i dislike alot. pinktoes and nose.−—

There's a huge difference between "wiki" and "wicca". The former is a type of collaborative website, while the latter is a form of neo-paganism. They have nothing to do with each other, except for beginning with the same two letters. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should include a news entry for the annoucment that she is pregnant? Cryo921 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Way. ITN is not a tabloid.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, when a 16 year old star of a nickleodeon show gets pregnant it is pretty newsworthy. Although your point is a good one. Cryo921 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be featured. "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest." It does not have international importance and is common for 16 year olds to be pregnant.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It was featured in our local early evening newscast, the last place you'd see Hollywood gossip. Try WP:ITN/C though. --Howard the Duck 04:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Local news has to sell, just like anything else, so I wouldn't say gossip is beneath a local newscast, only a huge amount of it. MMetro (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Earl of Wessex had a baby (well his wife did). Thats much more significant. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not news. --Howard the Duck 07:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't say it was, just trying to show how irrelevant spears is. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevancy doesn't appear in the ITN criteria, if I may add. It has to be posted on Portal:Current events, an update on an article and must be "of an international importance, or at least interest". The JLS case seems to have met all of the criteria I've mentioned, except for the portal one. I've heard about Keisha Castle-Hughes pregnancy a year(?) ago but not on our local newscast, while the Earl's new baby wasn't even mentioned, heck I didn't even see it on the major news channels. As for 16 year olds getting pregnant, they're like elections, they happen everyday. --Howard the Duck 12:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard more about it then the Jamie Lynn case tho. I only heard about Jamie Lynn on some tabloid link whereas the Earl case may have been one of the headline items in my local evening news IIRC. (I'm not in the UK) BTW there are many similarities to when the virgin Mary's pregnancy was annouced last year. And no, I don't think that should have been on ITN either. Edit although if (big if) tabloid rumours are to be believed, Jamie is going to be a single mum unlike Keisha.. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, neither is newsworthy enough to be on the Main Page. Sorry. As for Ms. Spears—like Richard said, it is not unusual for 16 year olds to be pregnant (has been since, let's see, forever). The fact she is a notable 16-year-old does not make her being pregnant particularly notable, and this is certainly not a world-altering event. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The only times pregnancies (or births) are notable enough to appear on the main page are when they have a wider effect on society - ie, it's not the pregnancy that is notable, but the events surrounding it, eg: a) The child belongs to a high ranking member of royalty and is directly in line to the throne (eg, when Princess Akishino was pregnant with Hisahito, or if Kate Middleton had become pregnant by Prince William). b) the pregnancy marks a massive scientific discovery (eg a radical new fertility treatment, proven human cloning etc.). Laïka —Preceding comment was added at 15:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What? Absolutely not. The day a junk tabloid story like that appears on the Main Page is the day that hell freezes over and I hang up my tools in shame. GlassCobra 08:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in ITN, but FYI it's on the front page of the NY Times today. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

By comparison, I haven't even seen it in the British broadsheets. Not that it means much- the elections which are (rightly) on ITN are often barely mentioned by the British press. At the end of the day, this pregnancy just isn't important to the world as a whole. J Milburn (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Where I can report "one side" (not neutral) Admin ? The guy gave me warning for "personal attack" while other user called me "antisemitic" ! I didn't do anything to get a ban.

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do if you think a specific admin has acted badly would be to politely raise the issue with them on their user talk page. I see you've already posted there, though. You can post at WP:AN/I if there truly is a problem, but if you do so, be prepared to make a very clear case for what you're saying, backed up by diffs. You can also ask at WP:Help desk if you have further questions about Wikipedia process and so forth, this isn't really the proper place for such things.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nvm, I don't wanna make troubles to anyone. I have another question, I made a couple of good "userboxes" how can I make them to be like "Userbox/Krzyzowiec/(Something here) ?! How you do like that ?! And where I can find the site on Wikipedia where I can place my self-made userboxes (like a User:Krzoyzowiec/Userboxes) ?

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

'F you're looking for how to do those userboxes, go to, for example, User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/Something, insert your code, and save. Then put {{usbk|User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/Something}} onto User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes. If you want to put one of those boxes onto your page, you put {{User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/Something}} onto your page. 68.101.123.219 (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

i'm from the haitian wikipedia and i'd like to add the link to the homepage of our wikipedia into the left panel. Tell me how to proceed or what information is required to proceed. Thanks in advance ! --Masterches (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately, only Wikipedias with at least 20 000 articles and a minimum depth of "5" are included (source: Template:MainPageInterwikis). According to meta:List of Wikipedias, the Haitian Wikipedia only has 7 154 articles and a depth of "3". Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks for your answer Puchiko, i didn't know. I continue my contributions :-) --Masterches (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the shortest I've seen the Main Page discussion in a long time! It's quite disconcerting in a way. violet/riga (t) 14:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm mostly to blame for that. I removed the four or five WP:ERRORS-style sections which contained queries that had already been answered. Since they'd've been long gone had they been placed in the correct area, I didn't see the point in letting them clutter the page up. Enjoy the minimalism while you can. On a side-note, I'm surprised there's been no outcry yet on the appearance of one of the Gwen Stefani FAs as Today's Featured Article. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah now you've gone and jinxed it! :) Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 16:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not blame, GeeJo, you're mostly to thank. (I usually get vandal-warnings on my usertalk when I do the same deletions on this talkpage.) --74.13.131.101 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

moved to WP:Main Page/Errors Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, as early as...

Maybe this is just silly, but: the title of Main Page is conform [sic] to the Wikipedia naming conventions; the P should be small (just like "Current events","Bug reports","Special pages", etc.). Jheijmans 07:22 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

68.101.123.219 (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this has been brought up quite a few times, some, including myself, are of the opinion that it should be moved to Wikipedia:Main Page and have an article about Main Pages here, with a link at the top pointing to the wikipedia main page, but others say this will be too disruptive.--Srmagnetismo (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly would be, if consensus to move this to another main space is even gathered, this will likely need to be a redirect. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would love to move this to a non-article namespace. SInce we are not putting Fair Use Images on the Main Page anymore, that reason for keeping it here is invalid. Only reason, so far as I can see, is Tradition and precedent. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the Fair Use Images actually, its much more appropriate on the Wikipedia name space now. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think setting up a redirect would be a bad idea, I know there's many link to this Main Page around the internet, but having a link to a link would be pointless, the links to the Main Page would correct themselves in time Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember the capitalisation - Main page could exist as an article while Main Page could be a redirect. As there is no pressing need for an article by either name we may as well have redirects. violet/riga (t) 23:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Of course if this does ever happen (and I am also a supporter of such a move) it doesn't mean it has to be like that forever. For example 2-3 years from now we could re-evalutate the situation and turn Main Page into a disambig if it's clear not many people are using it to go to Portal:Main Page or whatever the MP ends up being Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

True, that layout would work fine. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 18:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I only wish they'd fixed it all those years ago... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 21:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hummm...I've got no particular opinion one way or the other, but I think its worth pointing out that the comment above from 2002 just mentions capitalization, doesn't say a word about namespaces. Actually, unless I'm mistaken (and that's entirely possible, I admit) namespaces didn't even exist yet then, at least not in the form they do now. Reading something into it that's not there is probably a bad idea.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say that person was asking that it conform to "Wikipedia naming conventions", so there was some sort of dispute that far back... altho it might or might not have been the current dispute. 68.101.123.219 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews has put up an extended quiz, see here. It'd be great to have that as well as - or in place of the "Wikinews" link in the news section for the next 24 hours. Thoughts? --Brian McNeil /^talk 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok it's great thing we can do --Osamahw (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

hello..why we do not do a painting or a ward have "Happy new year" it is just for 1 day.--Osamahw (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We had a huge discussion whether the main page should be decorated for holidays, and we decide not to. Please see Talk:Main_Page/Archive_115#Change_it_for_certain_days_like_Holidays for the discussion, it just boils down to which holidays should be picked. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction:We didn't decide not to, we're just waiting for someone to draft the proposal. Sorry about the mistake. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ok..but whivh mistake...i think that we will not do this project.--Osamahw (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, quite frankly, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum, there are already too many children using this site, we shouldn't cater for them any more. Now bugger off and take this proposal with you. 78.146.65.175 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This site is for everyone, children and adults alike, we cator for all, and don't be so rude to other members. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

could somebody edit main page so that the wikipedia wishes all a happy new year.. 218.248.39.98 (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. First of all, not all calendars start the new year today... Look in the "On this day..." section, and that's all you'll get; happy new year. · AndonicO ^Talk 04:47, 1 January 2008 (UTС)

'Twould seem that now that "When Wolverines Attack!" is petering out, the theme of DYK seems to be gays...Just a comment, meant as nothing more or less...an observation, one could say. Perhaps I should write a whole bunch of articles on...oh wait, I forgot, real life awaits me. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay... Wait... No... I don't get it... What are you trying to bring up? Dreamafter ^⇔ 02:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a criticism, as though something is lessening your enjoyment of DYK, but then you seem to disassociate yourself from the project... I have no clue what this supposed observation is to be honest... Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't make any sense. It's way too late for me, and I sure as hell didn't get enough sleep last night. The observation was that it seems that we are having a high amount of gay-related articles relative to everythinge else: maybe it's just this batch, which has a lead off of Judy Garland as a gay icon, and then Marco Penette who was outed in front of his parents. I was comparing it to the inundation of Michigan Wolverine articles in a very poorly worded and horribly nonsensical attempt at expressing myself. It's not bothering me, I'm just making the observation that sometimes, there seem to be high numbers of DYK's relating to certain topics. I know that in OTD, they do 1 thing per specific country, nothing more than that 1. Perhaps something should be instituted for DYK? No more than 1 DYK for a certain area or topic so that people can get a variety of the new stuff on Wikipedia? I apologize if I wasn't clear before, which I'm sure I wasn't, and hope that I'm more comprehensible this time around. Regards, Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 03:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I get you now, don't worry about it, well basically the sections in DKY are picked at random from proposed facts that fit the criteria, and as any decent mathematician will tell you, true randomocity will include clusters :), having said that though, I imagine that if we imposed some sort of rule that when submitting a fact, you have to add which of the 12 base Categories of Wikipedia it falls under, it would be fairly easy to make sure that no one category gets more than its fair share. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 03:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The most common reason for multiple consecutive DYKs on the same thing AFAIK tends to be that someone or some group decides to work on new articles for something of interest to them. This has happened before with fish, cricket, and other things I can't remember but often peters out after a while. It's still happening for Michigan wolverines BTW. We do AFAIK try to avoid 2 or more hooks relating to the same thing appearing in the same update but obviously this isn't nor is it necessarily easy to say if two items are too related. (See Wikipedia:Did you know "Try to include items from varied fields of interest, time periods, and parts of the world.") Besides the gay icon and gay screenwriter thing we also have two items with some relation to the Hindu religion specifically one about a Hindu godess and another about Paul Bérenger being the first non Hindu PM of Mauritius. But in both cases I would say it's not clear whether they are related enough that seperation is really necessary. (Note that the gay icon thing relates to the perception of her among many LGB people whereas the other thing is about his sexuality which has nothing to do with other LGB people although both do involve people from the TV & film industry.) Also I don't think not more then 1/country/update will work at all since we simply don't have enough from outside the US due to systemic bias and other things. I count 3 items relating significantly to the US in the current update. In any case we don't AFAIK generally try to avoid inter-update article correlation probably because that will be way too complicated given the large number of hooks, the involvement of multiple editors in updating DYK etc. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)