Talk:Main Page/Archive 102#Britocentrism, again (Pronounced a-gayn)

On the line at the top:

Overview · Editing · Questions · Help

Contents · Categories · Featured content · A–Z in

there should be a little dot between help and contents, like between all the other entries on the line.

:There's no dot because the first four are left-aligned and the last four are right-aligned. ShadowHalo 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

: The omission of the dot creates confusion because without the dot between help and contents it is not clear that there are two entries, "help" and "contents" as opposed to one, "help contents"

76.80.92.186 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

:That's only an issue when running at really low resolution, or viewing the Main Page from a very small window. Pretty much anything above 640x480, and you have the first four on the left of the page, and the other four on the right. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

:: Then we need some fixed blankspace added there to separate 'Help' from 'Contents' for people with small screens. --74.13.124.157 09:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My best regards for feature the exquisite "Starry Night" as POTD. Kudos to everyone! --ŴôôḌẼĿF 06:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The real Picture of the Day is the risque one in today's featured article. It surprised me to see Wikipedia display pornography on its front page. Christopher Connor 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

:Rule of thumb - if you can see it in the sears catalogue, it's probably not porn. Raul654 21:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

:[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=porn&btnG=Google+Search This] is porn. This definitely isn't. ffm ✎talk 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

::Depends on intent I guess. If this photo were part of a series leading up to the model removing the garment in question, I supppose it'd be categorised as pornography. Since it's not, it's not :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

:::One person's porn is not necessarily another's, have a look at the attempts to define pornography in the law over the past few decades. It's fun to watch legislators squirm while constructing legislation. --Monotonehell 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Why are we acting so immaturely? It's as if no one's ever seen a bra before. And if you haven't, that only shows how uncool you are—go out and gape at some RIGHT NOW!!!! --ŴôôḌẼĿF 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

plz put hatshepsut back in. i dont wanna see some ugly britain.--Studytheearths 19:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:Nasty joke aside, I really can't see why the image was changed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIn_the_news&diff=141336294&oldid=141259383 This diff] claims its a "freer image", but being that :Image:Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri.jpg is under GFDL and CC, I'm not sure why it was deemed invalid.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::I've changed it. Borisblue 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::Technically a public domain image is IMHO freer from a copyright sense of view (although I'm sure some GPL/GFDL fans may beg to differ) however I agree the change was inappropriate and unnecessary (and also against policy). Any free image is suitable and when the image is clearly free there is no need to consider which one is 'freer'. In terms of ITN and probably all of the main page, there should never be the need to replace one image with a 'freer' one since an unfree image should never be on the main page Nil Einne 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

12:56 PST The photo is Hatshepsut, but the text still claims that it is Gordon Brown who is pictured.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 19:57, 29 June 2007 (talk • contribs){{#if:75.165.9.239| 75.165.9.239|}}.

: Should've reported this at #Main page error reports above. --74.13.124.157 09:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be changed slightly? It reads "Two attempted car bomb attacks in central London are foiled by the Metropolitan Police." - is 'foiled' really correct? In my mind, that would mean that their intelligence lead them to intercept both cars before anyone else reported anything...as it was, one was an eyewitness account (of a smoking car? I'm not quite sure), and the other was towed away before the company realized there was a bomb inside.

It doesn't really sound like the bombs were directly stopped by the police at all. --Joewithajay 10:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the templates? E.G. "CEST" is broken as well as the templates main page... --88.134.83.112 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if this was discussed before (god I hope it was). Aren't fair use images disallowed on the main page? So why has one used in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 23, 2007? Is it allowed or was it an innocent accident? -- Cat ^chi? 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:It's not allowed. Pilotguy 13:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:From memory, the discussion about disallowing fair use images on the main page hadn't quite reached consensus at that stage which may have been why the image was allowed at that time. Nil Einne 13:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::March 23? That was about the time when the discussions about disallowing fair use images on the Today's featured article templates began. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Which means that there will still be a number of fair use images on the FA templates dating before March 2007 because nobody has yet bothered to go through each one in the archive and remove them. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Ah ok. They are protected so only admins can fix them.
I made this inquiry as a sanity check. Thank you. (I feel sane yes :P) -- Cat ^chi? 17:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be included in the news now? CNN is reporting that it is very likely a deliberate attack. What do people think?--Analogue Kid 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:I think this should be discussed in the proper place, i.e. WP:ITN/C. Nil Einne 17:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::This should definitely be on the main page. This is much worse than the London incident yesterday.
GMc^talk 19:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree entirely its on BBC, Sky and other news channels are reporting live. It should be added and linked in with the london attempted car bombs yesterday. Thenthornthing 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I concure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.183.70 (talk • contribs)

::::Well it's there now but is there any particular reason all of you thought it a good idea to discuss that here rather then ITN/C where it should take place & I had already directed people and the discussion was already taking place? Nil Einne 09:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

{{archive top}}

It is troubling to see that wikipedia is running a featured article about islam, and this article contains almost no mention of terrorism. This is very clearly bias. While I am not suggesting that the article should say that all muslims are terrorists, the fact of the matter is the majority of terrorists in the world today are followers of this religion. Wikipedia should be in the business of reporting facts and unbiased knowledge, it should not be an arena for propaghanda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.61.226 (talk • contribs)

:See the Modern times (1918–present) section of the article, which links to Islamic terrorism. That said, recent events make up a tiny portion of a history that's over 1300 years long and don't belong in the blurb. If you want to refer to this as "propaganda", you're welcome to set up a site to talk report about how most terrorists are Muslim, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. ShadowHalo 01:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds like this guy should be referred [http://www.conservapedia.com here], a site more to his liking. Daniel Case 02:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::Or not. Interestingly, Conservapedia doesn't make any mention at all of terrorism in their Islam article (though it is a lot shorter). Dragons flight 02:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::(edit conflict) No, I don't think so. That's a bit presumptuous (note that even Conservapedia doesn't mention terrorism in its Islam article). Essentially, I'd refer you (the anonymous user, I mean) to Wikipedia:Recentism. Islamic terrorism is a relatively recent phenomenon. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Whatever. This anon has started a thread with the same comment on the article's talk page, and from the wording it sounds like an all-too-common meme among that new breed of American conservatives who bravely fight terror by sitting at their termninals coming up with new ways to insinuate that leading liberals are gay. Stated calmly, but it's still a talking point: we are supposed to infer, disclaimer notwithstanding, that because the majority of the world's terrorists are Muslim{{tl|fact}}, via the fallacy of the undistributed middle, that the majority of Muslims are terrorists. As noted, the article has links to that, and terrorism is, IMO, no more intrinisic to Islam than to any other religion. Daniel Case 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::The percentage of terrorists that are muslim probably depends somewhat on the definition of 'terrorist' too. Certainly here in the U.S.A. the percentage is probably pretty low. Most of the terrorists you see on the news are anti-abortion fanatics, white supremisists, lone crazies like Tim McVeigh, or the occasional eco-terrorist. Most people I've talked to about this try to tell me that you're a terrorist if you throw a bomb at a U.S. tank, if you use that silly definition, then the terrorist population is just a factor of where we put our tanks. 24.2.176.64 03:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article does mention terrorism in the aforementioned section with a good link to Islamic terrorism. An entire section on terrorism is unwarranted. DoomsDay349 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted the original comment on this page. I aplogoze that the comment was posted anonymously, I was not logged in. I understand everyone's argument, but again we must weigh the value of political-correctness vs. the value of giving people complete information on the subject. Regardless of the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists, and regardless of how long terrorism has been a problem within Islam, it's a very significant issue in Islam today and one that is worthy of at least a paragraph of it's own in the article. I recall reading that featured articles in wikipedia are supposed to be high-quality, complete articles. I don't understand how this article made the cut, unless one or more of the decision-makers wanted to spread a message about Islam. This is why I mentioned using wikipedia for propaghanda purposes. This is by no means an unbiased article that shows the full picture of what is a very significant religious group in the world today. User:Rmisiak

:We have an entire article on the subject, at Islamist terrorism, as mentioned above by User:Daniel Case. This article is linked to from the article on Islam. Most "terrorists" are Muslims. Most Muslims are not terrorists. Therefore, there does not need to be an entire section in the article on Islam, about terrorism. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:I consider it unfortunate that you (like admittedly many others) believe Islamic terrorism has more than a trivial connection with a religion that shapes the daily life of 1/4th of the world's population. It's not political correctness, it is just that Islamic terrorism is not relevant to understanding Islam, any more than bombings at abortion clinics are useful to understanding Christianity. Dragons flight 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:[edit conflict] This has nothing to do with "political-correctnesss". Articles are supposed to present the subject in a historical context; this nonsense about talking about "the world today" is just that, nonsense. If you want up-to-the-minute information about current events, I recomment Wikinews. An article like this should be detailing the subject in its entirety using summary style, writing about each aspect in proportion to its historical context and impact. The article does a good job of doing that. ShadowHalo 06:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::I've never known wikipedia to censor controversial topics from articles; in fact, I always thought of wikipedia as a place where the controversial topics are clearly highlighted, and generally relay two points of view to the reader. This is a clear case of censorship and not conveying a clear, complete picture for the sake of being politically correct. Truly a shame. User:Rmisiak

:::I'll repeat myself. How can it be censorship of a subject when we have an entire article dedicated to a subject, which is clearly linked from the parent article? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::There are many sections of the Islam article which have external articles and still have a paragraph mentioning their importance. The word "terrorism" appears only once in the Islam article. This is a controversial issue within islam and should be highlighted, with *all* points of view given, so that the reader can have an informed view of islam today. I am not implying that all or even many muslims are terrorists. But the fact of the matter is that most people in the world today would have never even heard of islam if it weren't for terrorists. How many readers here from western countries seriously knew much of anything about islam before all of the recent terrorist attacks? This is why it is a serious enough issue to warrant more of a mention; if not it's own paragraph, a sentance within the first few paragraphs of the article. User:Rmisiak

:::::"most people in the world today would never even heard of islam if it weren't for terrorists"? What a bizarre assertion. I first learnt of Islam in primary school, in Religious Education class, many, many years ago. Again, what you are proposing is recentism. Islam has been around for over a thousand years. The first example in the article on Islamist terrorism happened 35 years ago. As for highlighting the issue, with all points of view given, this is when we tend to split a section off into its own article, as is the case here. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As the one who removed mention of terrorism from the Jihad section, I assure you that political correctness had nothing to do with this. We have also resisted attempts to misinform readers that "jihad" means a peaceful spiritual struggle or the like, in favor of clearly presenting the most historical and orthodox doctrine. Jihad is part of Islam, no question about it. Terrorism is not, except insofar as one argues it to be a lawful component of jihad. The most salient issue isn't actually attacks on civilians, though this is certainly debatable, but who has the right to declare jihad, and who is obliged to carry it out? Islamist terrorists state that anyone may declare jihad, and that all able Muslims are obliged to pursue it. Though not obviously un-Islamic, this stance is at least innovative and unorthodox. Still, we have refrained from stating that terrorism is not part of Islam: this entire discussion is recentist and not nearly as core to Islam as such objections suggest. The Jihad section is hardly a whitewash. What it isn't is recentist, politicized or tendentious. I invite anyone here to remove that ridiculous tag atop the article.Proabivouac 08:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Proab wrote: "The most salient issue isn't actually attacks on civilians"- this goes against the rules of warfare in Islam. What Proabivouac believes he has resisted is the modern interpretations of Jihad. Yes, he hasn't let the range of the modern views (held by modern Muslim authorities) to be reflected there (Why one might ask?). What Proab has removed regarding "terrorism" was a quote from Bernard Lewis saying: "At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point — as far as I am aware — do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders." As you can see Proab's position is very clear. He has by no means taken an middle-ground position. There is a misconception about the relation of Islam and terrorism. Due to Proab's efforts, the article doesn't say anything about the misconception.--Aminz 08:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:: P.S. In another place Lewis says: "Usama Bin Ladan and his followers may not represent Islam, and many of their statements and actions directly contradict the Islamic principles and teachings, but they do arise from within Muslim civilization, just as Hitler and the Nazis arose from within Christendom, and they too must be seen in their own cultural, religous, and historical context."--Aminz 09:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Aminz, I agree completely with Lewis' statement: the texts of Islam say nothing about terrorism, nor do they "even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders."Proabivouac 09:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:(after edit conflict with Rmisiak, above) The tag in question was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=141763927&oldid=141763707 removed] while you were typing that message. Which is a good thing. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Okay guys, this thread was off topic from the beginning and has now skewed into specific article content. This talk page is supposed to be about discussing the Main Page, so please take this discussion to Talk:Islam or your user talk pages. Dragons flight 09:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The main page is transcluded to Main Pages/1 through to Main Page/10, just wondering what these are? SGGH ^speak! 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think they're supposed to help protect the main page from deletion/vandalism? RHB - Talk 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::As I recall (and I may be mistaken), the idea came about after the last "rouge admin" episode. The idea being, in the event anything were to happen to the main page, it could be quickly restored from one of these "backups".--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::The point is that if a rouge admin unprotects the Main Page, users still won't be able to edit it since it's cascade protected from Main Page/[1-10]. Also, if an admin deletes the main page, all 10 of the backups will show saying: "This page has been protected to prevent recreation. An explanation may be available here: Main Page/1, Main Page/2.....". In other words, a rouge admin would have to unprotect 11 pages and delete 11 pages to actually cause chaos. With tabbed browsing, this is possible, but without, by the time they get done with doing all that, they will already have been desysopped. --(Review Me) R ^{you talking to me?}Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::: Actually, they'd only have to delete 11 pages, or delete 10 pages and unprotect 1, or delete 1 and unprotect 10. This could be done ten times over with time to spare before anyone could intervene, so I'm not entirely sure what the point of it is beyond stopping casual vandals who take advantage of an administrator who left themselves logged into a publicly accessible computer – and they'd just add shock images to the site notice, so it's pointless anyway – Gurch 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Well, not as many people know about the site notice page, so someone not experienced with Wikipedia who logs on and finds the little delete button won't know that they could just mess with the site notice. And about the other part, then maybe we should make more Main Page/#'s. Maybe 100? --(Review Me) R ^{you talking to me?}Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::Gosh no, we have too many as is. There even had to be a special case in the cascade protection notice just for this page. Prodego ^talk 22:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::What special case, and where is the notice? --(Review Me) R ^{you talking to me?}Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::In MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected, if the current page does not exist, and the title is "Main Page" display:

Info	Due to internal issues, the main page is temporarily unavailable. Other pages are unaffected, and the main page will return shortly. In the meantime, you may view one of the backups linked below.

::::::It is a waste to put these special cases in, and this won't stop anyone determined. Prodego ^talk 22:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that perhaps we could have a note on the Concert for Diana in the news section. This is a huge concert airing in over 140 different countries with some of the most famous singers in the world performing. Eagle Owl 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:Suggestions for "In the news" can be made on WP:ITN/C. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::Is that tonight? NastalgicCam 22:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

When you search Chris Benoit on Google, his image comes up about the edit thing. Has wikipedia been notified about the Benoit edit thingy? Kashakak 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

wot edit thingyThinklikeatank! 01:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, I assume that it was actually Wikipedia editors who first noted what happened. See Chris Benoit: Wikipedia controversy for what we have on the situation. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

hi all, first of let me state i like Frank Lloyd Wright's work, the 'water fall' hoose is a favourite, but what is it with the near constant (ok not constant, but you get my drift) mentioning of FLW buildings in DYK? Perry-mankster 10:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:I presume someone who like you is interested in his buildings has recently started (and perhaps is still continouing) a whole bunch of articles about his buildings and has nominated them all. We usually try to avoid the same subject appearing twice on ITN in one shot so if there a lot of articles on one subject it will take us a while to get thru them. This same issue has been raised on so many times about oh so many things like cricket, Eurovision songs etc. I suggest you check out the archives for further discussion. Don't worry, it'll pass soon enough and a few weeks or months later have the next person complaining about waterfalls appearing in every DYK or whatever Nil Einne 12:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::I too have been meaning to bring this up...but it's not until now that I've found the right spot. His building's look nice, but I don't see why they should appear (usually with picture) every day (almost). The 'did you know" section should be there to expose readers to new and different things, not to regularly advertise the work of an architect. Evilio 1744, 4 July 2007

Has anyone ever heard of a book called Strike of Lightning by a Randy Prince? I've read it and it is a good book for young children. Do you think a page for this book can be put on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.216.44 (talk • contribs){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.

:If you want it, Create an account and make the page yourself. 68.101.123.219 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::If not, you are more than welcome to suggest it at Articles for Creation, but this page is really meant for discussion of the Main Page. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Batmanand | Talk 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to spoil anyones fun, but is it really appropriate to make fun of ethnicity on the main page? I am referring to the 'yump' line in the caption to the featured picture. I can think of several other ethnicities other than Swedish who would not be amused by a similar 'yoke' being directed at them. And no, it does not bother me, and if it is up to me, do keep it there by all means, but do give the matter some thought. Is it appropriate in this case but not in some others, or is it not appropriate equally no matter which ethnicity is being made fun of, good naturedly or not. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 14:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:Check out Yump, it has nothing to do with Sweden: "In rally culture, such jumps may be called a "yump", and are sometimes referred to as such in official literature." - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:What racial slur were you referring to? I can't find any info on yump as one. You might want to add it to wiktionary Nil Einne 17:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::Okay, I am willing to stipulate that 'yump' is a term of art (though the mention of it as such does not appear to have a source), and not intended as a slur. But I would definitely bet it has an etymology related to the scandinavian languages, and specifically how English-speakers perceive them. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not so sure about that. I bet it has very little, if any etymology of racism. I'm interested to see if you can find a source on that. Jmlk17 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::: The OED lists it as an "Alteration of JUMP v., repr. the supposed pronunciation of it by Swedish speakers or the Norw. jump jump (n.), jumpe jump (vb.).", which I suppose could be interpreted as mocking the Sweidish accent, although I'm not sure it is particularly offensive (and isn't flagged as derogatory in the OED).ReadingOldBoy 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Bush commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, can you put a link to the page that has the story? All the links are for other stuff.

:The subject is covered in the Lewis Libby. If you want an article only about commuting the sentence, you're looking for Wikinews. ShadowHalo 05:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is the correct form in English (as oppose to the Serbian Monika Seleš)?

:There is no correct form, what is more important is A) What she prefers and B) What is the most common form used in English language publications. In any case, this should be discussed elsewhere like Monica Seles, not here Nil Einne 19:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The way things are rendering on my end, the FA is taking up less space than the news, thus leaving a noticeable gap under the DYK. This could be easily changed by adding an item to DYK, but the DYK headline wouldn't align with the On this Day... headline. Bringing this to someones attention to see if it merits correction, and if so how to do that. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry, but its like this very often. It changes once a day (more than that in DYK's case), so there's not really any point bringing it up. Atropos 01:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please put that Alan Johnston has been released and it's breaking news!

Hurry and watch here. (Windows Media Player required)

BBC News 24 - Live Broadcast. --96.224.7.204 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

: This should be discussed on WP:ITN/C. --74.13.130.35 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely more important that some reporter who was released??!???!58.104.61.196 02:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:Or some government official having his sentence commuted. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::Using my admin powers (muahahah), I've added it. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:Not to the reporter, his family, his employer or anyone who believes in journalistic freedom. Corvus cornix 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:This should be discussed on WP:ITN/C. --74.13.130.35 03:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me fellow Americans, but I would hardly call todays featured article random, considering 4 July is here. Tourskin 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

: Forgive me, Tourskin, it should be obvious that the TFA was not chosen randomly, considering today is 4 July. --74.13.130.35 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::It's like having Santa on Christmas. Theme. Enjoy it. Love it. Embrace it. -Cam^T|C 06:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Heaven forbid the front page be relevant! What ever will we do? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::::It's all in good taste anyway :). Jmlk17 06:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::That's easy for you to say. I'm genuinely outraged about this, and will be writing a letter to my local MP in a matter of hours. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::Wait.. The featured picture as well? And "On this day"? Never mind my MP, I'm writing a letter straight to the Prime Minister, John Major Tony Blair Gordon Brown! --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Damn our Yankee souls! I like it ;) Jmlk17 06:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::It is nice to take the English, English population into consideration, Walrus, but Jimmy Whales is from USA. -Cam^T|C 07:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::Jimmy Whales is from the ocean. The Japanese eat his kind everyday... --Howard the Duck 11:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::That has got to be the most irrelevant point ever. 213.48.15.234 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm trying to say that some European people shouldn't be upset about the July 4th mention because, the website was created by an American. -Cam^T|C 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::Actually that has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter whether Jimbo Wales is an American or a Martian. This is an international site with contributors from all over the world and the nationality of Jimbo is largely irrelevant. Non-Americans (yes there are people on wikipedia who don't come from the US or Europe believe it or not) shouldn't be upset because it is a featured article, a special request was put in (I assume) and this was accepted, as is and will be done with many other special requests. Nil Einne 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::: Jimbo doesn't have anything to do with TFA. If you want to bug someone, bug Raul654. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's time for this now-pointless discussion to end...Jmlk17 08:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed -Cam^T|C 09:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:you guys are hypocrites, telling people to not post info that has nothing to do with the main page and here 9/10 of you guys were speaking about stuff that had nothing to do with the main page.

::This talk page is an appropriate venue to discuss the choice of featured article, which is exactly what they were doing. Raul654 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hypocirtes? All I wanted to do was stir up some arguments make my British side a little happy. Who is the primeminister again? Happy July 4!!Tourskin 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::For the record, "you guys are hypocrites, telling people to not post info that has nothing to do with the main page and here 9/10 of you guys were speaking about stuff that had nothing to do with the main page." was 'not' posted by me, even though it looks like it was. -Cam^T|C 22:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The spanish version of Wikipedia finally reaches 250,000 articles - can someone update the languages part at the bottom of the main page of English Wikipedia? ¡Muchas gracias! Dazissimo 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:Done, and congratulations! Borisblue 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that on the main page said that "1776 – The Continental Congress of the Thirteen Colonies in British North America approved a Declaration of Independence" which is wrong, technically the Declaration of Independence was 'approved' on July 2, 1776 not July 4, 1776 (which is independence day). Also the word 'approved' should be ratified. Thank you, -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:You're right in that July 2nd is the date when it truly happened. That said, the fourth is the "official" date, even appearing on the Declaration itself. OTD policy is usually to keep things to one date per event, and under the circumstances, the fourth really is the better day to list it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that articles linked from the main page (even the featured article itself) are generally not protected, and never simply BECAUSE they are linked from the main page, but images invariably are? I've double-checked -- the images actually inlined in the main page are thumbnails, and are not the same jpeg files as the big ones that are protected, although I assume they're protected too. Also interesting is the language used -- by an 850x356 image it may say "The image has been temporarily uploaded from the Wikimedia Commons and protected because it is, or shortly will be, on the Main Page". Is "on" the main page? Is linked from the main page. A thumbnail version that is a separate .jpeg file is actually on the main page. But the 850x356 (or whatever) jpeg itself is not actually on the main page. Strange choice of language.

I don't get why they don't just protect only the thumbnail. By analogy, the featured article is often not protected, though the text excerpted from it on the main page is (by virtue of being physically part of a protected page - the main page). Protecting the thumbnail but not the big version of some image would be the logical equivalent. Yet the big version gets protected too, unlike the FA.

Is there some sort of extra level of paranoia about images being vandalized? It's also the case that ALL images are apparently effectively semi-protected, unalterable without registering. This seems rather an excessive level of paranoia, given that the bigger threat isn't that an image will be replaced with something irrelevant, scribbled on, or changed in misleading or POV-pushing ways, but that the article text will. The article text is the far more important to keep NPOV and reasonably accurate, not to mention intact, as it's the bread and butter of the article. The images are gravy. If I wanted to make an article misleading, or turn it into a big self-promotion, or push a POV, I'd start with the text and probably completely ignore the images altogether!

Yet the behavior of Wikipedia is apparently to regard image tampering as the greater threat, to judge by the greater attention paid to defending images versus article text.

If anything seriously needs to be semi-protected by default, it's templates -- much less in need of regular updating or tweaking and much more capable of causing mayhem -- harder to trace mayhem and multiplied by every article that uses the template, directly or via other templates. Yet a ton of templates aren't even semi-protected ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.54.10.64 (talk • contribs){{#if:23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)| 23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)|}}.

:First of all, the thumbnail is automatically generated by the MediaWiki software based on the original image; there is no way to protect just the thumbnail itself while leaving the big image open for editing. The second reason is that changes to image files don't show up on watchlists or on recent changes or even the user's contribution history, so vandalism via image tends to go unnoticed unless someone actually sees the vandalism and reports it. And you're wrong about the type of vandalism that happens to images on the Main Page; most of the time they're replaced by porn or some other image that many would find offensive. howcheng {chat} 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Image uploads do [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Gurch&namespace=6 show up] in the user's contribution history. Uploads are also displayed in Recent Changes – in fact all log entries are (new accounts, deletions and so forth). Look for lines beginning with the text "(Upload log)". In addition to this, we have not only Special:Log/upload itself, which is essentially a "recent uploads" page, but also Special:Newimages, which shows image thumbnails.

:: The only thing we don't have is a record of image uploads on watchlists. This is bug 778, which hasn't been fixed due to technical complications; a rewrite of the recent changes, related changes and watchlist pages to use common code may eventually resolve this – Gurch 11:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:When it comes to the reason for protection, the key point in addition to what howcheng has already said that it is rare that an image can be improved anyway. And many of the improvements that can occur (e.g. making a SVG, cropping) should not immedietly replace the original image. However many articles appearing on the main page are continually improved by a variety of users due in part to their high profile. As for why media needs 'semi-protection' again in addition to what HowCheng has said about vandalism of shock pictures, there tends to be a far greater level of copyvios with media and media is also far more open to abuse (e.g. people using us as a file sharing site). Furthermore although we're not supposed to worry about performance, a large number of uploads of content which is going to be deleted is IMHO one thing we should worry about to some extent. Given the numerous issues, anon uploads of media is simply a bad idea Nil Einne 01:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

::None of these "issues" would seem to detract from Wikipedia's accuracy or neutrality. Most of them are only "issues" because an amazingly high proportion of the world's over-18 population is astoundingly immature about a variety of things, mostly to do with normal functions of the human body, including everyone that would cause the type of vandalism you seem to worry most about and those that would overreact instead of calmly reverting it. Aside from the one that's an "issue" due instead to the abomination known as copyright law, which really boils down to immaturity in various quarters too when you come to think of it. OK, now I've said something controversial, and if I'm right about the average maturity of supposedly-adult human beings, instead of calm consideration occurring the flames will now commence ... :)

Does anybody know how many Pacific WW2 battles are featured articles?

Sixteen.

That's out of about 20 featured articles that are about WW2 battles. This isn't including WW2 military strategy and personalities, just battles. Does anybody else believe that this is grossly unrepresentative of the importance of the Pacific side of WW2? I know it's a contraversial thing to say, but some think that the crux of WW2 was the German Eastern front. That is, the fight between Germany and the Soviet Union. Certainly nobody could seriously contend that the Pacific theatre was the more important than the European one in terms of the nature and outcome of the war. So why the bias of featured articles towards the former?

Don't get me wrong, the Pacific war was important and deserves to be extensively convered, but I think it is wrong to have so much of it, when there are many many other great articles that can be featured.

I don't want this to descend into yet another dull bun fight over systemic bias within Wikipedia, but I think it is worth considering that too little correction is being made for the fact that many more good articles are centred on the Western world. When choosing the 'featured article' consideration must be made of whether, because of the uneven distribution of technology, internet access and population in the world, such a bias might emerge.

Whatever the reason, I really do think that sixteen an out-of-proportion figure when compared with the proliferation other, similar, featured articles.193.60.159.61 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:Now is time for you and your mates to improve other battle-related articles. --Howard the Duck 08:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

: Featured articles are chosen for their quality, not their subject. The day's featured article is selected from those which are featured.. Sheesh... we've already had this discussion twice on the current incarnation of this page alone. I dread to think how many times it's been dragged out and beaten to death in the archives. (Anyone feel like making the above big text into a template?) – Gurch 11:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

::Nonsense, the article about Samuel Adams was pure coincidence? I think not! Daimanta 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:::No, it was not a coincidence -- it was specifically requested for that date. Raul654 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Wait a second, I think if you read the original post here its argument is that we ought to select articles based on their content and that the content's bias ought to be minimised. It's one thing to state (in large, shouting letters, very immature) that this is how it's done, but it fails to answer the point that it ought not to be like this. That's like saying "it's ok to break the law because people break the law": it's not an valid argument. Maybe the way the featured article is chosen is broken. It's a good point and brought up in the right way. Even if you don't agree you shouldn't pout and stamp your feet in the babyish way that Lurch did.62.56.123.51 20:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

::I wasn't signed in when I posted that. It's me; I'm not hiding.Alun 21:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:::This discussion has also been developed and is in fact more suited here. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, consider featuring Frida Kahlo tomorrow on her 100 birthday.

I was looking for a better place to submit this proposal but I couldn't find it. Thank you. RC, New York.

:The article is not up to that standard, and tomorrow already has a featured article. --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

::I believe RC meant a mention of her birthday in the Selected Anniversaries section, not the TFA section. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you do this, as accents have been missed off a name. These occurrences in the text have been rectified but I do not know how to rename the article in general.

:This is done via the move function, although you'll need a registered account to do it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is something about the line,

"The 2012 Summer Olympics bids comprised bids by nine cities to host the 2012 Summer Olympics."

that dosen't sound right. I think it should be "comprised of bids by nine cities". Aiden Fisher 09:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:That would actually be wrong. It should be either ' comprised bids' or ' were comprised of bids'. Which of those is preferred is a matter of choice, but generally active voice is preferred over passive. --86.150.19.126 11:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

::"Nine cities participated in the 2012 Summer Olympics bids." seems a bit simpler. Bazza 13:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

::: Bazza's sentance is better as the words, 2012, Summer Olympics, and bids only appears once in the sentence. Aiden Fisher 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to make Wikipedia Main Page your Homepage?

Please get back to me on my Talkpage user talk: krummy2

Krummy2 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to make the cursor go directly to the search box when opening Wikipedia? For example, if you go to Google, you can immediately begin typing your query because the cursor is already in the search box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.221.3.7 (talk • contribs){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.

:The most recent discussion on that subject is here. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Could some folks please keep an eye on Sochi, currently a high-profile article? There have been a few edit wars going on, revolving around whether Sochi is a Georgian or Russian city, and the addition of a biased and unsourced criticism section. After doing a little research, I can be reasonably certain that Sochi is in Russia, and I have removed the unsourced section. But I do not want to get involved in an edit war, nor do I want to protect a page that I have edited recently. Thanks all, Fang Aili ^talk 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

heyyy, well i think this page is very informational whoever did it, awesome job! thanks -- Michelle Shaw july 5, 2007 12:37PM

:This sort of request is more suited for the village pump or wherever as it has nothing to do with the main page Nil Einne 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

::It is linked on the main page, in first news story. Therefore I posted my message here (as well as on WP:AN). --Fang Aili ^talk 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm aware of that but it still has nothing to do with the main page Nil Einne 06:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"1887 – King Kalākaua of Hawai'i was forced to sign the Bayonet Constitution, stripping the Hawaiian monarchy of much of its authority as well as disfranchising all Asians, most native Hawaiians, and the poor."

"Bayonet Consitution" isn't the name given to the article, which says it's a name adopted by the opponents. Not endorsing the consitution, just saying maybe this anniversary item should be rethought in light of NPOV. --Samuel J. Howard 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:I'd just change it myself, but I can't figure out how to edit the main page or whether I can.--Samuel J. Howard 11:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

::The reason why you can't change it, is because you are not an admin, only admins can change the Main Page. --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 12:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"...that viable sperm has been extracted from cadavers up to 36 hours after the donor's death?"

What about the poor poor children? -Cam^T|C 08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is not censored. Worse yet, every time you think of the children, God kills another one of them. ShadowHalo 08:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Domo kun toy.jpg the Duck 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm too bored to read all of those! LOL --Howard the Duck 09:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC) --Could someone just tell me how to kill a Domo-kun? I don't want to have to kill a kitten to do it Nil Einne 09:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC) -
Every time you forward this email God kills a domo-kun. Please, won't someone think of the domo-kuns?? howcheng {chat} 23:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)]]

::I know it's not censored, I'm just wonderring why it's on the main page. As forthe children...keep thinking of them then! MUHAHAH! >=D -Cam^T|C 08:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Because it's a recently created article. And its inclusion doesn't seem to be pointy at all since it's actually quite a well-written and referenced article. ShadowHalo 08:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Oh wait, so what's on the maing page are all new articles? -Cam^T|C 08:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::No, just the "Did you know..." section. That's why it has the "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" subtitle. ShadowHalo 08:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::Oh, ok, makes sense I guess. I'm still new to all this stuff. -Cam^T|C 08:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Kudos User:Howard_the_Duck...kudos -Cam^T|C 09:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::While I didn't write it for any WP:POINTish reasons, I did wonder as I transferred the article from my sandbox whether it would raise any complaint on the Main Page :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::I'm certainly not a prude, but I do think some of the articles should be censored, have you seen the photo and video on the article Ejaculation?...I haven't seen the video, because I am scared...and scarred by the picture of the photo of the guy making his bishop cry...It aint pretty and it aint big...Surely a tasteful picture should be used instead... --Madkaffir 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::Post-script: I just watched the video, and it is vile...

:::::::That's the beauty of the internet. You don't have to click on anything you don't want to. If you're offended or disturbed by the content of the article on ejaculation then don't open it in the first place. It always works for me. Not to mention that the images presented are only to be expected, and if they weren't there, then the text descriptions would be almost as "offensive." Censorship isn't what's called for here; it's personal restraint. Safuman 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

:(for future reference, this discussion concerned the appearance of Posthumous sperm retrieval in the Did you know section of the Main Page.) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So since when does a local British Association Football team (Sorry, I and 3 quarters of the native English speaking world will NEVER call that game simply "football") team get a link on the main article and the Superbowl, one of the world's most broadcasted events doesn't even get a mention on Superbowl Sunday?

Again, I call Britocentrism on Wikipedia. Or should I say, Wikipaedia.

ColdRedRain 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

: It isn't and never has been one of the world's most broadcasted events. Compelte myth. 122.167.144.218 07:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:What on earth are you talk about? Norwich City Football Club is a featured article and was chosen based on quality not content. If you work on some other article about some bizzare American Football club that most of the world doesn't care about (like the New York Jets) then it could very well be featured on the main page too. Similarly, if Super Bowl was a featured article, you or anyone else could put in a request for it to be featured on Super Bowl sunday, or Christmas Day, or your birthday, or whatever date of your choosing. Our featured article director will consider this request and especially if there were a good reason (e.g. Super Bowl sunday) he's probably grant it. But it's not even a good article... So instead of complaining about nothing, I suggest you get working on making Super Bowl a featured article. Also, I still don't get why only native speakers matter Nil Einne 14:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::What's a superbowl - some kind of special supper-dish? :p --Alf ^melmac 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::Because the figures work out conveniently if only native English speakers are counted? Besides, they're hardly a "local" team, when every football fan in the country (and many outside of it) has heard of the team. The [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Norwich%22+%2B+%22Premiership%22+OR+%22Championship%22 Google hits] are [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22New+York+Jets%22 certainly comparable] with some NFL teams. But as Nil Einne says, and as people keep stating each time the "this doesn't deserve to be on front page" argument is brought up, the decision is based on the quality of the article, not the subject of it. Certainly, I'd be willing to bet that more English (and even native English) speakers have heard of Norwich City than have heard of Kazi Nazrul Islam. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Image:English_dialects1997.png Even money says that the majority of the world's native English speakers in the world don't give a flying fuck about English Association Football (Not football, association football) nor have heard of Norwich FC nor even know where Norwich is.

::::What in the world is that graph supposed to represent? A graph with absolutely no description as to what is means is completely useless. If anything, you've weakened your position. 70.49.35.81 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::The graph is the percentage of native English speakers. Which ignores all English speakers who don't speak English as a native tongue. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:::BTW, the New York Jets have a split fanbase. They have to share the market and the state and even their stadium with the New York Giants, so they won't have that many fans. Not to mention, in the New York-New Jersey area, there are way more Giants fans than Jets fans because the Giants have been established longer. And by the way, you know our entire country isn't in New York.

:::Focus, pommie, focus.

:::Anyways, if we're going to put a page from some some minor British city's local soccer team on the main page (Norfolk city is 150 K strong) we should start putting up a minor US city's minor league baseball team (Like the Norfolk, Virginia Tides.) Norfolk, Virginia is larger in population than Norfolk, UK.

:::And P.S. Ice hockey is way more international than you give it credit for. Just because your country can't field a team or even individual players in any other sport besides for soccer and rugby, (BTW, since when was the last time England, Scotland and Wales ever won a world cup in either of those sports?) doesn't mean the sport isn't international. Other countries play other sports besides for rugby, soccer and cricket too.

209.162.14.223 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::::But why mention only native English speakers? Wikipedia isn't only for native English speakers, it's for English speakers, whether native or not.

::::Anyway, as people keep mentioning, things are chosen for the front page for the quality of the article, not the subject of it. Therefore, the reason why the Norfolk Tides aren't on the front page and Norwich City F.C. is, is not because we're saying that (soccer) is better than baseball, and not because we're saying that the population of Norwich (or Norfolk, UK) is higher than the population than the population of Norfolk, Virginia, it's because the article on Norwich City F.C. is higher quality than that on Norfolk Tides. There's absolutely no reason why even a genuinely small side, like Lancaster City F.C. couldn't be on the front page, apart from the article isn't good enough.

::::I realise that many American sports (ice hockey, baseball e.t.c) are popular outside of the US. Hell, I like many of them myself. I realise that there is more to the US than New York. I've visited the US many times, and none of those times have been to New York.

::::And as for the last time either England, Scotland or Wales won a world cup in either rugby or (soccer)? How about the most recent one for rugby?

::::But to sum up, the day's featured article is based on the quality of the article, not its subject. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Tell a Canadian, a Scandinavian or a Russian that Ice Hockey is an "American" sport. They'll beg to differ. Ok, I'll give you rugby, but.... when's the last time you guys won in soccer? ;) ColdRedRain 05:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::You still seem to be missing the point entirely. If you want an article about the New York Giants or the New York Jets or the New York Idiots or whatever your favourite American football team is, then YOU write it. My whole point was that if you want an article about some random American football team, it is your resonable to get it up to FA. I don't care what team that is. The only reason I choose the New York Jets was because they're the first one I spotted on the American football page. Don't complain to me because you're too lazy to write an article about your favourite American football team. Personally, I couldn't give a flip about the New York Anything or Norwich FC but at least one other person did care enough about the Norwich FC to make a FA so it was featured. BTW, you really, really need to learn how to use your terms better. Pommie is a word for British which I am not. As such, calling me pommie other then being insulting makes no sense. I generally find when you're going to go on a rant it helps to actually know what you're talking about... Nil Einne 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually when it comes to non-native, it's far more difficult to make such a call. Since many Indians aren't particularly interested in football (let alone American football) and they make up a substanial proportion of the non native speaker list, there's a possibility more English speakers overall have heard of Kazi Nazrul Islam. Of course, it depends on who you count as a speaker. Robert Garran is probably a better example since I reckon fewer native and more non-native speakers have heard of him then Norwich FC Nil Einne 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:BTW, I'm pretty sure we mentioned the Super Bowl on ITN after the results were out Nil Einne 14:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, since when do local American football teams ONLY get on the main page, not once but twice – while British football teams have been on there multiple times such as here, here, here... :p Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:Probably because there's more (soccer) featured articles than there are American football ones. For (soccer), we've got: 1, 2, 3, 4 (I suppose), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 articles about (soccer). Meanwhile, for American football, there are only 1, 2. There are actually more ice hockey featured articles than American football ones.

:Of course, the only reason why there are so many (soccer) FAs and so few American football ones is because Wikipaedia is secretly controlled by FIFA. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, on reflection, that means that EVERY American football FA has been on the front page! Why hasn't every (soccer) FA been on the front page? I call Americocentrism on Wikipedia! --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually it is a very clear football bias, you don't see as many cricket or ice hockey topics on there :p Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::::When would Michael Jordan be displayed on the Main Page? This is more of outdoor sport bias if you ask me... --Howard the Duck 16:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::I'd just finish doing the counting and was going to make the point Walrus made but was beaten to the punch. Still I guess it's our fault. We should be working on articles that the majority of native English speakers want to read about and not articles that interest us or non-native English speakers (especially if we're non native speakers). As for American football fans, well it's not their fault if they have to spend their time telling us how bad wikipedia is rather then working on writing FAs Nil Einne 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not done yet! I demand we move Shaolin Soccer to Shaolin Football (Soccer). The Americocentrism has to stop! --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Actually, doing a recount, the real problem is the "Anything-else-but-food-and-drink"-centrism on Wikipedia. :p Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Heh heh . . . the strange, paranoid, ignorant comments have been ridiculed to insignificance. I love Wikipedia! We need more of this . . . :) --AdamSommerton 22:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Dear God, it's Hollaback Girl all over again. The TFA is about the quality of the article, not the subject of the article. ShadowHalo 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::::"Even money says that the majority of the world's native English speakers in the world don't give a flying fuck about English Association Football (Not football, association football) nor have heard of Norwich FC nor even know where Norwich is."

::::Money says that most native English speakers don't know where Norwich is? What does that even mean? This guy's clearly had a few. --AdamSommerton 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: What does it mean? It means that he is willing to bet some undetermined amount of money at even odds that the majority of native English speakers could not locate Norwich. It's probably a safe bet, since the overwhelming majority of native English speakers are here in the U.S.A. Personally, I know exactly where Norwich is. It's right here in Connecticut.69.95.50.15 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that a vast amount of people may not know where Norwich is or even Manchester is, Tho Manchester United has one of the biggest fan basses in the world which include non native english speakers even non english speakers. But its sport which is understood by both english and non english alike. Americans use soccer over Football due to the clash with American Football but lets see Football as most people around the world understand is kicking a ball and American Football is Thrown and Catched and not as occasionally kicked. Football originated in the UK yet American's Stole the name and then renamed UK Football to Soccer. So lets see... Britocentrism it may be to publish it as a main artical meaning we have more priority for it? Maybe if any american sport would live up to name not stolen would be used in a main artical. For Example Baseball or Basketball tho Baseball stole yet again from the British game of Rounders. Norwich is still renouned in the english speaking community which has a higher rate of football lovers.

::::::I bet you pronounce it `Nor-witch' as well.--Rossheth | Talk to me 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Wikipedia is clearly biased against non-native English speakers, as can be seen from the discussion above. :p 89.120.193.125 09:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt this moving discourse, but where is "again" pronounced "agayn." I pronounce it /ə.gɛn/ but that's just me. Atropos 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:I'm a native speaker of southern English English, and I pronounce 'again' as /ə.gɛn/ or as /ə.geɪn/ depending on whim and rhyme scheme. It's always a schwa at the start though, so I take issue with a-gayn as a phonetic rendering. Algebraist 13:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is southern English English? :-o

:English spoken by southern English people, perhaps? Bazza 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly "...I speak English with a southern English accent" is what was meant.

We last won the FOOTBALL world cup in 1966, but everyone seems to forget that football (soccer) is the most popular sport in the world. The only American sport to gain worldwide fame is basketball and I'd be the first to admit it's more popular than rugby and cricket by a mile. As for the language, who cares, it's all understandable. We used to speak German and French and the language has just evolved, but the thing I want to make clear is that England speaks Engliah and U.S.A speak U.S English Soopa hoops77 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Anyone for an article on Australian Rules football? I think most Australians would just admit to being too lazy to write a feature article of a high standard... we'd rather just watch it on TV. I wonder if this trend indicates something about the social demographic of sporting fans? Is it possible that a fan of American football who reads wikipedia might find themself to be strangely more intellectual than the bulk of the fans? Here in Australia we don't get upset when the universe doesn't revolve around us. We know it doesn't. It frequently appears to revolve around the US. (Who seem to see themselves as the only "us" in the world.) Its abundantly clear to me, having never read any wiki discussions before, and not being entirely aware of what an FA is inteaded to be... that the initiator of this discussion should be writing an article not whining about the lack of one. I'm going to make an unscientific hypothesis that all american football fans are illiterate and incapable of writing a decent article. Until someone writes one worthy of the front page, my hypothesis stands. Let's hope someone has the good sense to prove me wrong, instead of whinging about the fact that I suggested it.

124.176.233.179 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:: Chicago Bears was on the main page March 2, 2007. New England Patriots was on the main page April 3, 2006 --71.98.247.247 16:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::Isn't it supposed to be pronounced /ə-gyĕn/?--  PNiddy  Go!  0 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Have no fear. I hear that the upcoming July 4 version of the main page will have a strong American bias (Gee, I wonder why?)... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::Someone once told me (with their tongue piercing through their cheek), that Independence Day is the only American holiday celebrated more strongly in the United Kingdom than it is in the US. I didn't believe him, however, as he didn't provide a pie-chart. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A wonderful neologism, Britocentricism, and one that I assume refers to anglocentricism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.53.123 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})

:OH WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE WELSH? Atropos 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::Maybe we could have the background as the US flag and have all the links to Republican Party...Or we could just have a mixture...Just to inform the American's that American Football could hardly be called a world sport, in fact in the American_football it states outside the US there aren't any professional squads...Its rarely shown on television...But I do accept that showing the best articles on the front...Anyways, Britocentism? If there were more articles on the front about Dinosaurs would you say there was Dinocentism (or Dinosaurcentism?)????!!!! --Madkaffir 16:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the comment about Britocentrism on Wikipedia and laughed. That is, until I looked at the "Featured content" page and sobered up. Look at the three prominently featured items:

• City status in the United Kingdom
• Hashish
• List of dragonfly species recorded in Britain

Honestly, who cares about city status in the UK? Or lists of insects in Britain? It only got worse when I looked at the new featured content:

• Æthelberht of Kent
• Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None [That is, "Dame Agatha Christie"]
• Birchington-on-Sea
• Daspletosaurus

Æthelberht of Kent? Agatha Christie? Birchington-on-Sea? Daspletosaurus? "But, wait" you say, "Daspletosaurus is a dinosaur. Isn't this just another case of a Americans confusing Dinocentism with Britocentrism." Not so fast, I respond. Who is associated with the Daspletosaurus? None other than Darren Tanke, the paleontologist from Alberta. And we all know Canadians are nothing more than French fur trappers and Brits hiding out in North America.

128.61.52.152 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, I would say that today's Featured Content points more towards East-Asian-war-picture-centrism (Chinese casualty in the Korean war, Child soldier in Vietnam war, Chinese Child Soldier) and American-list-centrism (List of counties in Maryland, List of New Jersey Devils head coaches, List of Chicago landmarks, List of New Jersey Devils players). By the way, you were joking, were you not? It's quite hard to tell... 84.12.252.210 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::The dinocentrismphobia cracks me up. --Howard the Duck 13:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Maybe we should just except that British history by its very nature is much longer - in terms of written history - and thus is going to have more featured articles dedicated to it...and that it shouldn't be an issue, I think...Agatha Christie is an international esteemed writer...I don't know where Birchington-on-Sea is, so It's interesting to know...MORE DINOSAURS?! As a mammal I am tired of all these featured articles on are scaly skinned half-cousins!!! (And don't even get me started on insects!!!)...More articles on White Middle-class Mammalian Londoners please! Your sincerely, --Madkaffir 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... given the amount of reversion of trolling there has been in this section recently, and how it is just over a fortnight old, perhaps it's time that this is manually archived? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Ohfercryingoutloud, not another Romanian academic and poet on the front page. Yorkshiresky 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)