Talk:Main Page/Archive 147#Main page 2.0

"Traian Băsescu (pictured) is re-elected President of Romania, whilst the opposition states that it will contest the results in the Constitutional Court on account of alleged electoral fraud." --Wloveral (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:Check out the two sections above and the section at Wikipedia talk:In the news for why it was changed to the current wording. Perhaps it could be changed again but you would have to find a wording which all could agree on - Dumelow (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

::"Traian Băsescu (pictured) is re-elected President of Romania, amidst allegations of electoral fraud"? Modest Genius ^talk 16:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:::perhaps we should keep "[Insert name here] is [add "re-", if needed] elected [insert office title here] of [insert country/government here], amidst allegations of electoral fraud" as a template somewhere...it seems to be used pretty often... :( Rhodesisland (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I have shortened it to the fairly standard "... amid allegations of electoral fraud" version - Dumelow (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently we have two suicide bombings and a nightclub fire, giving us three items with over 200 deaths (and we narrowly missed having a third suicide bombing with them). Not pleasant reading. Is this not the most deaths reported in a single installment of ITN, ever (barring, say, 9/11)? Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

:No, it is not. We had the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, the 19th deadliest earthquake of all time. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

:I would assume the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami would constitute the greatest loss of life ever reported on ITN. --Boznia 08:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

::I agree that ITN is quite death related today but that is what the news has been reporting recently. We do try to maintain a fair balance of news stories in ITN but sometimes the news is skewed towards certain events (we seem to get runs of elections, sports events and disaster/terrorist/war stories). I pulled that third suicide bombing that you mentioned in order to even it out a bit, but it is still quite morbid. I can only hope we get some "good news" soon! - Dumelow (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I wasn't complaining about it, just noting the unfortunate coincidence of events. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I hope I didn't come across as too defensive there. I wasn't really in response to anybody but a comment on why this sometimes happens. At lest we have the climate change conference up now (no deaths there hopefully!) - Dumelow (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

::::This is somewhat morbid/grim so don't read if you are uncomfortable with that but as has been kind of hinted at, deaths due to natural disasters can relatively easily exceed death tolls due to terrorist attacks or building fires, and unfortunately relatively often enter into the quadruple digits (look at the earthquakes list for example [http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/world_deaths.php]). Just this year we had the 2009 Samoa earthquake and resulting tsunami (death toll possibly exceeded any single event you mentioned) which occured on the same day as the 2009 Sumatra earthquakes (alone over 1000). And a few weeks ago we had 2009 Jeddah floods which was in the triple digits (and deaths during the Hajj are unfortunately not uncommon). Can't remember if we had Typhoon Ketsana (2009) but that's over 600 if we did (and worse therefore then any other terrorist attack so far bar September 11 [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255i.html]). Earlier this year, I'm pretty sure we had the Black Saturday bushfires which again possible resulted in more deaths then any single event you mentioned. As Boz said, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and resulting tsunami is the worst that we've had. Hopefully we'll never exceed that in a long time but unfortunately it could happen, List of natural disasters by death toll is perhaps poignant reminder of that. P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to downplay the impact of terrorist attacks simply pointing out that in terms of deaths, they pale in comparison to many natural disasters Nil Einne (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::That's why you have to kill nature before nature kills you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::OK, I have to ask, how exactly does one 'kill nature'? Modest Genius ^talk 06:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Break out the Hoover or a Dyson: Everybody knows that nature abhors a vaccum. WiiWillieWiki 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we just have a featured picture that had a fly feasting on crap? And now we have another one up there? Who's taking these pics? This is starting to seem really odd, almost like a fetish. Bugs having sex, bugs eating crap, bugs eating bugs, all of these have been featured piucs recently, what's next?--Pianos02 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

:In general, pics get listed in the order they were promoted to featured status. I'm betting someone took two pictures through WP:FP at roughly the same time, which is why they ran on the main page at around the same time too. Modest Genius ^talk 04:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

:There are occasional debates as to whether main page featured photographs should be tagged with a newspaper-style photo-credit. (Such credits are discouraged elsewhere in WP.) Since the pro-credit faction always wins, you could tell at a glance that user:Muhammad Mahdi Karim took that photograph.

:I imagine that flys are photographed on crap because that's the easiest way to get them to hold still. APL (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

::The last fly-on-crap photo was November 16, making it nearly a 4 week gap between the two photos. howcheng {chat} 00:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase Cartman... weeeeeaaaaak.Paradise coyote (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No... I'm sorry... laaaaammme...Paradise coyote (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, any sheep or goat-like sound will do...Paradise coyote (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

:Stop being a dick. Exxolon (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

::When those responsible stop being narrow-minded, I'll stop being PRACTICAL. And thanks for stooping to profanity. It helps prove my point.Paradise coyote (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Perhaps you should complete high school and write some articles before complaining because something isn't exactly how you want it? 68.50.242.207 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Paradise, you are denigrating other people's efforts and contributions in getting the articles to FA status with your ill judged remarks, hence I had no problem calling you on it in no uncertain terms - how many FAs have YOU made a major contribution to? Considering your area of interest appears to be obscure music topics you are not in a position to throw rocks. If you have a problem with the scheduling of the two FAs so close together, take it up with User:Raul654, the FA director. Exxolon (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

::: Until you get an FA, I can't give any advice other than not being a dick. Which has already been done.  GARDEN  22:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

:I agree that there are far too many computer games featured on the front page. The must be millions of articles that would be a better selection. 89.243.179.87 (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

::Are you aware of what it means for an article to be "featured"? Do you realize that its subject's relative importance is not a criterion? —David Levy 22:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

:: There are only around 2,700. Noting of course a lot of them have already been on the main page.  GARDEN  22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Further to my previous comments 'variously above' - lobby for 'computer and other games main page fork.' (And does the apple the other day come into the Triffid-Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells complaints department? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize we can't use fair-use images on the main page, and that all FAs have a shot at the main page, regardless of the picture situation. But it seems we've had 3 TFAs without a picture since 12/4. Is it possible to spread them out more, since the page looks better if there is a pic. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 08:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody quickly correct the DYK hook on the main page, it was located in Kham not Amdo!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather absurd that "On this Day..." does not talk about Peal Harbor. I think there are very few who would day that the execution of Napolean supporter Michel Ney is more important than the Battle that brought the United States into the largest War in history -Samnuva (Not Signed In) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.5.91 (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:Importance has nothing to do with it, it never does. As mentioned in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries and discussed every time this comes up, the reason is because Pearl Harbor is already in WP:TFP and therefore does not need to be in SA/OTD. In fact the TFP mention is more significant then any mention in SA/OTD Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

::I assumed Pearl Harbour was omitted because it highlights a shameful fact in the history of the USA. The USA has never fought right wing totalitarianism unless its national interests are attacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.39.38 (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WOW typical liberalism by WIkipedia to ignore Pearl Harbor for the "on this day" section. No wonder no one is donating this year. 67.232.50.1 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:It has not been ignored. If anything it is more prominent as picture of the day than it would be in OTD - Dumelow (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh thats WikiBS and you know it. This is just another example of the anti-USA bias Wikipedia has developed over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.50.1 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:I agree that sometimes Wikipedians over-compensate with an anti-American bias, but this isn't one of those times. Just as it's not an example of Wikipedia's anti-Japanese bias that August 6 doesn't get a featured image for Hiroshima. Events don't get both. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This pretty much explains why WP:POTD doesn't get much love. –Howard the Duck 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Something I have noticed over the months is that if events like these are not featured in the "On this Day" section, they will probrably be featured in the picture of the day. In my personal opinion, having it featured in the POTD is much better than not having it featured at all. Antique Military Rifles (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:The thing is DYK OTD is more prominent than POTD so... –Howard the Duck 18:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

::I'd have to agree. I don't see POTD as being more prominent that OTD. If nothing else, OTD is above the fold, so to speak, where as POTD is down near the bottom of the page. Now, I'm not calling this an example of any kind of bias, I don't see it that way at all, but I think it is a legitimate point. I honestly think it may be a good idea to at least discuss revising this policy, as opposed to just telling anyone who disagrees they're wrong. Featured content being on the main page on anniversary dates is all well and good, and should be done, but I don't see the idea that that MUST negate a mention on OTD as some kind of immutable truth.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I'll second that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Both require scrolling to be visible (at least at my window size, and I think most common sizes too), so I doubt there's much difference. Given that POTD is one item with a big visually-interesting picture to hook people, I think it's rather more prominent than a one single sentence blurb amongst many in OTD. However, I don't see why this is at all relevant - there's limited space on the main page, so if something is in one section, it's not in any of the others. This has nothing to do with prominence. Modest Genius ^talk 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::There's not limited space on the main page; Wikipedia is not paper. It can scroll as far as we want it to. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the day is over and Pearl Harbor got the shaft. I am sure none of you care about everyone who fought in WW2 and died so you had the freedom to ignore December 7th, 1941. This is why the donations are so low, this is why the project is mocked time and time again. This is why I dont edit here anymore. 67.232.50.1 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

: I'm sure it is. Oh well eh? Tennerbet it's all over the page in 2011. Also - I know very little about Pearl Harbour because believe it or not not everyone is American.  GARDEN  23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

::Silly hyperbole from the anon aside, Pearl Harbor matters to Scotsmen, too, as it finally got the US to enter the war in Europe. Since you're currently working on the en.wikipedia and not de.wikipedia, I'd say you benefited from it. ;) Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:::That argument could better be used to make a case for the Battle of Moscow which doesn't appear to have appeared in OTD.©Geni 00:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Or for the day the US actually declared war on Germany, which was the 11th. Algebraist 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Not saying those don't matter. Just saying Pearl Harbor was the impetus for the US's entry. Don't prove the anon right by being deliberately dismissive of it. What I'm saying is there's plenty of room on the main page for everything we want to put there. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:Wikipedia almost certianly contains more information on WW2 than any other subject. Not bad for something it doesn't care about.©Geni 00:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::BZZT wrong, go compare the Wikipedia info for Furries and compare that to WW2 and you will see WHY this project will never be taken seriously. 67.232.50.1 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Furry_fandom Furries] vs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_World_War_II_articles|World War II]? I think you need to check that again. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia contains staggering amounts of information on the battles, weaponry, Generals, tactics, leaders, technology, politics, logistics and propaganda of WW2.©Geni 02:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Limited space on the main page and lots of stuff that deserves to be on it. So it would be redundant to mention the same thing in more than one section. I see nothing wrong with that. --mav 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:Where on earth is this notion of limited space coming from? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::The various guidelines for each section on the main page. Those guidelines are designed in a way to highlight our best work in a usable way. We could have megabytes of text on the main page, but that would not be useful. --mav 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:::It would be useful if people want it. Those guidelines aren't binding in the slightest.

:::However, we're not talking about adding megabytes; we're talking about adding a line or two to the "on this day" section when people request it. We don't need to make sweeping generalizations about slippery slopes and whatnot. As human beings and Wikipedians, we can make these choices on a case-by-case basis. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::::We already have, as a community decided to limit the number of items on and size of each section. We have also decided to, as much as is practical, display a diversity of items. Having one event mentioned in more than one section, although allowed under special circumstances, goes against that. Of course, consensus can change and nothing is set in stone. So please do not take any of this as trying to discourage you from changing the status quo. I'm just trying to clarify the logic of it. --mav 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Furthermore, the page format is not set up to highlight our best work. It's set up to highlight one of our best articles (FAOTD), current events (often terrible articles in the earliest stages of development), whatever random esoteric things have been created recently (DYK), and an arbitrary collection of historical events. The POTD is the only other vetted representative bit of our "best" work, and it's all the way at the bottom. There's certainly no reason it couldn't be switched to a more prominent place on the page, moving DYK to the bottom spot instead. It would have avoided this argument and many others like it, and it wouldn't even increase the size of the page. This isn't idle bitching; this is something we can fix. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::::As the number one editor of the Main Page (over 700 edits), the person who set-up the OTD section, who wrote the guidelines for OTD and current events and who set-up the rotation of the FA blurb, I beg to differ. The main page most certainly is intended to highlight various aspects of Wikipedia I for one am very proud of; our best work (TFA), our ability to be up to date with recent events (ITN), to be an ever-expanding compendium of knowledge (DYK), remind us of historical events that happened on this day of the year (OTD) and to highlight media that enhances our textual content (POTD). --mav 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::As the person who has done all those things, I'm sure you do beg to differ. But none of that gives you more of a voice than an anonymous editor who's being shouted down with screams of "Guidelines!". And none of the content you mentioned (except the featured article & image) are the best of Wikipedia, as you originally claimed. They might be aspects we enjoy, but they're not our best work by any means. The featured photo is. That's why it's the featured photo. Is anyone really going to sit here and argue that the addition of Pearl Harbor to "on this date" would end Wikipedia as we know it? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::No one is suggesting that however the idea that there are things that must be included in OTD is asking of unreasonable amounts nationalistic conflict. By shifting stuff to other sections it gives us some flexibility to dodge the issue.©Geni 02:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Scoring points over semantics is not an activity I care to indulge in. But I do think that Wikipedia's ability to synthesize various news sources on current events topics is most certainly among the best type of work we do. --mav 04:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::::There's certainly no reason [the featured picture] couldn't be switched to a more prominent place on the page, moving DYK to the bottom spot instead.

::::You're incorrect that there's "no reason."

::::The current layout is intended to function well at multiple resolutions. Displaying the featured picture in one of the two columns (as we did when it appeared only as a weekend alternative to DYK, prior to the last main page redesign) forces us to waste a great deal of space (especially at high resolutions) by placing the descriptive text below it (because it otherwise wraps unacceptably at low resolutions). It also prevents us from displaying panoramic images at reasonable sizes.

::::Only by allocating the full width are these issues overcome, and I doubt that the options of moving the featured picture box to the top or breaking up the columns (to place it in the middle) would prove terribly popular.

::::In the interest of full disclosure, I'll note that the full-width featured picture box was my idea. —David Levy 03:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you need space, take it from the in the news section above. It has 113 people killed in a fire in a nightclub in Russia, a suicide attack kills 37 people in Pakistan, and another one in Somalia kills 24. I think the 2,402 people killed in the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would be more important than any of that. Dream Focus 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I invented the Internet. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:Sweet! I figured if this discussion went on long enough, eventually that guy would announce himself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::Well, Mr. Gore (aka MZMcBride), I suggest you read WP:AUTO in case you decide to edit your own article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries and I don't see the restriction on the POTD in the guidelines - where is this? Personally, I think that Pearl Harbor should not be explained in detail as one of the bullet-pointed sections, because it is too familiar, and those are more meant to convey a breadth of coverage - rather, Pearl Harbor Day should be linked but not explained at the top of the section as a "holiday" (like Feast of the Immaculate Conception is listed today). Wnt (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:It's at Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#I think that the articles listed on the Main Page are awful and much more important articles should be there instead. Isn't the Main Page biased towards certain topics? What can be done about it?, toward the end of the third bullet point. Hardly what I'd call set in stone. But what do I know? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::I would support explicitly putting this into the WP:SA criteria, rather than hiding it in the MP FAQ. Note it's also in another FAQ question, Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why is [Insert event here] not posted on "On this day", an event that is "more important and significant" than all the others that are currently listed? Modest Genius ^talk 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Actually it is in WP:SA and has been since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries&diff=138761570&oldid=138760110 2007]. Also, to maintain some variety of topics on the Main Page as a whole, an event should be hidden if it also is the featured article or the featured picture for that particular day.. It was only added to the FAQ by me and Zzyzx11 after I noticed that it wasn't in the FAQ when I planned to direct the OP to the FAQ in my first post hence why I directed the OP to WP:SA instead. Nil Einne (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Sure, it's in the detailed instructions, but it's not explicitly in the criteria. You may feel that is unnecessary. Modest Genius ^talk 02:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::You're welcome to improve it if you feel it's necessary, I'm simplying pointing out it is specified in the SA and has been for a long time (so can be said to be set in stone as much as anything on WP, and of course given that it's come up several times this year already is something that we're observing too i.e. fulfills aspects of policy) and was there long before it was even in the FAQ. The whole page of course is the criteria, the fact that 'Non-Gregorian-based holidays and observances should be moved to the correct day for the current year' is further down doesn't mean it's not an important thing to do. To some extent the TFA/TP thing isn't as important since we have general agreement we should aim for balance thoroughout the main page, and while it doesn't come up much in other sections (except when we have TFP & TFA on the same event) it does come up occasionally (notably when Barack Obama was TFA we did try to keep him out of ITN until after he left TFA although I can't remember if we actually succeeded) Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::To get back to my suggestion, the way I read it, there's an "Events" section and a "Holidays/Observances" section under "Selected Anniversaries". According to the text cited above, Pearl Harbor couldn't run as one of the five Events explained in detail - but couldn't Pearl Harbor Day have run as one of the Holidays/Observances that are simply listed at the top of the section? Let's give common sense a chance! Wnt (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Except that Pearl Harbor Day isn't its own article yet. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This encylopedia is a joke. Full of systemic bias. I don't know if that's why Pearl Harbor wasn't mentioned in OTD, but clearly it should have been. I don't honestly even look at the picture, because it's at the bottom and the OTD is visible without scrolling down. 70.171.243.158 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

:Don't knock Wikipedia - it's whatever we make it. If you don't like something - fix it. Look at any other forum for online communication and ask whether it produces something so useful from the contributors' efforts. You're welcome to join in and make it better. Wnt (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

:I CAN'T SEE "SELECTED ANNIVERSARIES" WITHOUT SCROLLING AND THE TEXT IS TOO SMALL. UNLESS YOU WRITE IT AT THE VERY TOP OF THE PAGE AND IN VERY LARGE FONT WIKIPEDIA IS FULL OF SYSTEMIC BIAS AND I'M NOT GOING TO DONATE Anonymous (nearly) 13:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

::YEAAAAAHS I N0 WEN IT WUS MY bIRTHdxay IT WWASNDT MeNTIO1MN3D Z0MG anT1-M3 B145!!!1!!1! --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 19:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

::If you you can't be bothered to even look at the entire home page, why do you think that the people who spend their free time putting it together will listen to what you have to say? APL (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a shame Wikipedia uses a terrorist organizaton's so called flag on main page.Can anyone change this.--Abbatai (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:Why is this a shame? Algebraist 12:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:Showing their flag does not mean we sympathize with their agenda in any way. When we show an image of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=next&oldid=314602064 a terrorist who was shot to death], does that mean we mourn his death? No, it doesn't. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

::Because this news has nothing to do with PKK's flag instead you could put somthing about Democratic Society Party or The Constitutional Court of Turkey. It likes putting Osama bin Laden's picture for a news that is about political islam. I really think it is absurd.

::Dear BorgQueen the source you cited is about a terrorist incident not somthing about politics.The news is about a party and a court PKK's flag is less important thing to talk about and show.--193.140.194.101 (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Our options are limited. If you know of an alternative free image that better illustrates one of the more recent In the news items, feel free to suggest it. —David Levy 15:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TBMM_interior.jpg] Grand National Assembly Building.

Please change that terrorist grouop flag to the party(DTP) which is the main topic of the news.

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:Demokratik_Toplum_Partisi.png

Turkish Party Law state that when a party is banned all of its properties become state property(public domain).

Also Telif Hakları Yasasının 34. Maddesi, "hal ve vaziyetinden eğitim ve öğretim gayesine tahsis edildiği anlaşılan seçme ve toplama eserler" (Vikipedi'nin bu tanıma girdiğini varsayabiliriz) "maksadın haklı göstereceği bir nispet dahilinde iktibas" yapılmasına, yani makul miktarda alıntı yapılmasını izin verir. This is the turkish copyright law article 34 which gives permission to use that picture.

[http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:Demokratik_Toplum_Partisi.png] Embem of Party.--193.140.194.101 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:The emblem is under fair use, so can't be used in ITN. The parliament image looks good, but parliament isn't mentioned in the blurb. A photo of the constitutional court would be good if we have one. Modest Genius ^talk 17:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:: I coudnt find any photo of the constitutional court but we can extend this news via adding "Banned Kurdish party may boycott Turkish parliament"[http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/12/turkey.kurds/index.html?iref=allsearch] and we can use first image [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TBMM_interior.jpg] thanks.--193.140.194.101 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Well this is no longer an issue but I should point out that the hook couldn't be extended as you describe since there's no mention of that in the article. Hooks should never mention things not in the wikilinked article. Having it in an external source is not enough Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why choose the image from the article that has the least to do with Torment? Why not choose an image from the game? Thats much more representative of the article than a picture of the designer. Lot 49a^talk 10:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

:Fair-use images are not allowed on the main page. Theleftorium 10:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

::This is a recurring issue - frankly I think it's stupid that we can't use a perfectly legal fair use picture to illustrate something which we cannot do so adequately with a public domain image. But that's the policy, which was imposed by an argumentum ad Jimbonem, and every time someone raises the possibility of changing it they get sat upon. Modest Genius ^talk 18:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree. And did we ever even verify with Jimbo that he intended to formally disallow the inclusion of fair-use images on the main page under any circumstances? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/April_12,_2007&diff=119940013 The edit summary] that triggered the de facto ban was written when Jimbo believed that a fair-use image was being used despite the availability of suitable free image (which later turned out to be non-free).

:::There is wide agreement that a non-free image should not be used when a suitable free alternative exists or could reasonably be expected to exist (even if one has not yet been created/found), but it is not uncommon for the featured article to pertain to a subject that simply cannot be adequately illustrated with a free image. We always have free images to display in the other four dynamic sections, but I see no valid reason to bar fair-use images from the main page altogether (particularly based upon an ambiguous statement by Jimbo). I know of no legal distinction between the main page and an article, and any moral distinction is unclear at best. —David Levy 21:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

::::There are plenty of reasons, as has been raised nearly every time this issue comes up. I believe someone did try to seek Jimbo's clarification, but he wisely gave a typical response that can be interpeted either way so that people wouldn't get so hung up on what Jimbo believes. Edit: Found his response here Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions/Archive 1#Jimbo's view. An interesting point that I was reminded when glancing thorough the discussion, at least some of those who supported allowing NFCC images did not apparently agree with using it for the case which brought this up or most of the recent cases when it has arisen (i.e. when the subject matter recent books, computer games, albums), they only supported it for when it was very important for the understanding of the summary e.g. the case of an article on a copyrighted painting and I can't remember any specific case recently where we've had something of that sort (although it would still be disallowed) Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::There are plenty of reasons, as has been raised nearly every time this issue comes up.''

:::::And those are...?

:::::I've seen numerous "Jimbo said so" and "we don't do that" statements, along with vague references to the importance of free content in relation to Wikipedia's mission (without a clear explanation of how the main page materially differs from articles). In the discussion to which you linked above, I see a disputed claim that the main page is intended merely to advertise (not to educate), and I have a difficult time seeing how this could apply to the TFA section (which always contains a substantial amount of informative prose).

:::::And in the end, we never bother engaging in meaningful discussion, as it seems that any consensus would be rendered moot by the perception—right or wrong—that the status quo is mandated by a proclamation from Jimbo. Perhaps there are valid reasons, but it literally was the aforementioned ambiguous edit summary that triggered the de facto ban. —David Levy 13:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::Your comments are an insult to everyone, of all positions and perspectives, who had spent hours discussing this out. I know I never advanced a "argument-ad-Jimbo" position on this. Just because you don't agree with the principles and positions other people advanced doesn't mean that the arguments were not made. Not everyone will be convinced by anything, thats just how life is and we need to expect that on some issues there are values differences which are largely irreconcilable. I'd personally prefer a more soft-handed approach on these matters rather than an absolute prohibition, but sadly we pretty poorly with soft prohibitions and the more rigid approach has won out. I find that greatly preferable to the free-for-all (where we were occasionally using AP photos on the main page of all things), yet I understand that others have different views. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Where a free use image is available or could plausibly become available, I think the vast majority of editors would agree a fair use image should not be used on the main page. But there does exist a (very narrow) set of circumstances where that possibility does not exist, in particular when illustrating TFAs on creative works which are still in copyright. I think it might be worth drawing up a tight set of suggested guidelines which could then serve as a basis for discussion, limiting use to the absolute minimum of cases which could not otherwise be illustrated, even in theory. I unfortunately don't have the time to do so right now, though might do over the Christmas break. Modest Genius ^talk 00:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Your comments are an insult to everyone, of all positions and perspectives, who had spent hours discussing this out.

:::::::I'm taken aback by this response, particularly coming from an editor with whom I've collaborated for years.

:::::::How can my comments be an insult to users whose existence is clearly unknown to me? I plainly conveyed above that I'm aware of no meaningful discussion on this matter, and I would sincerely appreciate links to whatever threads you're familiar with (instead of the assertion that I'm disrespecting the participants in these unspecified conversations).

:::::::Just because you don't agree with the principles and positions other people advanced doesn't mean that the arguments were not made.

:::::::I don't know what I've written (in this thread or others over the years) to lead you to sense that I believe otherwise.

:::::::Nil Einne stated above that "there are plenty of reasons, as has been raised nearly every time this issue comes up," and I requested elaboration. I'd like very much to be able to read and evaluate whatever rationales exist. I noted above that "perhaps there are valid reasons," and you're the second person to allude to them rather than posting/linking to them.

:::::::Please assist me in understanding the arguments (apart from "Jimbo said so"), and I assure you that I will not dismiss them (regardless of whether I agree or disagree). —David Levy 02:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can the main page include counts of new articles? Counts of new editors? A list of 'hot articles' (articles with lots of activity).--Sexywikian with a cute behind (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

:That would be pointless. We don't even list number of featured articles on the front page as it looks embarrassing in comparison to the number of articles we have. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

:: Too bad Count von Count isn't close to being a featured article. APL (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I think the OP is thinking of something like [http://spore.wikia.com/wiki/Special:MyHome this], a new thingy Wikia has launched recently. Not really suitable for wikipedia though. Ose (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the idea has been implemented on Wikia sites as pointed out above, however, Wikipedia's main page is deliberately focused toward readers and not editors. These changes would reject that view, I think. Also, the "hot articles" section would merely highlight edit wars.  GARDEN  18:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

:I agree on both points. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

::The link above simply tells me I need to login. When I visit a wikia page e.g. http://spore.wikia.com or http://wikia.com it directs me to some sort of main page like http://spore.wikia.com/wiki/SporeWiki or http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia not http://spore.wikia.com/wiki/Special:MyHome or http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Special:MyHome. I remembered that I did have a wikia account so can confirm that for Spore (but not wikia.com) I go to the Special:MyHome thing by default so it's only logged in users on some? [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Personalized_homepage_not_loading_properly_on_swfanon] projects that are affected and not non logged in users. Given that there are reasons someone who is solely a reader may have an account and many editors may not like it anyway I doubt it would be okay as an optout or forced feature for logged in users but it may be acceptable as an optin feature. If it's an optin feature, it's largely unrelated to the main page i.e. no point discussing it here. However there's likely to be need for sufficient demand since developer time is already rather stretched and wikipedia is a lot bigger then wikia AFAIK (i.e. things which work fine on wikia may take major resources here). Depending on the difficulty it may be a long time even if you get wide demand for the implementation of such a feature. A key problem I can see is if it's too successful many editors are not going to see the main page and therefore errors and problems are likely to go unnoticed but personally I would suspect the bigger problem may be simply lack of demand. Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the word "Romans" linked to Roman Empire? Did you know there were Romans long before the Empire was created? 24.66.190.107 (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:You are correct. I have changed it to Ancient Rome. Chick Bowen 06:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever setup a standard way to do the ids on this page. I am working to push this to all wikipedia home pages. However, there was one problem on en. The picture of the day had its id applied in a way that included the

title... whereas none of the rest of them were setup that way. After looking at it closely and looking around for discussion about it, I figured it was just an oversight. Anyone using the previous selector position is probably targeting the

and tags within, so I doubt this would change anything. So, the change is in... the Picture of the Day image content area is now wrapped in a div. Contact me if this causes any problems.

--Hampton (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does the featured article on Homer Simpson bear a picture of his voice actor instead of the character? That's like making an article about Spider-Man with only a picture of Stan Lee on it. It's visually distracting. Save this image for an article on Castalleneta. (User talk:Wilfredo Martinez) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:Agreed, it looks ridiculous. Change immediately. 75.69.179.131 (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::It certainly does. There is an existing policy that only 'free' images may be used on the Main Page; as it stands this specifically excludes 'fair-use' images. Any picture of Homer Simpson would still be under copyright, and thus can only be used on Wikipedia under fair-use. Therefore, current policy prohibits us from using an actual image of the character. Take a look at #Torment Feature Article picture above for some ongoing discussion on this policy; personally I am opposed to the current situation. Modest Genius ^talk 02:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm also opposed. It's not like this kind of thing only comes up once in a while. Every other feature article has some ridiculous picture next to it on the main page. It looks really stupid. --58.105.145.185 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Definitely change it right away. It looks terrible. 72.88.40.149 (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::File:Homer Simpson in Cerne Abbans.JPG [transclusion removed]

::::: There is this image... BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 03:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::That isn't very recognizable as a thumbnail. —David Levy 04:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::And it's not free since it's primarily of a copyrighted character. I removed it from this page since we can't use fair use images outside of article space unless we're discussing on talk pages whether they're free or not, and this one can't be free. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Addendum: I know that the Commons page says it's a free image under British law because of freedom of panorama. But our servers are in Florida, and that's not defensible as a free image under US law. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Indeed, as noted below, I doubt that the image can be considered free in this situation. —David Levy 17:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:I support the image's removal. It wouldn't have been so bad if we'd had a photograph of Castellaneta leaning into a microphone to perform the voice. But this was a snapshot of him at an autograph signing.

:Assuming that the de facto prohibition of non-free images on the main page stands, I think that we should set guidelines regarding what degree of [ir]relevance we should deem tolerable. Some solutions (e.g. a book's author) are acceptable, but it occasionally seems as though we're just desperate to put up something. —David Levy 04:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please replace the image of the voice actor as soon as possible. Thank you 05:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMeyering (talk • contribs)

:WP:SOFIXIT. D'oh... Lugnuts (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::The image of Homer Simpson painted in Cerne Abbans appears recognizable to me as a thumbnail. Could it be cropped to make people happier with it? Neelix (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:::At my screen size/resolution, I don't think that I would have recognized the image's nature without advance familiarity. Cropping it would mainly trim the top and bottom, which wouldn't increase the subject's size at our standard 100px width.

:::Also, such a picture arguably would detract from the blurb, as it doesn't illustrate its subject. (It illustrates an outside representation of the subject, the necessary mention of which would distract readers from the core content.)

:::Additionally, as the image contains a depiction of a copyrighted character (albeit in an unconventional form), I question whether it can legitimately be considered "free" (particularly in this context). —David Levy 14:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when the featured article has no image. Can someone just put up the simpsons star that is usually used when simpsons articles make it to the main page.

File:The_Simpsons_star.jpg Rreagan007 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:Why is that image better than the one of Castellaneta? Theleftorium 15:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::I didn't say it was better than that one, but it's better than nothing at all. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:::When an image is purely decorative and doesn't illustrate the subject (the character "Homer Simpson," in this instance), no, it isn't better than nothing. —David Levy 17:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::::That's a highly subjective statement. The Simpsons star illustrates Homer Simpson as much as an image of William Wordsworth illustrates his Lucy poems or an image of a wind turbine illustrates wind. Neelix (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Please elaborate.

:::::William Wordsworth is the poems' deceased author (without whom they wouldn't have entered into existence). A wind turbine is both a demonstration of wind's effects and a prominent example of the phenomenon's practical applications in our society.

:::::How does the above star pertain to "Homer Simpson" (as opposed to the television series in which the character appears)? In what manner would the image depict or otherwise supplement anything stated in the blurb? —David Levy 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, theres no picture accompanying homer on the main page. d'oh ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo10011 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:As someone who fondly recalls watching the half-hour series debut twenty years ago today (and has seen literally every episode broadcast since), I agree that this is quite disappointing. —David Levy 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what exactly prevents us legally from utilizing images on a fair use basis on the main page? Especially since they'll only be there for one day and are only being used to illustrate the article in question, I can't see what the legal objections would be. Has there ever been a serious discussion on this issue, and has the legal council of the Wikimedia Foundation ever given an opinion on this? Just because Jimbo says something doesn't mean that's necessarily the way to go. JACOPLANE • 2009-12-17 20:20

: Nothing prevents it. We say we do not do it because we do not want copyright-encumbered media on the front page, but no one in the real world actually cares about that. "We do not do it because we have opted not to do it" is the most sufficient explanation that will ever be necessary. @harej 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:I would say that the answer might include the following points.

:* Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

:* We want the main page that welcomes visitors to the encyclopedia to show some of the best of our work and some of our newest additions.

:* Because we aim to use free content wherever possible, we choose not to use non-free material on the main page.

:* Everything your see there is free to use, free to modify and free to use commercially, as is almost everything else you will find on Wikipedia.

:* Maintaining these freedoms wherever possible is one of our core principles. We believe that they benefit present and future visitors.

:I'm sure others can do enormously better. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:Legally, nothing. There is a (IMO misguided) policy which prevents us from doing so, but that is entirely through the choice of Wikipedia editors, not due to legal restrictions. If you think that is stupid, please lend your voice to the calls for a change to the policy. Modest Genius ^talk 04:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::Here's the relevant FAQ. Art LaPella (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Being in France at the moment, I get a French version of Jimbo's appeal. I want an English version of the text! Thanks. 92.149.149.99 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Appeal/en?target=Appeal 207.164.131.30 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:If you sign up for an account, you can alter the default language settings in the "User Profile" tab of your preferences. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::Doesn't work! My default language is English but I still get the French version. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:::remember the en at the beginning of the url. en.wikipedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.13.148 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::That still doesn't do it... 90.11.160.83 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys add the culture portal on the top so it will render like the following

{{refbegin|3}}

• Arts
• Biography
• Culture
• Geography
• History
• Mathematics
• Science
• Society
• Technology

{{refend}}

of course not that dramatic, this is just a demo. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:I believe past proposals of this type have run into disagreement because that header is three rows all the way across, including on the left with the "Welcome to Wikipedia," line. Adding a fourth line for "All portals" would throw off the symmetry. You'll likely have to explain clearly and convincingly why the culture portal deserves inclusion more than any other portal, such a religion or philosophy, and come up with a final format that doesn't make the header asymmetrical before you get significant amounts of comments besides, "Not broke. Doesn't need fixing." - BanyanTree 12:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::Agreed. "Culture" is also fairly redundant to "society", but, as above, I would be inclined to remove society in favour of philosophy or religion anyway... J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we remove the top banner once people donate? It's very, very annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.84.161 (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:Try clicking the "hide" button. Smartse (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::This $30mil fund-drive is not going to finish over-night; I recommend giving it some time and stop giving a personal appeal whenever there's a fund-drive as if that's all it takes for people to donate.--76.19.133.38 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Actually, the hide button does not cover it completely, just wait until the Wikipedia Forever fundraiser is over. Lord of the Vulcans 22:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It says "finds" should be "fines".--Metallurgist (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:It's correct the way it is. Tills (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The categories of Wikis in other languages seem to be NOT up to date and understate the size of these. I suggest following categories:

* Volapük not included ** Hindi not included

Elekhh (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:Regarding the omissions, I'll quote Template:Wikipedialang/doc:

:{{quotation|This is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 40,000 or more articles; Wikipedias below a depth of 5 and those manually determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted.}}

: —David Levy 13:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::Leaving aside the quality issue, Elekhh's suggestion to bump up the three article quantity section requirements might well deserve a look. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::We periodically tweak the numerical thresholds, and a "500,000" tier might be worth considering. We must be mindful of the overall balance, as we attempt to keep the three tiers roughly even or slightly bottom-heavy. —David Levy 06:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I agree with David Levy here that the size of the three sections should be reasonably balanced. But for me that means I see no reason to use a 500,000 level since that would make the sections less balanced. Also, I don't think the lower limit of 40,000 should be increased, since I instead would like to have links to more languages so I would prefer to lower the limit instead.

::::--David Göthberg (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:: Olny 2 of the 3 omitted ones with 50,000+ articles have a depth of less than 5. Is unclear for instance why Hindi is not listed. Elekhh (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Quoth the explanation once again (this time with added emphasis):

:::{{quotation|This is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 40,000 or more articles; Wikipedias below a depth of 5 and those manually determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted.}}

:::Some Wikipedias' depth measurements have been artificially inflated (along with their article counts) by minor automated edits resulting in thousands of "articles" devoid of encyclopedic content (e.g. one bot creating an empty article, another bot adding a category, another bot adding generic section headers, and another bot adding a navigational template leading to other empty articles). —David Levy 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:Good idea but perhaps premature. I'd like to wait for 10 wikis having more than 500K articles before we implement this. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:: If balance is more important than round numbers, you could still change the thressholds. My point is that the general impression is that all non-English wikis are very small with the largest being in excess of only 250,000. In reality 8 of 11 in this category are aboove 500,000. Added another, more balanced option to the table above. By lifting the categories to 50K, 100K and 300K, the number of languages with depth>5 would be remain the same. Elekhh (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::So you're replacing decent Wikipedias containing 40,000–50,000 articles with Wikipedias containing more than 50,000 articles that are mostly stubs and placeholders, yes? —David Levy 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

::::No. That was not my intention. Quite the contrary, I am talking about raising the quality bar not lowering it. Elekhh (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Okay, as long as you now realize that you were accidentally proposing the above. —David Levy 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Your proposed configuration substantially increases the middle tier's size advantage over the bottom tier, which is the opposite of what we aim for. —David Levy 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Not substantially: only two wikis currently listed would fall slightly below the 50K mark. If pyramidal shape is of such concern the lower tier could be expanded to 120K. Anyway, the tone of this conversation does not give me any hope for progress, so I give up. Elekhh (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::I don't understand your criticism of the discussion's tone, as we've been quite cooperative in addressing your concerns and expressing ours. —David Levy 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The ITN piece about the octopus is not accurate. The results were just published, but it's not a new finding. The study began in 1998 (and the thing is called a coconut octopus, for heaven's sake). The study didn't "make" the octopus the first invertebrate known to use tools; on the contrary, the octopus' previously observed tool use was the impetus for the study. Does the publishing of a story warrant a place on ITN, even though the discovery is not new? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

:Yes, it does. How would we know about a scientific discovery unless it is published/announced? However, some rewording might be necessary for the current blurb. Do you have a suggestion? (As for its name, please check the article's talk page to see why the article was moved.) --BorgQueen (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

::Marley. [Edit: Scratch that. We know about it, obviously, because it was published in regular media sources instead of scientific journals - such as [http://www.monstersandcritics.com/tech/news/article_5586.php/Octopus_Take_to_Two_%27Legs%27_to_Evade_Predators_ this one] from March 2005 which points out that the octopus "hides out in the shells of coconuts, drawing two halves around it to hide."] We've known for years. What we're announcing here is the publication in a particular journal, not the actual discovery, which is considerably less monumental. As for the name of the octopus, I wasn't questioning the article's current title; I was pointing out that the animal is commonly called a coconut octopus, ergo this coconut business is nothing new. It's common knowledge to the locals. Why is it suddenly validated because a couple of white people put it in a magazine? Sure, it's nice for our purposes (at Wikipedia) to have better citations, but it's not really news. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

:::The monstersandcritics.com link gives me a 500 Internal Server Error, so I can't comment on that. But the "It's common knowledge" argument is rarely meaningful in Wikipedia - we need verifiable, reliable sources to state it as an encyclopedic fact, as per WP:OR and WP:RS. In addition, the ITN stands for In the News; it is a section that features our articles about topics that happen to be in the current media reports. It is not a collection of news items like Wikinews. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

::::That doesn't even make any sense. Where, exactly, would you suggest I add a source? We're talking about whether or not this belongs in the ITN section; I don't have to add sources to my opinion on this talk page, and I'm not suggesting we add the "common knowledge" thing to the article, so what's your point? I gave you a link - it still works fine for me, by the way - that shows that the behavior was known at least 4 years ago and is, therefore, not news by any stretch of the imagination. Is the object really just to bullshit me here until the whole thing blows over? That seems to be the typical strategy on this page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Ok the link is working now, and the article doesn't say whatsoever about its tool use. The article is mainly talking about its bipedal locomotion, which has nothing to do with the current topic. It does mention coconuts though: "The octopus, with a head about two inches long, lives on the sandy bottom in water some 20 to 30 meters (60 to 100 feet) deep, among lots of sunken coconuts, and even hides out in the shells of coconuts, drawing two halves around it to hide." And that is not the point. Our article says: "By the researchers' definition of a tool as "an object carried or maintained for future use", the behavior of A. marginatus is the first documented case of tool use in invertebrates.[4][6] While the hermit crab reuses a shell which it maintains,[7] what makes A. marginatus different from the hermit crab is that A. marginatus collects shells for future use, so when the octopus is transporting the shell, it is not getting protection from the shell. This is considered by the researchers to be highly unusual behavior.[4]" You see the difference? Please pay attention to the researchers' definition of a tool as "an object carried or maintained for future use". While the article you linked does mention on the species hiding in coconut shells, that is irrelevant as far as the researchers' definition of a tool is concerned. Many sea creatures use foreign objects as shelter anyway, so that fact itself is nothing unusual. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::Okay, so apparently your goal is to be deliberately obtuse, ignoring the points I make and arguing semantics instead. Fine. The event is truly groundbreaking and should definitely be on ITN. Hooray. Ice cream sundaes all around. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::In fact, you are supposed to pay attention to semantics when dealing with scientific topics. If you don't wish to, I suggest you refrain from making comments on them, because such an approach tends to make you confused when discussing such topics, as you are now. In addition, your repeated assumption of bad faith makes me wonder if you take our WP:AGF behavioral guideline seriously. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::: KAfziel, There is a difference between "Here is an octopus hiding in a coconut shell." and "Here is an octopus that has deliberately collected coconut shells from 30m around to form into a primitive shelter." The first is relatively mundane but the second is news. APL (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:If you choose to define a orange as something square and black, you can draw your own conclusions but don't expect anyone to understand you. Please at least put "scare quotes" around this non-standard definition of "tool". 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

::Actually I wouldn't have to explain it if Kafziel bothered to read our article and its sources (there are not many) beforehand. And no, it is not "my" definition, it is the researchers' definition who made the discovery. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:::We are discussing misleading information on the front page of Wikipedia - not qualified statements buried near the end of the linked article. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::::The Main Page ALWAYS deferrs to supporting articles. No matter where it is located in the linked article, if it says it and is not contested, the main page can also say it. FWIW, scientific research isn't really scientific research until it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Modest Genius ^talk 04:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::I think I understand what Kafziel is getting at. The novelty here is the claim that the shell is a tool. That claim hangs on another claim: that carrying a shell is of no immediate benefit to the animal. The heart of the problem is the claim of no immediate benefit, which I found unlikely when I first read the Wikipedia article. If the octopus has a predator that hides in the sand, then carrying the shell in fact does protect the octopus, and the shell is not a tool. In any case, if there is a problem here it lies not in the Wikipedia article but in the source article. --Una Smith (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this has been discussed before...

In contrast to all other sections of the main page, In The News articles stay up for days and days. Seems kind of a waste of space and after all old news is no news, or so I've heard. Isn't there enough going on in the world to put up 5 or 6 newsworthy items each day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.6.220 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:Please visit WP:ITN/C to see how many candidates are being rejected there. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently the main page is very much pitched towards readers, rather than treating visitors as potential editors. But we need more editors, so shouldn't we try to convert more of our readers into editors, and what better way than presenting more of the 'inner workings' of Wikipedia upfront on the main page?

For example, we could include {{tl|cent}} to show the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, {{tl|Signpost-subscription}} to make more people aware of the wonderful Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and {{tl|opentask}} to show all the many things that we need editors to do. These are currently hidden away on the Wikipedia:Community portal. And what about {{tl|Policy list}} and {{tl|Deletiondebates}}, to make more readers aware of these important parts of the functioning of the encyclopedia, so they no longer have to just stumble across them? Thoughts? Fences&Windows 16:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:The current setup encourages readers to familiarize themselves with and edit the encyclopedia proper before delving into behind-the-scenes activities. Why is this a bad thing? In my assessment, your proposed changes would result in more users attempting to participate in processes of which they lack sufficient context to understand, becoming discouraged when they encounter difficulties, and leaving the project in frustration. —David Levy 16:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:What makes you think that 'we need more editors'? We have plenty.Have you read the signpost recently? Modest Genius ^talk 12:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::Of course we need more editors, to think otherwise is very complacent. I don't believe the analysis of drastically falling numbers, but we need more editors to deal with our massive backlogs. Anyway, comments on the proposal, please. Fences&Windows 14:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree with David Levy here. A centralized discussion should not be THAT centralized. The main page is a frontispiece and should remain as a resource in order to explore the encyclopedia. If someone wants to contribute, they can click on the second line of the main page where it says "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I think further instruction on the main page would just be confusing to those who are just here to search or even those new users who want to contribute. The latter are better served by being introduced to the enyclopedia, not being thrown into the deepend. Valley2city^‽ 22:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to fix the links in the sections "Wikipedia's sister projects" and "Wikipedia languages" so they work correctly also when viewed through the secure server. See discussion at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Secure server.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:I have now coded and tested the new versions, and I am ready to deploy this. See the code and discussion over at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Secure server.

:--David Göthberg (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

::{{tick|18}} {{ucfirst:Done}} - The Main Page now has secure links for most of its inter-Wikimedia links, when using the secure server.

::--David Göthberg (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There's too much of these. The last one was on December 12th. There are too much of these flys being nominated as a featured picture and being put on the main page. They also look a little tiny bit nasty. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 06:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:Flyist. 86.138.46.145 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

: Meh. Go take photos of something else. Put them here. Relax.  GARDEN  11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And if there were a number of snakes, and road-junction-features alternating with the flys, and a picture of Montgomery of Alamain would there be Monty Python's Flying Circus jokes? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:There might even be a featured picture of flys on April 1. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 17:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::Haven't you heard? The first rule of Talk:Main Page is, you do not criticize the Main Page. The second rule of Talk:Main Page is, you do not criticize the Main Page.

::This page is only to be used to tell the editors who run the Main Page that they're doing an outstanding job. Otherwise you are a dick.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=331290200&oldid=331287232][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=331322813&oldid=331321956] Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I will do my best from hereon to schedule as many fly photos as possible, since they seem to be so popular! howcheng {chat} 00:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::: You know, everybody loves babies, do you have any maggot pictures in the queue? APL (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Yes!!! Actually, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=329879702 this link] reminds me of days when were less concerned about flies and more concerned about owls. I do believe that there are better pictures out there though other than flies. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Mr&MrsSantaClaus.jpg

:Like this. Look closely and Santa might even be said to be strangling his wife. --candle•wicke 03:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::She is putting up a good fight though. Don't underestimate housewives. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we due the December issue of the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' complaints series? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please wikify the words "federal district" in the news item pertaining to Mexico City, as follows? federal district. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:Nevermind. I am going to remove the item, due to objections on WP:ITN/C. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have raised this concern at T:TDYK, but I think the hook for this book should note, even if it means going over the character limit, that Godwin is the Foundation's counsel. As it is, it looks like (especially since his pic is used to illustrate a hook for an article about a book he wrote over a decade ago) we're making Publisher's Weekly look silly for attacking one of our own (and also, the article doesn't say directly that PW criticized Godwin for that "unusually broad view of free speech", only that they noted it and criticized him for it on more specific arguments he made). Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if someone could just enter a date in the past to see what the main page looked like then? __meco (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:I guess it would be great. --Pakos (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::It's called the page history. Want to see January 2005? Click http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history&year=2005&month=1&tagfilter= Fences&Windows 15:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::However, F&W, looking at the page history won't show you the main page as it appeared in Jan 2005, because it transcludes the current versions of TFA, DYK, OTD etc rather than the Jan 2005 versions. Bencherlite^Talk 15:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to see this feature managed somehow. I agree with Bencherlite that you cannot simply use the history due to how templates are being used. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:[http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org This] might be kind of what you're looking for. Of course, it's not perfect, and not complete with every single date, and some of the photos are missing. But it does go back to 2002. 130.49.212.156 (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:Really, what would be nice is a software feature that lets you go through a page history and then also uses the then-current versions of templates etcetera. But I'm sure the developers have better things to do than that. Ucucha 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::If the templates had been Subst'd, this would be possible. Maybe they should be Subst'd from now on?----occono (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I don't understand. How would they continue to function as templates? —David Levy 21:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:Just copy the source code at Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday and adjust the selections to whatever date is desired. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

::The In the news and Did you know sections are edited throughout the day and lack dated templates, and each On this day subpage is dated without the year (and updated/reused annually). Someone could manually copy Template:In the news, Template:Did you know and Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/[date] revisions (and optionally the three bottom sections, though only Template:WikipediaSister is updated with any degree of frequency) from a particular date/time and paste them into a version of Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday hard-coded to display Today's featured article and Today's featured picture from the corresponding date, but this would be quite inconvenient. —David Levy 21:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone read and respond to the following article?

"Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor"

[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx]

Supposing for the moment that the article's claims had some validity. How should this issue be addressed? Whom at wikipedia.org should address this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.76.225 (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:The accusations have been discussed here. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that the link is a blog post. Hardly a reliable source. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 21:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely there should be a peice on the two recent plane accidents, one in Jamaica and the other in Scotland, it doesn't happen very often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.37.139 (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

: WP:ITN/C. Not here.  GARDEN  17:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#We have no TFP. J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:Done now. Sorry for the delay. howcheng {chat} 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note:

More than 1,000,000 articles: Deutsch

Dr. Markus Vogel (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.119.25 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

:And, at a guess, you want it put into its own separate section of the Wikipedia Languages section. The proposal has been put forward before, back when it hit 750,000. It was decided that a line comprising a single entry would look...odd. As such, the general consensus has been to wait for several languages to breach a barrier before segregating them from the lower batch. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::On the other hand, if you're just after a pat on the back, the project definitely deserves congratulations for the achievement. Well done to all involved! GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Perhaps he wants to point out that we could congratulate the German Wikipedia, [http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Hauptseite/Wikipedia_aktuell&oldid=63472777 as they did] when this Wikipedia reached 3 million articles. Wouldn't it be appropriate to return the favour?—Totie (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I suppose a small banner would be appropriate...As long as it doesn't interfere with the donations banner ;) Antimatter--talk-- 00:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Please see my reply in the #German and French wikipedia section above. —David Levy 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::Congratulations to them, but I would strongly oppose putting any banner about it on our main page. An entry in the WP:SIGNPOST would be more appropriate. Modest Genius ^talk 00:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::::It should be noted that de.wiki's Wikipedia aktuell "Wikipedia news" is their Main Page template reserved for Foundation and sister project news. en.wiki doesn't have an equivalent template on its Main Page and such content gets shuffled off to Wikipedia:Community portal or The Signpost. (Anyone remember the editors arguing that we shouldn't even acknowledge our own 3 million article milestone?) This is all a long way of stating that de.wiki appears to have decided that 'meta' news about the Foundation and sister projects deserve routine treatment on its front page, while en.wiki has decided not, so "return the favour" doesn't seem to be a particularly helpful way of thinking about the situation. - BanyanTree 05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has now 1 million articles. I think it's appropriated to cangratulate them here on the main page. --Newsflash (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

: Pls see #More than 1,000,000 articles: Deutsch above. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The featured article for the day hasn't been put up yet, it just shows yesterday's. Someone fix that please? S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:I suggest that you try bypassing your cache. —David Levy 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::Alternatively, do note that wikipedia uses UTC so if you're expecting TFA to change as soon as it's 'tomorrow' for you, it won't unless you also use UTC Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't work. Does it show yesterday's for other people? (Or maybe today's was put in yesterday in EST?)S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it's the right article after all. Sorry. S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does the front page purposefully belittle the other wikis? German wikipedia will pass the 1 million article in a day or two and you still have them listed as "Over 250,000" when it is 4 times the size of this. Please consider adding a Over 500,000 and splitting it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:See the discussion above about the number in each tier Modest Genius ^talk 13:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::I think the discussion that Modest Genius is referring to is the one that now is in /Archive 147#Wikipedias by size update. But I think I have a better solution, see Template talk:Wikipedialang#Restructuring proposal on Talk:Main Page.

::--David Göthberg (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Hey, now the German Wikipedia has 1,000,000 million articles. Should we write this on the mainpage of this Wikipedia, like "We congratulate the German Wikipedia to its 1,000,000th article!"? -- Niemot (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Similar suggestions have been made in the past, and consensus has been that we should note only our own milestones (and do so sparingly). Otherwise, we'll either have far too many milestones to cover or encounter disputes regarding which ones to list and whether we've unfairly omitted some. —David Levy 18:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::But you should make a new category More than 1,000,000 articles --Newsflash (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::Um did you read the earlier discussions and linked threads? Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be a visual cue that an image is associated with a particular story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.174.241 (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

:Such as the phrase (pictured)? -- tariqabjotu 22:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

::That shows that a particular story is associated with the image (i.e. requires reading the text). I think what the user is wanting is a way to know what story the image is about by looking at the picture itself (say, by having the relevant story highlighted upon image mouseover, or by having the image level with the relevant story). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

::Standard functionality on many other main/home pages is to take the reader to the relevant article when they click the thumbnail image. I think this would help a great deal. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

:::mav, this doesn't seem to be the case in the eight next largest wikis, though perhaps there's some other wiki you had in mind. Turning the image into a link to an article would break the terms of copyright for "attribution required" files, since it removes the most obvious means to attribute the file. Making only public domain images a click-through, which is not a problem in terms of copyright, would then confuse the reader about when clicking an image would lead you to an article and when it would lead to a file description page. The argument in favor of keeping the attribution clear and the image behavior consistent seems to be a strong one.

:::Related to the previous thread of this discussion: Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. - BanyanTree 00:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I suspect mav's comment was referring to other websites, not wikis in particular. Not having the images link to their article is an illogical behaviour, I believe. If even the main page of the wiki is confusing people, how are we going to get them to contribute? Attribution is an issue, I know, but so long as the image is displayed prominently in the article, its no issue. 124.168.45.141 (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Really? Have you asked our lawyer about it? Incidentally, what do you mean by prominently? The Cao Cao image is used in the article but fairly far down. And I don't think it's unheard of for the image to be not used at all in the article particularly for ITN. We're limited by what's available and what works well at the main page thumbnail size. I purposely ignored TFA because of the NFCC issues but actually I now recall Same-sex marriage in Spain. This doesn't have any image in the infobox and there isn't really anything to put there. Currently the 'celebration' image is slightly higher and large then the protest image which I would argue is appropriate and anyway this was even more so when we featured it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_Spain&oldid=116028554]. Yet the protest image was used for the main page because Raul654 considered it was a good way of illustrating the topic since it's obvious what it's abount at first glance whereas the celebration thing isn't so obvious at it looks a bit like a generic gay pride march. So yes another example of the problems of assuming that any image on the main page is going to be displayed 'prominently' in the Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::P.S. Of course there is the possibility of attributing the image on the main page but that's controversial enough for TFP where the image is the whole point, I doubt you'd get any consensus for the rest Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::(I am the same IP as above; my IP may have changed.) It's a sticky point, that's for sure. Maybe underneath the image we should place a textual link to the File page. Even though consensus may be unlikely, people should still contribute to the discussion. (By the way, I am not worried about TFP. The focus is clearly on the picture there.) 124.168.62.235 (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we replace the current image of the ballpark with an image of the ballpark that shows the playing field? The current image looks more like some beach resort than a baseball stadium? Dincher (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

:I understand what you're saying, but the pictures of the interior make it look like any other minor league park. The home plate entrance is used because it's unique, I assume. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

::Okay. Dincher (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

:The article states the park is owned by Dr Pepper/Seven Up, but that article states that company no longer exists after being absorbed by Cadbury.----occono (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

::It's owned by the Dr Pepper Snapple Group, but I'm not sure how best to reword the article. We also need a new source because the one currently used predates the split from Cadbury. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

::{{done}} Added a new cite to the main article and updated the main page accordingly. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The German wikipedia has recently crossed the 1,000,000 article mark, but this page still lists it on the line for wikipedias with "more than 500,000 articles". We should create a new "more than 1,000,000 articles" line and move it there. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 09:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

:Sorry, I just saw the discussion above (at More than 1,000,000 articles). Yes, it crossed my mind that a stand-alone line would look awkward; on the other hand, 1,000,000 is a special landmark and is worth special recognition... Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 09:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if we could have a new year greeting message on Main page.--Saqib ^talk 11:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

::Probably not going to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.163.28 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Roberto Clemente was Puerto Rican, not American. DandyDan2007 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

:I assume it says " American baseball player" as he played for an American team not that he was from the USA though technically Puerto Rico is in North America so but it would be like calling Einstein European. 81.154.212.206 (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

::Puerto Rico is part of the USA and Puerto Ricans have U.S. citizenship; hence he is an American. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I concur, emphasizing this is like calling me a Floridian, and not an American. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Well, that's half right. Puerto Rico is a U.S. possession (specifically a Commonwealth ), meaning it's not a part of the United States itself. Puerto Ricans themselves, though, are U.S. citizens, so referring to Clemente as an American isn't wrong.--Boznia 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late message but happy new year everyone! Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2010 (NZDT; UTC+13)

: Late depends on the timezone :-) Happy new year from Europe! --Tone 12:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

::Hic Happy New Year hic 86.133.48.120 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

File:OperaSydney-Fuegos2006-342289398.jpg

~AH1^(TCU) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

::Happy New Year from England! SGGH ^ping! 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. It's the second decade of Wikipedia, I think it's time to for the community to discuss some new wishes and changes for the decade regarding the encyclopedia. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest - I noticed the main page is on January 1st - I take it wiki runs on GMT (UTC+0). Happy new year all. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

:Most websites with an international focus such as Wikipedia use UTC+0 for time. Happy New Year as well.--Boznia 01:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Again a very poor TFA was featured. It relies heavily on an over 70 year old source, while the much more current and reliable work of e.g. Knecht is available, but has barely been used. The article was promoted back in 2006, when FA standards were much lower. Those who select the TFAs really ought to have a quick look at the articles before they put them up. Lampman (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

:Part of the reason for TFA is to improve the FA being highlighted. :) A WP:FAR could do that - wait a week and nominate. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 13:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

:Have also suggested on Lampman's talk page that he post to the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The new picture of the day is not showing. Is this a bug or what? December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at ≈ 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:Today's is missing (again). This has happened repeatedly recently, so some code was added to show yesterday's if today's is missing - that's why it's still showing the same picture. Modest Genius ^talk 00:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::I just followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Picture of the day to create the missing template. The image seems a bit large, no? —David Levy 00:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:::I switched from 500px (which was automatically specified) to 400px (which seems closer to what I'm accustomed to seeing when this layout is used). I have little experience maintaining this section, so any sysop should feel free to adjust it as he/she deems appropriate. —David Levy 00:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::Note: I've created the main page templates up to 6 January (the last day for which a featured picture is listed). —David Levy 00:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is a "tomorrow's main page": Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. One way to help ensure that this sort of thing gets spotted (among the other safeguards) is to have that as your main page. It also enables you to help copyedit some entries the day before they go up on the main page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::Anything on Main Page/Tomorrow is fully protected. I've learned through experience that if I post on WP:ERRORS about an item that's only on tomorrow's main page, nothing gets done about it until the day has cycled and it's now today's main page. Admittedly, pointing out that the section was entirely missing may have solicited a faster response. Modest Genius ^talk 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:::I regularly copyedit Tomorrow's Main Page, although there are many edits, including both images and the associated protection details, that I leave for someone wiser than me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/January_4&diff=prev&oldid=335581240 Latest example here.] Art LaPella (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Also, if it's an emergency for Tomorrow's Featured Article and Tomorrow's Featured Picture to be missing, it's an emergency that recurs almost every day until a few hours before they are needed for "Today". Art LaPella (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly dispute the claim that "Kashi" means "happy" in Chinese, when it clearly does not. Refer to Talk:Kashi Company. It should either be reworded to "claimed by the company to mean "happy" in Chinese", or removed, as it is a blatant factual error. Cheers, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we really have to have a picture of a diseased animal for people to unexpectedly come upon when they go to the main page? Zazaban (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:I would say it is no more objectionable than the picture of a fly eating something solid and brown is (featured on Main Page on Nov 16, 2009). --BorgQueen (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::Yes, that was a particularly shitty FP. ;) --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 16:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Strabismus surgery got far more complaints, but I still think that was worthy for the Main Page. howcheng {chat} 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

::::The Tasmanian devil picture should be removed from the main page. Shocking and disturbing pictures such as this one may be appropriate for specific articles, but are not appropriate for the main page. The fact that other inappropriate pictures have been on the main page before does not make it right. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::Yes, we must absolutely do everything we can to remove this reference to reality.../sarcasm. Go outside and take a look at the world will you? It isn't always NICE. But it is IMPORTANT, and, as others have already stated, INTERESTING. Are you really trying to censor real life? Next you'll tell me we can't have pictures of cuckoos pushing eggs out of nests because of the poor unhatched chicks. --SeldooN (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How about using :File:Elektrownia Ignalina.jpg to illustrate the power station story instead? -- The Anome (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

: That's a pretty ugly image that would look like a couple of rectangles in thumbnail. APL (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I sort of expected to see complaints about the bullet-point, not the image. It seems like a research detail that's only of interest to specialists. I mean, as far as I can tell the story is "Researchers learn another thing about the much-studied face cancer among Tasmanian Devils." I assume I'm missing something here, but perhaps the blurb could be modified to point out whatever it is that I'm missing? APL (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:Why was it removed? The surgery and fly pictures were by far more disturbing and disgusting than this. I don't remember those being removed. --candle•wicke 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:: No, I actually found this worse. It was close up. The fly wasn't bad at all. Zazaban (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=335508016&oldid=335475313 removed] by User:MZMcBride, apparently without discussion. I think it was perfectly fine. Could we at least use :File:Tasdevil large.jpg? It would look an awful lot better than the power station. Modest Genius ^talk 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moot now, as another image is up there (the power station), and now the chess player image. Maybe a note to the regulars at WP:ITN to consider what picture to consider using? WT:ITN would seem the place to go from here. See Wikipedia_talk:ITN#Images_of_diseased_animals. Carcharoth (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• At least it's not as bad as this. –Howard the Duck 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• You made me hungry. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If we can have Gropecunt Lane on the main page, then I don't see what's wrong with the image. We should have some sort of guideline. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:I don't get any result for Image:Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease cropped.png, and because of the inaccessibility of the subject it seems less likely that a PD version was really available - maybe this was a copyright issue? Certainly such an image is educational and appropriate for Wikipedia if it doesn't lead to lawyerly pummeling. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::There is no copyright issue. The image was cropped specifically for the main page and deleted because it's no longer in use (our standard procedure) after being deemed "too disturbing." The uncropped version is :File:Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease.png. —David Levy 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Devil's facial tumor disease? Really? How is that possibly newsworthy enough to make the main page? Are there really that many unemployed nerds specialists-on-obscure-and-irrelevant-topics running Wikipedia's day-to-day operations that we're subjected to that kind of headlining breakthrough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.24.248 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:Speaking just for myself, I found it interesting. Additionally, it was a major headline at Google News and other outlets. It even made my local papers. And the cancer has brought (is bringing) a well known species to its knees as far as population figures go. So, yeah, I can see why it would be In The News. Dismas|^(talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::Hey, where'd it go? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:::IMO a piece about chess, of all things is a lot less newsworthy then the facial tumor disease. - 203.161.86.127 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::::Is it not possible that both are interesting and newsworthy in their own way? I was the editor who wrote the ITN nomination for the chess entry, so I'm obviously biased there, but I found the devil's facial tumour entry interesting as well. Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::Chess is a popular international competition game, with a large following, so I say major news pertaining to it is newsworthy, just as we mention the winners of various major sporting events. This coming from someone who does not follow chess in the slightest, though I do enjoy the occasional game. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::I for one love it when ITN features stuff I have no idea about and would otherwise never have heard of. God forbid one would learn something from an encyclopaedia. --AdamSommerton (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:Since the cancer has the potential to wipe out the species in question it is fairly significant yes.©Geni 18:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::So any time any disease has the potential to wipe out any species it's significant enough to make the ITN section of the front page? Is that what you're saying? 24.163.24.248 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::: No, it has to go through nomination procedure first. Check WP:ITN/C for details. --Tone 20:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::::Well obviously...the fact that this disease made it through the nomination process is what I'm griping about.24.163.24.248 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::::: So did H1N1. And that did not threat to wipe out the entire species... --Tone 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::No, but it did threaten human beings all over the English-speaking world (at least some of whom are themselves Wikipedia users), and it was a headlining news story as covered by numerous 24/7 news services. So I don't see the comparison. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::And when I posted the ITN for Michael Jackson half a year ago, Wikipedia's view count skyrocketed and the site crashed. Now I'm trying to get a news story related to global warming posted, something that currently threatens a large part of humanity, but doing so would mean digging for reliable sources and nobody wants to add it because it's still a sensitive political subject (and there is an ArbCom case on it). It would also require extensive NPOV checks and an article to be written. Apparently Michael Jackson is more important than the entire planet. I'll have to work on it tomorrow, but we might only have a week. Sigh. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::The Tasmanian Devils have a contagious form of cancer. There's no question it's interesting. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::The fact that they have it is not news. The news is about scientists finding out some esoteric bit of information about it. The article doesn't even say why this discovery might be important, only that it "may eventually help identify a genetic pathway" (my emphasis). I'd say that when they do identify a genetic pathway, and they do use it to treat the disease, that would be ITN-worthy. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a news site and "ITN" is not a news feed (despite its misleading name). The section's intended purpose is not to report the biggest news stories, but to highlight encyclopedia articles that have been substantially updated to reflect current/recent events (as this one has been).

::::::::::In such a scenario, Wikipedia's greatest strength is our ability to provide background information that puts the news in context. In this instance, we document a contagious form of cancer, which I regard as quite a fascinating topic.

::::::::::That the article's most interesting content is pre-existing background information doesn't negate its up-to-date nature (which qualifies it for inclusion in "ITN") or make it any less useful to readers. In other words, the idea is to convey "here's our up-to-date article," not "here's our monumental update."

::::::::::This is not to say that we should cite relatively minor news as an excuse to list interesting articles in "ITN," but we certainly can use our discretion when we feel that a development is significant from an academic standpoint and meaningfully contributes to the scope of article from whose exposure our readers will benefit. —David Levy 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::A lot of people like to split hairs here, but the fact is that ITN is intended to feature "up-to-date encyclopedic content reflecting important international current events". In other words: News. The intent of WP:NOTNEWS is not that we can't have extremely current coverage of events; the intent is only that we don't publish first-hand accounts of stories. It is okay to print what would be considered "news" by our average reader, and I just prefer to call a spade a spade.

:::::::::::That said, a minor discovery related to an extremely obscure animal disease afflicting one specific species on an island in the South Pacific would hardly be classified as an international current event. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::You might have misunderstood my point, as I'm certainly not suggesting that Wikipedia should not include extremely current coverage of events. (As I noted, in such a scenario, Wikipedia's greatest strength is our ability to provide background information that puts the news in context.) My point is that the emergence of Earth-shattering news is not the only route to "ITN."

::::::::::::Recent discussions have made it clear that there is consensus to place greater emphasis on the background information that we, as an encyclopedia, provide. That's why we now list some deaths that would have been omitted under our previous criteria; it's important that our article be sufficiently updated, but most of its value comes from pre-existing content. (People learning of a famous person's death often want to read about his/her life.)

::::::::::::Likewise, it's likely that a large segment of our readers is interested in reading about this disease, the nature of which is highly unusual. We have an article on the subject (updated to reflect a significant recent development), so we're directing readers to it via the main page. The disease's obscurity is all the more reason to do so, as it advertises our encyclopedia's comprehensive nature and generates attention for content otherwise likely to go unnoticed (as opposed to the major news to which you wish to restrict the section, whose corresponding articles readers are far more likely to find on their own).

::::::::::::The description that you quoted is in need of revision, as it no longer reflects consensus or our actual practices. —David Levy 00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The purpose of the ITN section seems to be changing even as we discuss it. All of a sudden ITN is supposed to advertise the expansiveness of Wikipedia's catalog? 24.163.24.248 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::That consideration is applicable to our dynamic main page content in general. We always seek variety. —David Levy 06:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Um, okay... 24.163.24.248 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A rare and unusual form of cancer with the potential to wipe out a unique species is infinitely more interesting than the constant American football-related-drivel we are bombarded with on the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.6.78 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:To you perhaps. If your opinion had much currency, though, then that would likely be reflected in the front pages of other committed news services whose sole function is to publish information on the stories that are of interest to the most people. You may dislike it, but insofar as "American football-related-drivel" is of import to a large portion of the English-speaking world, then the stories you're alluding to are well-placed in ITN. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::What's with this American football hate? At least it appears only once a year. Unlike other sports... –Howard the Duck 07:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::: But, devil facial cancer has been known for some time. I'm no biologist, but I'd already heard of it. The "news" here is that researchers researching devil facial cancer have discovered the kind of cell the originated the cancer way back when. It's a detail only interesting to specialists. If the cancer was newly discovered, or if a cure was newly discovered, that'd be of more general interest. APL (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::::The overall subject is of general interest, and it likely is unfamiliar to a vast majority of our readers. —David Levy 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::Actually, that's exactly what's in dispute at this point; whether or not it is of general interest. It's obvious that it isn't of general interest, as this "story" has gotten practically no attention whatsoever from reputable news sources. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::Please reread what I wrote. Note the presence of the phrase "overall subject" (not "story"). —David Levy 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::: But ... Wikipedia is full of topics that are interesting and unfamiliar to most people. It's not standard procedure to place them on the main page every time some minor update is made to the topic. Many hundreds of scientific papers are written pertaining "overall subjects" that are fascinating, but the research itself is not automatically front-page worthy. In fact, that's probably normal for scientific research. It seems like a strange exception has been made for this one piece of research. APL (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Perhaps if more scientific advances were promptly documented in Wikipedia articles and proposed for inclusion in the "ITN" section, more would appear there. —David Levy 05:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::What are your (or ITN's) criteria for something being "of general interest"? 24.163.24.248 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. —David Levy 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Well, if you base consensus on the fact that nobody complained about it before it hit the main page, then yes - consensus supports its inclusion. But if you accept that silence is the weakest form of consensus, and that it is subject to change when dissension eventually does arise, then consensus at this point seems to be that this doesn't belong in ITN (or, at the very least, consensus does not exist that it should be included). But, like everything else that ends up at Talk:Main Page, the detractors will be debated ad nauseam by the same dozen or so editors until the story shuffles off in due time and the issue becomes moot. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Consensus is not numerical. The argument that the item is inappropriate because it doesn't pertain to news of international importance is based upon an inaccurate perception of the section's current format (itself consensus-derived).

::::::::However, as partial participants in the above debate, neither of us is in a position to objectively evaluate consensus (or the lack thereof). —David Levy 01:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::As always. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Could you please elaborate on the consensus policy if it is not numerical? After reading that link, I'm somewhat confused. Even if it is not numerical, the fact that we have a dispute over something right now seems to be a good indication that whatever WP "consensus" is, we don't have one at the moment.24.163.24.248 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::I can only suggest that you try re-reading Wikipedia:Consensus. Please also note that the page isn't located at Wikipedia:Majority rule or Wikipedia:Unanimity. —David Levy 05:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Give it up, Anon. For your purposes, consensus is whatever the Main Page regulars say it is. If the majority is on your side, they'll say consensus isn't a vote. If the majority is on their side, they'll say consensus is clearly with them. If what they say goes against the guidelines, they'll just tell you the guidelines are not prescriptive. Meanwhile, if any guidelines support them, they'll be sure to point them out to you. If you keep arguing, they'll say you're just being a dick. In fact, most of them wrote you off as one as soon as you posted from an IP address.

::::::::::Whatever they decide to put on the Main Page, your only recourse is to wait a day or three until it rotates out. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::I find it extraordinarily troubling to see an administrator encouraging the assumption of bad faith. —David Levy 08:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::No need to be troubled, because I'm not assuming anything. Everything I said there is demonstrably true. I can see how it might be troubling to see an admin speak so plainly and honestly with an anonymous editor, but there's certainly no assumption going on. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You're instructing an editor to assume that "the Main Page regulars" routinely engage in egregious misconduct. Please cite evidence to corroborate this far-reaching allegation. —David Levy 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I'm instructing an editor to be realistic. When anonymous editors make comments here about not liking the content, they routinely get the brush-off. This discussion is a perfect example: it's been four days, the issue was argued around in circles, became a train wreck of digressions, and - as I said would happen - the argument went on for so long that the article isn't even on the main page anymore. At one point, the anon asked what the standards are for inclusion, and you directed him to WP:CONSENSUS. Um, no... the actual standards—like 'em or not— are set forth at WP:ITN. And you know that. You've argued about the validity of the ITN guideline, you've argued about the definition of consensus (pretty BITEingly, to boot[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=336349974&oldid=336346968], especially considering how controversial the whole subject of determining consensus has always been), and now you're trying to turn it into an argument about AGF. If you really need diffs of regulars citing guidelines when it suits them, discounting them when it doesn't, calling other editors dicks, and generally blowing off anonymous users, I can do that. But I don't think it's necessary. And it's certainly not relevant to the issue of whether devil's facial tumor disease was newsworthy. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::1. You've taken this discussion far beyond the subject of whether the item warranted inclusion. As noted above, you've alleged that "the Main Page regulars" (without qualification) routinely engage in egregious misconduct. Yes, I'm asking you to cite evidence to back this very serious allegation. And please keep in mind that you'll need to include "the Main Page regulars" (without qualification), not merely a handful of isolated diffs. (There is no dispute that such edits have occurred, but you're asserting that this is the norm.)

:::::::::::::::You can omit evidence of users linking to WP:DICK, as I agree that this is an all-too-common occurrence (of which I share your disapproval).

:::::::::::::::2. Apart from the aforementioned isolated instances, your assertion regarding the treatment of IP editors is off-base. You're construing correlation as causation; editors without accounts simply are more likely to be unacquainted with our practices (and therefore more likely to post complaints about things that we won't change).

:::::::::::::::I'll also note that I've consistently and passionately argued against classist treatment of editors throughout my time at Wikipedia.

:::::::::::::::3. The editor in question did not "[ask] what the standards are for inclusion"; he/she asked about one very specific element: "What are your (or ITN's) criteria for something being 'of general interest'"? And the answer is that we discuss proposals and arrive (or don't arrive) at consensus.

:::::::::::::::4. When an editor (logged in or not) states that he/she has read Wikipedia:Consensus and nonetheless believes that consensus is gauged by counting votes and that the existence of a dispute (i.e. lack of unanimity) inherently indicates the nonexistence of consensus, I know of know better advice than to re-read the policy and try to understand what it isn't about.

:::::::::::::::5. The item aged off of the main page because no otherwise uninvolved administrator determined that its presence lacked consensus. Obviously, we disagree on the appropriateness of this outcome. As noted above, neither of us is in a position to objectively evaluate it. But if the item had been pulled, I would have regarded this as the result of a good-faith difference of opinion, not a manipulative scheme. —David Levy 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::You've confirmed my suspicions that "consensus" (as it is vaguely defined in the source you cited) is, among many others, a sort of device that editors like yourself can use to brush off anonymous upstart editors whenever they're simply unwilling to change some small detail. I'll be honest, I knew when I started this thread that my chances of effecting any real change were nil. I've edited this site before under a real account name only to find exactly what Kafziel is pointing out about in-group tendencies on the part of long-time editors who like to wield WP policies like magic spells against editors with whom they simply don't want to bother dealing.

::::::::::::::::While I think it's laughable how seriously many of you editors take yourselves (lol @ "Yes, I'm asking you to cite evidence to back this very serious allegation"), I'm still hoping you'll show me some evidence of behavior that contradicts what Kafziel brought up. So I'll ask you again (since I'm unable to make practical sense of the article you referenced), could you please try and explain to me what is meant by "consensus" on Wikipedia? And, if you don't mind, I'd like to look over the nominating/consensus-reaching process that led to the "Devil's facial tumor" headline being included in the front page. I assume there's some archived page somewhere on here of the discussion where editors agreed that this was newsworthy enough to make it. Much thanks. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::You've confirmed my suspicions that "consensus" (as it is vaguely defined in the source you cited) is, among many others, a sort of device that editors like yourself can use to brush off anonymous upstart editors whenever they're simply unwilling to change some small detail.

:::::::::::::::::Huh? I'm not brushing you off. I simply disagree with you. Do you want me to pretend that I agree with you?

:::::::::::::::::As I stated twice above, I'm in no position to objectively gauge consensus on this issue. I've simply expressed my opinions. If an impartial administrator had determined that there was no consensus for the item's inclusion, I would have respected that decision.

:::::::::::::::::Indeed, I regard the allegation that a cabal of users is deceptively manipulating Wikipedia's policies to get their way as quite serious. You should be concerned if someone doesn't.

:::::::::::::::::Regarding your demand that I "show [you] some evidence of behavior that contradicts what Kafziel brought up," please note that you are demanding negative proof.

:::::::::::::::::The discussion that you seek (with which I was not involved) occurred at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Devil facial tumour disease.

:::::::::::::::::Regarding the concept of consensus, I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain it more clearly than our policy does. If you have any specific questions, I'll do my best to answer them, but with respect to the above request, I don't know where to begin. —David Levy 22:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::FYI: I've copied the bulk of the recent discussion to my talk page. If you feel more needs to be moved (including these latest exchanges) feel free, but I don't think we should clutter up this page with it. My answers to your bullet points are there. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I've replied accordingly. —David Levy 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

American football is of import to a large part of the USA, not the entire English speaking world. The whole English speaking world is not American. Try a global world view, would you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.6.78 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:Did someone claim that American football is followed by the entire English-speaking world? —David Levy 03:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:Did I at some point say that American football is important to the entire English speaking world? Because I'm pretty sure that I only said it is likely interesting to a large portion of said population. If you'd like to dispute whether or not Americans comprise a large portion of the English-speaking population, I'd be more than happy to enlighten you. I'm not entirely sure why you've chosen to make this a debate about whether or not American football is interesting news when the issue is whether the discovery of Schwann cells' relationship to a form of cancer that afflicts a population of animals in a small antipodean island is interesting enough to English-speakers to warrant inclusion in ITN. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In the news complaint

I think the in the news box should provide a link to the corresponding Wikinews article, if one exists. If one does not, then it should be created. Something worthy of the Main Page of Wikipedia is definitely deserving of a Wikinews article. I tried to find an article for Tsutomu Yamaguchi's death,the only person who was officialy recognised by Japan as surviving both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but couldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.185.115 (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Frr the embassies closing it mention that france and the uk closed but not America, This is english wikipedia so i do not see how france is mention before the us. Also, sense the Us is at the front lines of the war on terror it seems that they are more effected by it. PLease correct this Euro bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:Hello there. Thank you for raising your concern; however, please note that the English Wikipedia, while written in English, is only English in the respect that it uses the lingua franca of the world to display its information. Just because we use the English language does not mean we are American or put American events ahead of others. Again, we appreciate the feedback, and we try to keep a politically-unbiased and level outlook on world events.

:Anyway, a lot of thought is generally put into these headlines, so I assume that the articles can explain why this wording was chosen (for example, perhaps the French embassy closed first, was the largest, or was somehow otherwise notable. Cheers, m.o.p 05:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::The US Re-opened its embassy. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:You should checkout the discussion Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#US, UK and France close embassies or the history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=335958417&oldid=335952507] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=335991730&oldid=335958417] or the article(sorry wasn't supposed to add this) before you scream Euro bias. It is of course unfortunate that the info on the US reopening their embassy was not added to the article before the US was removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_Yemen&diff=336191709&oldid=336181116] however this may demonstrate the reverse (i.e. US bias) since in fact it appears all 3 countries have now reopened their embassies but the US was the only one to be removed from the entry even without info on them being added to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::I think someone pointed out that the United States embassy had reopened. Maybe this was not done for France and the United Kingdom so therefore the United States is a victim of its own ability to communicate this information? --candle•wicke 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

'All other things being equal' listing countries in alphabetical order (in the language of the article/Main Page) is the most neutral option. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how to change the Main Page title, i.e. the line that says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"? Thanks. ... (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:You mean for you personally? Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::You could go here if you want to do it personally. That may take a while though, and you only have a very slim chance in that working. The other 2 options are to request that the Main Page is unprotected or request and edit. —  Cargoking  talk  19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::::When I said personally, I meant for the OP (while logged in) only. This may be possible by modifying the user's css or js file (as suggested by Geni) but I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:Technicaly you can do it through changes to User:Tripledot/monobook.js.©Geni 19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::Explain...... —  Cargoking  talk  20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::I mean for my wiki, not for this Wikipedia. Here it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", at Simple English it simply says "Wikipedia". ... (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::MediaWiki:Pagetitle. For the future, this isn't the place to ask for MediaWiki support, you'll have more luck doing that on http://mediawiki.org/. Ose (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Main Page is a member of two categories, :Category:Articles containing Chinese language text and :Category:Articles containing Japanese language text. These assignments are both false; it is actually the template {{tl|wikipedialang}} which contains text in these languages. Is there a particular reason for this category membership? If not, it needs to be removed by -ing the categories on the template page, or moving them to a doc subpage. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason why these critiques of ITN articles keep getting longer and longer and nastier and nastier because the ITN leads are such a small fraction of the topics that are in the news, and they each last for so long - it seems like most of a week that they're up. As with the embassy closures, the headline is obsolete for most of the time that it appears. It's not like people have to start a new article for each lead - get these headlines cycling faster and we'll cut much of the debate. Wnt (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:I remember it used to move faster. I think now there are more people contributing to choosing which articles make good ITNs it is harder to come to an agreement. Using my experience as an example, the ITNs I have contributed to have been significantly reduced in the past few months compared to what they were this time last year. I don't know if anyone else is experiencing the same but I think the same effort is going in to continue the cycle. But this effort can be hindered by someone objecting at the last moment, or the articles which are updated receiving the most objections, the articles which are not updated receiving the supports, the nominations receiving very few or no comments at all, etc. Then again it's not a bad thing to have more opinions either. There is an irony to asking for the headlines to be cycled faster to cut the debate as the debate itself seems at times to be preventing the headlines from cycling faster. --candle•wicke 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::Africa topping 1 billion epitomises everything that is wrong with ITN. When no-brainers like that aren't going up, it's no surprise ITN moves at a snails pace, and not so coincidentally, that people stop bothering even making suggestions, meaning ITN goes at a snails pace. Chickens, eggs and all sorts, all over the place. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:I've been involved with the main page and ITN since 2006-2007. I don't see any evidence the complaints are getting longer and nastier, in fact they seem better then some of the stuff we used to get. Also, from my experience while we sometimes get debates about enteries being too stale, none of the current complaints really involve that. And far more complaints are because people feel the enteries are too insignificant to be featured on ITN or show US/whatever bias. Sometimes we get complaints when something isn't on ITN too of course. I'm not saying cycling ITN faster would be a bad thing, but I strongly suspect it will increase not decrease the number of complaints because it's true people are less likely to notice something they don't like if it cycles faster and are probably less likely to complain when it quickly disappears, it gives a far wider pool of things for people to complain about, and since many of them are more likely to be what some may seem as relatively insignificant, you get more complaints. I admit, that as I said at the beginning, it seems to me we may have fewer complaints nowadays, and ITN does cycle faster then is used to, so perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am. Let's not forget for example how quickly we got complaints about the Tasmian Devil thing. The embassy thing empitimises this IMHO. In reality, I'm far from convinced it should have ever gone up. With the benefit of hindsight, and even though the ITN entry doesn't make this clear, and the article still seems to give great emphasis to the closures, all were really saying is they closed them for a day. The only real thing of significance, is that several countries are starting to realise there are problems in Yemen that they need to be aware of. Note that as someone explained in the discussion on ITN, it's not the case that there is suddenly a threat in Yemen that wasn't there before but that people realised/began to accept it was there (or if your being pessimistic, they're doing a puppet show/security theatre to appear the population). In any case, because of the necessity for article updates, ITN enteries are often going to be somewhat behind the actual event Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the in the news box should provide a link to the corresponding Wikinews article, if one exists. If one does not, then it should be created. Something worthy of the Main Page of Wikipedia is definitely deserving of a Wikinews article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.185.115 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:wow i think i just got a deja vu. havent this been beaten to death that wikinews link alone is enough? please dont start this argument again. 99.238.91.199 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

really? i guess i should have known. but i'm kinda new to this place. i really don't understand why, maybe an explanation would be helpful because it just doesn't make sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.185.115 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

: This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not a news source. it's just to be a bit more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.36.4 (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)