This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 130 | ← | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | → | Archive 140 |
You cannot abbreviate "Preston Village" to "Preston". They are not the same thing; the "Village" is absolutely necessary to differentiate it from Preston, England Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The first girl was a bit rude. But I like you. I think your page is fixed now after I accidently did something. Its so hard to tell which page is which. -- 140.203.12.241 ( talk) 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh it was a joke! I understand now! --
140.203.12.241 (
talk)
14:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm guessing we put Emma Watson up because it's her birthday, but today's also Leonardo Da Vinci's birthday, and for some wacked-out reason, he's never been featured. Well, obviously it's too late to change it, and no one really cares, so.........can we do this next year? DeathNomad 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This is very long and difficult to understand. Can it be summarised please? -- 140.203.12.241 ( talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Over 1,500 farmers in an Indian state committed suicide after being driven to debt by crop failure" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-chopra/1500-farmers-in-india-com_b_187457.html This should be on the main page. -- Green06 ( talk) 01:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that today's featured article, Emma Watson, is under semi-protection- ostensibly to prevent page move vandalism by a certain infamous individual. It was my understanding that protecting the featured article of the day was against policy? Ashanda ( talk) 03:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What is policy? -- 140.203.12.241 ( talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are the features articles secret so that shitty stuff gets on the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.13.24 ( talk) 14:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added a question to the article's talk page about whether "duo-piano" is a term likely to be generally understood. 132.244.246.25 ( talk) 10:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'm not opposed to playing the piano myself but is it wise to try to play two at once? I'm only asking mind I'm just curious about if anyone has managed it? Or if they have is it a regular occurrence these days? I might learn how to play one day. -- 140.203.12.241 ( talk) 14:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
From front page: "Naxalite rebels kill at least 17 people during the first phase of India's general election."
The link to kill directs to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2009#Phase_1_.E2.80.93_April_16.2C_2009
This seems a little odd. Above link should be placed on some suitable word in the news. 'Kill' have following page for itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill
Not a big issue, but questionable at first, atleast 203.122.33.194 ( talk) 07:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Maddy, Delhi, India
As Main Page editors become increasingly familiar with obscure Manual of Style guidelines, there has recently been an epidemic of explained here. For instance, Did You Know currently says "... three unrelated Irish clans ..." which is coded as three unrelated [[Irish clans]] . But WP:NBSP actually says to use when "figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space". Figure probably means numeral, not "three", and "unrelated Irish clans" surely isn't an abbreviation or symbol. There's more to the guideline than that, but I don't think it was intended to be used for every number, or the guideline would have said that. So unless someone knows something I don't know, can we restrict the use of to the list of situations in the guideline, or else change the guideline? Please note the Irish clans are just an example; my point is that this has become routine. Art LaPella ( talk) 04:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"A number of delegates exit...". Couldn't this mysterious "number" be one, or even zero? It would be nice if the sentence were specific; but if it can't, it could at least be logical... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.170.162 ( talk) 19:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been noticing how every day's feature article is vandalized frequently. Would it be a good idea to automatically semi-protect each FA as it's posted? a little insignificant ( talk) 17:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how people haven't noticed this. It says on the Main Page that the Chinese just discovered 2,390 miles of the Great Wall of China. Apparently no one bothered to check that the Great Wall article states that only 180 miles were discovered. This statement is cited by here. I think that the bigger number comes from the total length of the wall. Looking at where the possible discrepancy came from, it appears as if the BBC link says that there is 3,350 more kilometers than previously believed. This figure includes ditches, rivers and hills. The page should probably say what was found of what. This information also was at the top of the page, and the 180 miles is halfway through the article. Thanks to anyone who can notice and correct this. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 19:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to ask if it's a vandal act to writte in the discussion area about things who don't really have nothing to do with the article or not related? Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.82.122 ( talk) 08:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The FA contains an error: "hundreds of fishermen were unprepared by" -- could somebody change "by" to "for"? This has been fixed in the article itself. Looie496 ( talk) 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned here, I propose exploiting the little-known <noedit> function of the Mediawiki:titleblacklist to automatically and permanently protect all current and past Today's Featured Article blurbs. The current practice is to protect them individually shortly after creation and leave them protected as a permanent archive. This will eliminate that protection step and prevent accidental lapses. Are there any objections to this? Dragons flight ( talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
When opening the main page it would be better that the cursor is already set to the search box so no need to click on it (just like google) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.253.91.79 ( talk) 04:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Firefox 3.0.9 displays English Wikipedia somewhat strange. Languages and Navigation tools are at the bottom of the list. It's not comfortable at all! It displays Wikipedia in other languages all right. What's the matter? Sasha best ( talk) 07:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Strange. What version do you use? Sasha best ( talk) 14:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Aside from featured picture, why don't we have the images in the FA, ITN, DYK, and OTD all point to the relative article, instead of the image itself? rootology ( C)( T) 21:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A few days ago there was a
thread here on
non-breaking spaces (nbsps) on the Main Page. I'm probably the one behind a lot, if not most, of the nbsps in the
Did You Know section of the Main Page. I think that nbsps should be used (or at least, should not be discouraged) between a number and its units. The current guideline at
WP:NBSP says Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line. A specific example given is in compound expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space (17 kg, AD 565, 2:50 pm). A year ago the MOS nbsp guideline was changed to exclude nbsps in situations like "336,000 people" (example from OTD right now). The change sparked a discussion at
the MOS talk page. One of the main points then in limiting nbsps was that they clutter up the edit window. On the Main Page, however, only updating administrators are looking at the source code. On the Main Page especially we should consider our readers over our editors. Seeing "336,000
people" is awkward, so I believe the current nbsp guideline would not discourage a nbsp here. I'd like to hear others' opinions on using nbsps more liberally on the Main Page.
Shubinator (
talk)
21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the report on the South African election highlights in bold the word "loses" giving anyone hastily glancing at this the impression the ANC lost the election, when really they won. The report deserves greater accuracy in this respect. Gallador ( talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I second Gallador's comment. While technically accurate, this statement indeed needs to be read twice because the first interpretation that comes to mind is wrong. In any case this is not in line with the way other elections' results are reported. 86.70.119.250 ( talk) 08:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
April 27: 250th birthday of [...] Mary Wollstonecraft.
Given that Wollstonecraft died in 1797 according to the article about her, shouldn't this read "250th anniversary of the birth of [...] Mary Wollstonecraft"? — 217.46.147.13 ( talk) 15:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Wollstonecraft features in TFA and OTD, yeah, I get that... and the Nameless Book mentioned in DYK was probably written by a woman and features an overview of prominent female authors... and Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is ITN... I think I detect a bias toward influential women. Let's get some obscure, non-notable men up on the Main Page to counter this bias! I volunteer to be featured myself, as a wholly unimportant anonymous contributor, if no one else will step forth. Viva le rabble! 168.9.120.8 ( talk) 15:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, one must love Chopin. However, today's DYK entry on his Nocturnes Op. 37 seems contradictory: If these compositions “act as an aphrodisiac," wouldn't that tend to stimulate the libido, rather than “comfort” said impulse?
Sca ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really complaining about this but the main Page does seem to have an awful lot about Norway on it recently. It's a lovely country and the people are even nicer, but I wonder whether it would be helpful to do stuff about other countries as well. ( This comment is not available in Nyorsk.) 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I check this page every few days to see if there's anyone complaining about a geographic bias on the main page. For some reason I find it amusing when people get their panties in a twist over which country front page content is about. 198.209.225.230 ( talk) 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Another excellent piece about Norway on the front page today. As I said in my first observation, I'm not really complaining about this because the individual items have usually been interesting. In fact it is quite reassuring to know that every day I wake up I am going to learn something about Norway that I didn't know before. The Norgeophiles who have produced these pieces are to be congratulated not criticised. But maybe we could get somebody from Denmark or Sweden to write something to add a little variety 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 05:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As the person who first raised the issue of Noregocentricity, I should like to endorse your paternal grandmother's view. Or more precisely, that I have never met any finer people. I'm not really complaining about this, but has anybody else noticed that we have had a lot of items about of the amount of Norwegian coverage on the discussion page recently?
I agree on the obscurity issue. Todays Norway-related DYK-blurb is really obscure. I'm Norwegian, and it's a bit cheesy to propagate so much trivia about Norway. 85.200.193.67 ( talk) 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really complaining about this, but I can't see anything about Norway on the Main Page today. Is there a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 ( talk) 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am told that there WAS a Norwegian entry but it has been removed from Wikipedia. The link was http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=FC+Dammers&go=Go and it concerned a team aiming to become the second most successful team in its town. Regrettably, I did not notice this when I commented on the lack of any Norgerama yesterday. I apologise for any concern this may have caused. I am pleased to see that today's entry on Amund B. Larsen maintains the standards of broad general interest which we now associate with Norwaycentric articles on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 09:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite right! I am sure we all wish them well in the demanding task they have set themselves. Excellent piece on Carl Platou today, complete with link to his first cousing once removed.It only goes to prove that Andy Warhol was right when he said that every Norwegian has the right to be on Wikipedia for 15 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) When I awoke there was nothing about Norway on the main page and for a moment I felt a deep sadness. But thanks to Andreas Claussen and his famous role as a state concillor, that fear has gone away. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 ( talk) 09:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Norway has not let us down today. The piece on Øvre Richter Frich tells me at least as much as I want to know about this great writer. To be fair, I do not believe there was ever a full 24 hour period when the DYK section was entirely devoid of any Norwegian material, though I am sure there is still much to learn. For example, I do not believe we have ever had had a full list of Norwegian entries to the Eurovision song contest, full lyrics (in English) and names of cmposers together with links to first cousins once remoed if appropriate. So there is much to be done before we move on to the equally important matter of Lithuania. However, a serious point having raised the issue in the first place. I have come to really enjoy the pieces about Norway and would be genuinely disappointed if one day there turned out not to be one. That is because they are nice pieces written about (mostly) nice people or are unflinching ion their treatment of bad people. But what if they were about some less benign topic? What if a group were producing pieces at such a rate that the automatic selection process gave them continuing prominence but they were about something much less benign? Sometimes just giving prominence to an issue introduces a bias to believiong that issue is important. Is there/should there be a mechanism for regulating that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 05:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Normal service has been resumed on the Norse front I am glad to see. Please don't let the interruption happen again. I understand the enormous amount of work needed to maintain the quality of the Norway-centred articles but it is well worth it. The world is rapidly becoming extremely well informed about many Norwegian personalities who have been unaccountably ignored. There's a lot more to it than Vikings, Ibsen and Greig.
There seems to be some technical problem, as no one has objected today to the use of the term "Association football" in the featured article. There are nineteen archived pages of discussion of this article, mainly about that subject. Have they died in vain? Football is the name used by the rest of the world, while Americans ....(continued page 94) Michael of Lucan ( talk) 09:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I thought it was funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 ( talk) 10:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Very funny. I well remember the angst over the name of that article. Ugh. -- Dweller ( talk) 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is technically a technical problem; but, the featured article for today and yesterday is/was just, well, dumb. I mean, this stuff is obscure minutia in the extreme. Who the hell selects this crap? Can they be sacked?
Finnbjorn ( talk) 09:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
{{Request edit}}
Sorry, if I'm doing this wrong. Learning as I go. The number of confirmed deaths due to swine flu as of today according to the WHO is 7, not 152.
[1] Could someone please change this?
Jcblackmon (
talk)
16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I notice that on the list of worldwide Main Pages - the one that appears on the left of the monitor - it only gives en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and not en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main Page, for example. Could someone unprotect the page so that I could correct it?-- Pokémaniac Thomas ( talk) 18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
From the wording of the section, it sounds like there actually is a problem in the US just like mexico, even though there's only 8 people infected in the states and they have recovered. -- Ssteiner209 ( talk) 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Where in Hell are you getting the figures being claimed in the headline?? CNN as of Noon, PDT is reporting 73 CONFIRMED cases worldwide, with about 2000 reported in Mexico, a far cry from the number given here. Again, the LOWEST figure is what "at least" means! In this case, the LOWEST number confirmed (which the current CNN article does not give, only "as many as 103 deaths in Mexico". We have this same trouble EVERYTIME multiple deaths are reported- someone posting the headlines does not understand (or care) what "at least" means. Such REPEATED sloppiness really hurts Wikipedia's reliability. CFLeon ( talk) 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The old photo of the two masked Mexican cops (who aren't getting married in Sweden, after all) should be replaced by B00526-Swine-flu.png or some such image of A(N1H1). The epidemic has spread far beyond Mexico. kencf0618 ( talk) 04:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
i dont really think thatthere should be disscoshions because there are strangers that lie about there age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.183.130 ( talk) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
(cross-posted to WP:AN)
FAO anyone who can edit protected pages on commons, there's a spot of vandalism on the ARA General Belgrano underway.jpg image in "On this day". EyeSerene talk 09:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the Main Page be placed in a category? -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I mean, both guys, the guy who was replaced and the guy who replaced him, only even have 3 paragraph articles slapped together for this headline. Because it's Senegal. It's not that important, stop pretending it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.19.89 ( talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Gay-Class ships should be capitalized; not only would it be proper English to capitalize a proper noun, but the way the page reads now is borderline defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cransona ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think World War II should be spelled out instead. It would look more professional. 99.138.181.187 ( talk) 03:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
wow...
... that the Royal Navy accepted a gay Viking and a gay Corsair into their service during the Second World War, with another 12 gays joining in the 1950s?
just... wow.-- Onstet9 ( talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the main page have a short section about the word-wide crisis that's going on that the moment? It is extremely important for Wikipedians to know about and I think it should be on the main page, along with a map of the world showing which contries are currently affected by it. Ross Rhodes ( T C) Sign! 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
er no that's just wrong. the WHO are a reliable source that says that a pandemic is likely. that is nothing close to a 'crystal ball' and does not go against wikipedia's guidelines. reporting on a future pandemic might well be wrong but surely no-one wants to write about what people will say about a swine flu once it happens, or anything else that might be original research. people want to write about documented speculation on whether a pandemic is imminent: nothing to do with crystal balls. jesus christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.11.169 ( talk) 09:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The NORMAL FLU is more of a pandemic then H1N1... Besides: The Southern Hemisphere is the one who will be enduring Swine Flu for the next couple of months, and since the people who come to En.wikipedia and edit and therefor make their presence known seem to be of a Northern Hemisphere group: why would we care (jk)-- Jakezing (Your King ( talk) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Re today's Latvia entry, I'd just like to point out that Lithuania was the first to declare its independence, on March 11, 1990. Sca ( talk) 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The line referring to the picture mentions three people then says "(pictured)"... The picture is of a single person, which of the three is the picture of? æron phone home 08:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Should this be in the news section, as with all attacks like this! It is a sad event but a significant one in Turkey because of how it was carried out. Enlil Ninlil ( talk) 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
page says, "... that Ida Henrietta Hyde was the first woman to receive a Ph.D. at Heidelberg College?" Link is to Heidelberg University in Ohio. In fact, Hyde received her Ph.D. at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.99.8.10 ( talk) 13:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Another DYK note: It should be Jesse Venture, former governor of Minnesota. His term as governor ended six years ago. Sca ( talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
the highlighted news article links in the In The News section today read like this:- seal products, mutiny, slaughter, kill 2009 World Snooker Championship. (insane marines rebel and do your worst at the snooker) Now if I was an insane paranoid schitzo they probably wouldn't give me stuff highlighted like that in whatever hospital had me. Point? It could have been linked like this, (actual news style?):- "bill banning imports of seal products", "Georgian troops mutiny", "Egypt commences the slaughter of all domesticated pigs", "gunmen kill 44 people at wedding party", OKay you get the picture, it is sort of random? 86.46.64.230 ( talk) 16:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor comment on the headline about Snooker. When I first read the verb "beats" it brought to mind a vicious crime. As I continued reading the note, I realized it was about Snooker. Perhaps a different word would be in better judgment. "Defeats" or "bests" immediately come to mind. Any others would just help the situation. Thanks. -- Everchanging02 ( talk) 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be anything in the headline about the mutineers surrendering? The current wording makes the event seem like it's ongoing. Ansh666 ( talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there not more important things in the world to include on the front page than a picture of the most recent Snooker champion? Since "In the news" only gets real estate for a single picture, there has to be more important news that the picture could highlight. "And in other news, the Rotary Club is having a bake-sale at the local MegaMart. Stay tuned for details". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.229 ( talk) 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
snooker, what the hell is that? How does this affect the world? SACP ( talk) 13:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it helps, the Snooker Championship was participated by representatives from a grand total of 5 countries: the United Kingdom (if you count the Home Nations as one), Rep. of Ireland, Thailand, Australia and China (including Hong Kong). Now, to gear up for 9-ball once the tournament (if) ever gets held. – Howard the Duck 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
<sigh> The number of countries represented is hardly relevant. We traditionally include the winners of the baseball World Series - how many countries are represented in that? It's the world championships of a significant sport in many countries (like baseball, including ones that aren't notionally represented). -- Dweller ( talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sigh is right. Wikipedia is not a news source. The section on the main page is purely to showcase articles whose subjects happen to be in the public eye, not to inform of sports champions. This is a perennial complaint (that is, "What makes X so wonderful when Y is so much more important/news-worthy/multicoloured). GARDEN 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
We have a standing policy for which sporting events get listed, which is outlined on WP:ITNR. Strangely, snooker is not on it. Although I support including this story, it does contradict existing policy - personally I would like to see it added to WP:ITNR Modest Genius talk 23:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, let's just say I won't be touching items such as this with a 10-foot rake from now on. – Howard the Duck 10:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 130 | ← | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | → | Archive 140 |
You cannot abbreviate "Preston Village" to "Preston". They are not the same thing; the "Village" is absolutely necessary to differentiate it from Preston, England Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The first girl was a bit rude. But I like you. I think your page is fixed now after I accidently did something. Its so hard to tell which page is which. -- 140.203.12.241 ( talk) 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh it was a joke! I understand now! --
140.203.12.241 (
talk)
14:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm guessing we put Emma Watson up because it's her birthday, but today's also Leonardo Da Vinci's birthday, and for some wacked-out reason, he's never been featured. Well, obviously it's too late to change it, and no one really cares, so.........can we do this next year? DeathNomad 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This is very long and difficult to understand. Can it be summarised please? -- 140.203.12.241 ( talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Over 1,500 farmers in an Indian state committed suicide after being driven to debt by crop failure" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-chopra/1500-farmers-in-india-com_b_187457.html This should be on the main page. -- Green06 ( talk) 01:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that today's featured article, Emma Watson, is under semi-protection- ostensibly to prevent page move vandalism by a certain infamous individual. It was my understanding that protecting the featured article of the day was against policy? Ashanda ( talk) 03:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What is policy? -- 140.203.12.241 ( talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are the features articles secret so that shitty stuff gets on the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.13.24 ( talk) 14:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added a question to the article's talk page about whether "duo-piano" is a term likely to be generally understood. 132.244.246.25 ( talk) 10:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'm not opposed to playing the piano myself but is it wise to try to play two at once? I'm only asking mind I'm just curious about if anyone has managed it? Or if they have is it a regular occurrence these days? I might learn how to play one day. -- 140.203.12.241 ( talk) 14:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
From front page: "Naxalite rebels kill at least 17 people during the first phase of India's general election."
The link to kill directs to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2009#Phase_1_.E2.80.93_April_16.2C_2009
This seems a little odd. Above link should be placed on some suitable word in the news. 'Kill' have following page for itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill
Not a big issue, but questionable at first, atleast 203.122.33.194 ( talk) 07:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Maddy, Delhi, India
As Main Page editors become increasingly familiar with obscure Manual of Style guidelines, there has recently been an epidemic of explained here. For instance, Did You Know currently says "... three unrelated Irish clans ..." which is coded as three unrelated [[Irish clans]] . But WP:NBSP actually says to use when "figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space". Figure probably means numeral, not "three", and "unrelated Irish clans" surely isn't an abbreviation or symbol. There's more to the guideline than that, but I don't think it was intended to be used for every number, or the guideline would have said that. So unless someone knows something I don't know, can we restrict the use of to the list of situations in the guideline, or else change the guideline? Please note the Irish clans are just an example; my point is that this has become routine. Art LaPella ( talk) 04:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"A number of delegates exit...". Couldn't this mysterious "number" be one, or even zero? It would be nice if the sentence were specific; but if it can't, it could at least be logical... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.170.162 ( talk) 19:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been noticing how every day's feature article is vandalized frequently. Would it be a good idea to automatically semi-protect each FA as it's posted? a little insignificant ( talk) 17:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how people haven't noticed this. It says on the Main Page that the Chinese just discovered 2,390 miles of the Great Wall of China. Apparently no one bothered to check that the Great Wall article states that only 180 miles were discovered. This statement is cited by here. I think that the bigger number comes from the total length of the wall. Looking at where the possible discrepancy came from, it appears as if the BBC link says that there is 3,350 more kilometers than previously believed. This figure includes ditches, rivers and hills. The page should probably say what was found of what. This information also was at the top of the page, and the 180 miles is halfway through the article. Thanks to anyone who can notice and correct this. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 19:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to ask if it's a vandal act to writte in the discussion area about things who don't really have nothing to do with the article or not related? Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.82.122 ( talk) 08:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The FA contains an error: "hundreds of fishermen were unprepared by" -- could somebody change "by" to "for"? This has been fixed in the article itself. Looie496 ( talk) 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned here, I propose exploiting the little-known <noedit> function of the Mediawiki:titleblacklist to automatically and permanently protect all current and past Today's Featured Article blurbs. The current practice is to protect them individually shortly after creation and leave them protected as a permanent archive. This will eliminate that protection step and prevent accidental lapses. Are there any objections to this? Dragons flight ( talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
When opening the main page it would be better that the cursor is already set to the search box so no need to click on it (just like google) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.253.91.79 ( talk) 04:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Firefox 3.0.9 displays English Wikipedia somewhat strange. Languages and Navigation tools are at the bottom of the list. It's not comfortable at all! It displays Wikipedia in other languages all right. What's the matter? Sasha best ( talk) 07:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Strange. What version do you use? Sasha best ( talk) 14:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Aside from featured picture, why don't we have the images in the FA, ITN, DYK, and OTD all point to the relative article, instead of the image itself? rootology ( C)( T) 21:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A few days ago there was a
thread here on
non-breaking spaces (nbsps) on the Main Page. I'm probably the one behind a lot, if not most, of the nbsps in the
Did You Know section of the Main Page. I think that nbsps should be used (or at least, should not be discouraged) between a number and its units. The current guideline at
WP:NBSP says Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line. A specific example given is in compound expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space (17 kg, AD 565, 2:50 pm). A year ago the MOS nbsp guideline was changed to exclude nbsps in situations like "336,000 people" (example from OTD right now). The change sparked a discussion at
the MOS talk page. One of the main points then in limiting nbsps was that they clutter up the edit window. On the Main Page, however, only updating administrators are looking at the source code. On the Main Page especially we should consider our readers over our editors. Seeing "336,000
people" is awkward, so I believe the current nbsp guideline would not discourage a nbsp here. I'd like to hear others' opinions on using nbsps more liberally on the Main Page.
Shubinator (
talk)
21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the report on the South African election highlights in bold the word "loses" giving anyone hastily glancing at this the impression the ANC lost the election, when really they won. The report deserves greater accuracy in this respect. Gallador ( talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I second Gallador's comment. While technically accurate, this statement indeed needs to be read twice because the first interpretation that comes to mind is wrong. In any case this is not in line with the way other elections' results are reported. 86.70.119.250 ( talk) 08:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
April 27: 250th birthday of [...] Mary Wollstonecraft.
Given that Wollstonecraft died in 1797 according to the article about her, shouldn't this read "250th anniversary of the birth of [...] Mary Wollstonecraft"? — 217.46.147.13 ( talk) 15:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Wollstonecraft features in TFA and OTD, yeah, I get that... and the Nameless Book mentioned in DYK was probably written by a woman and features an overview of prominent female authors... and Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is ITN... I think I detect a bias toward influential women. Let's get some obscure, non-notable men up on the Main Page to counter this bias! I volunteer to be featured myself, as a wholly unimportant anonymous contributor, if no one else will step forth. Viva le rabble! 168.9.120.8 ( talk) 15:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, one must love Chopin. However, today's DYK entry on his Nocturnes Op. 37 seems contradictory: If these compositions “act as an aphrodisiac," wouldn't that tend to stimulate the libido, rather than “comfort” said impulse?
Sca ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really complaining about this but the main Page does seem to have an awful lot about Norway on it recently. It's a lovely country and the people are even nicer, but I wonder whether it would be helpful to do stuff about other countries as well. ( This comment is not available in Nyorsk.) 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I check this page every few days to see if there's anyone complaining about a geographic bias on the main page. For some reason I find it amusing when people get their panties in a twist over which country front page content is about. 198.209.225.230 ( talk) 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Another excellent piece about Norway on the front page today. As I said in my first observation, I'm not really complaining about this because the individual items have usually been interesting. In fact it is quite reassuring to know that every day I wake up I am going to learn something about Norway that I didn't know before. The Norgeophiles who have produced these pieces are to be congratulated not criticised. But maybe we could get somebody from Denmark or Sweden to write something to add a little variety 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 05:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As the person who first raised the issue of Noregocentricity, I should like to endorse your paternal grandmother's view. Or more precisely, that I have never met any finer people. I'm not really complaining about this, but has anybody else noticed that we have had a lot of items about of the amount of Norwegian coverage on the discussion page recently?
I agree on the obscurity issue. Todays Norway-related DYK-blurb is really obscure. I'm Norwegian, and it's a bit cheesy to propagate so much trivia about Norway. 85.200.193.67 ( talk) 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really complaining about this, but I can't see anything about Norway on the Main Page today. Is there a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 ( talk) 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am told that there WAS a Norwegian entry but it has been removed from Wikipedia. The link was http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=FC+Dammers&go=Go and it concerned a team aiming to become the second most successful team in its town. Regrettably, I did not notice this when I commented on the lack of any Norgerama yesterday. I apologise for any concern this may have caused. I am pleased to see that today's entry on Amund B. Larsen maintains the standards of broad general interest which we now associate with Norwaycentric articles on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 09:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite right! I am sure we all wish them well in the demanding task they have set themselves. Excellent piece on Carl Platou today, complete with link to his first cousing once removed.It only goes to prove that Andy Warhol was right when he said that every Norwegian has the right to be on Wikipedia for 15 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) When I awoke there was nothing about Norway on the main page and for a moment I felt a deep sadness. But thanks to Andreas Claussen and his famous role as a state concillor, that fear has gone away. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 ( talk) 09:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Norway has not let us down today. The piece on Øvre Richter Frich tells me at least as much as I want to know about this great writer. To be fair, I do not believe there was ever a full 24 hour period when the DYK section was entirely devoid of any Norwegian material, though I am sure there is still much to learn. For example, I do not believe we have ever had had a full list of Norwegian entries to the Eurovision song contest, full lyrics (in English) and names of cmposers together with links to first cousins once remoed if appropriate. So there is much to be done before we move on to the equally important matter of Lithuania. However, a serious point having raised the issue in the first place. I have come to really enjoy the pieces about Norway and would be genuinely disappointed if one day there turned out not to be one. That is because they are nice pieces written about (mostly) nice people or are unflinching ion their treatment of bad people. But what if they were about some less benign topic? What if a group were producing pieces at such a rate that the automatic selection process gave them continuing prominence but they were about something much less benign? Sometimes just giving prominence to an issue introduces a bias to believiong that issue is important. Is there/should there be a mechanism for regulating that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 05:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Normal service has been resumed on the Norse front I am glad to see. Please don't let the interruption happen again. I understand the enormous amount of work needed to maintain the quality of the Norway-centred articles but it is well worth it. The world is rapidly becoming extremely well informed about many Norwegian personalities who have been unaccountably ignored. There's a lot more to it than Vikings, Ibsen and Greig.
There seems to be some technical problem, as no one has objected today to the use of the term "Association football" in the featured article. There are nineteen archived pages of discussion of this article, mainly about that subject. Have they died in vain? Football is the name used by the rest of the world, while Americans ....(continued page 94) Michael of Lucan ( talk) 09:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I thought it was funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 ( talk) 10:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Very funny. I well remember the angst over the name of that article. Ugh. -- Dweller ( talk) 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is technically a technical problem; but, the featured article for today and yesterday is/was just, well, dumb. I mean, this stuff is obscure minutia in the extreme. Who the hell selects this crap? Can they be sacked?
Finnbjorn ( talk) 09:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
{{Request edit}}
Sorry, if I'm doing this wrong. Learning as I go. The number of confirmed deaths due to swine flu as of today according to the WHO is 7, not 152.
[1] Could someone please change this?
Jcblackmon (
talk)
16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I notice that on the list of worldwide Main Pages - the one that appears on the left of the monitor - it only gives en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and not en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main Page, for example. Could someone unprotect the page so that I could correct it?-- Pokémaniac Thomas ( talk) 18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
From the wording of the section, it sounds like there actually is a problem in the US just like mexico, even though there's only 8 people infected in the states and they have recovered. -- Ssteiner209 ( talk) 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Where in Hell are you getting the figures being claimed in the headline?? CNN as of Noon, PDT is reporting 73 CONFIRMED cases worldwide, with about 2000 reported in Mexico, a far cry from the number given here. Again, the LOWEST figure is what "at least" means! In this case, the LOWEST number confirmed (which the current CNN article does not give, only "as many as 103 deaths in Mexico". We have this same trouble EVERYTIME multiple deaths are reported- someone posting the headlines does not understand (or care) what "at least" means. Such REPEATED sloppiness really hurts Wikipedia's reliability. CFLeon ( talk) 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The old photo of the two masked Mexican cops (who aren't getting married in Sweden, after all) should be replaced by B00526-Swine-flu.png or some such image of A(N1H1). The epidemic has spread far beyond Mexico. kencf0618 ( talk) 04:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
i dont really think thatthere should be disscoshions because there are strangers that lie about there age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.183.130 ( talk) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
(cross-posted to WP:AN)
FAO anyone who can edit protected pages on commons, there's a spot of vandalism on the ARA General Belgrano underway.jpg image in "On this day". EyeSerene talk 09:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the Main Page be placed in a category? -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I mean, both guys, the guy who was replaced and the guy who replaced him, only even have 3 paragraph articles slapped together for this headline. Because it's Senegal. It's not that important, stop pretending it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.19.89 ( talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Gay-Class ships should be capitalized; not only would it be proper English to capitalize a proper noun, but the way the page reads now is borderline defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cransona ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think World War II should be spelled out instead. It would look more professional. 99.138.181.187 ( talk) 03:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
wow...
... that the Royal Navy accepted a gay Viking and a gay Corsair into their service during the Second World War, with another 12 gays joining in the 1950s?
just... wow.-- Onstet9 ( talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the main page have a short section about the word-wide crisis that's going on that the moment? It is extremely important for Wikipedians to know about and I think it should be on the main page, along with a map of the world showing which contries are currently affected by it. Ross Rhodes ( T C) Sign! 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
er no that's just wrong. the WHO are a reliable source that says that a pandemic is likely. that is nothing close to a 'crystal ball' and does not go against wikipedia's guidelines. reporting on a future pandemic might well be wrong but surely no-one wants to write about what people will say about a swine flu once it happens, or anything else that might be original research. people want to write about documented speculation on whether a pandemic is imminent: nothing to do with crystal balls. jesus christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.11.169 ( talk) 09:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The NORMAL FLU is more of a pandemic then H1N1... Besides: The Southern Hemisphere is the one who will be enduring Swine Flu for the next couple of months, and since the people who come to En.wikipedia and edit and therefor make their presence known seem to be of a Northern Hemisphere group: why would we care (jk)-- Jakezing (Your King ( talk) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Re today's Latvia entry, I'd just like to point out that Lithuania was the first to declare its independence, on March 11, 1990. Sca ( talk) 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The line referring to the picture mentions three people then says "(pictured)"... The picture is of a single person, which of the three is the picture of? æron phone home 08:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Should this be in the news section, as with all attacks like this! It is a sad event but a significant one in Turkey because of how it was carried out. Enlil Ninlil ( talk) 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
page says, "... that Ida Henrietta Hyde was the first woman to receive a Ph.D. at Heidelberg College?" Link is to Heidelberg University in Ohio. In fact, Hyde received her Ph.D. at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.99.8.10 ( talk) 13:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Another DYK note: It should be Jesse Venture, former governor of Minnesota. His term as governor ended six years ago. Sca ( talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
the highlighted news article links in the In The News section today read like this:- seal products, mutiny, slaughter, kill 2009 World Snooker Championship. (insane marines rebel and do your worst at the snooker) Now if I was an insane paranoid schitzo they probably wouldn't give me stuff highlighted like that in whatever hospital had me. Point? It could have been linked like this, (actual news style?):- "bill banning imports of seal products", "Georgian troops mutiny", "Egypt commences the slaughter of all domesticated pigs", "gunmen kill 44 people at wedding party", OKay you get the picture, it is sort of random? 86.46.64.230 ( talk) 16:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor comment on the headline about Snooker. When I first read the verb "beats" it brought to mind a vicious crime. As I continued reading the note, I realized it was about Snooker. Perhaps a different word would be in better judgment. "Defeats" or "bests" immediately come to mind. Any others would just help the situation. Thanks. -- Everchanging02 ( talk) 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be anything in the headline about the mutineers surrendering? The current wording makes the event seem like it's ongoing. Ansh666 ( talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there not more important things in the world to include on the front page than a picture of the most recent Snooker champion? Since "In the news" only gets real estate for a single picture, there has to be more important news that the picture could highlight. "And in other news, the Rotary Club is having a bake-sale at the local MegaMart. Stay tuned for details". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.229 ( talk) 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
snooker, what the hell is that? How does this affect the world? SACP ( talk) 13:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it helps, the Snooker Championship was participated by representatives from a grand total of 5 countries: the United Kingdom (if you count the Home Nations as one), Rep. of Ireland, Thailand, Australia and China (including Hong Kong). Now, to gear up for 9-ball once the tournament (if) ever gets held. – Howard the Duck 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
<sigh> The number of countries represented is hardly relevant. We traditionally include the winners of the baseball World Series - how many countries are represented in that? It's the world championships of a significant sport in many countries (like baseball, including ones that aren't notionally represented). -- Dweller ( talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sigh is right. Wikipedia is not a news source. The section on the main page is purely to showcase articles whose subjects happen to be in the public eye, not to inform of sports champions. This is a perennial complaint (that is, "What makes X so wonderful when Y is so much more important/news-worthy/multicoloured). GARDEN 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
We have a standing policy for which sporting events get listed, which is outlined on WP:ITNR. Strangely, snooker is not on it. Although I support including this story, it does contradict existing policy - personally I would like to see it added to WP:ITNR Modest Genius talk 23:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, let's just say I won't be touching items such as this with a 10-foot rake from now on. – Howard the Duck 10:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)