Talk:Main Page

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 18:01 on 28 October 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that Jumbo's became the first white-owned restaurant in Miami to serve and employ black people, beginning in the late 1960s?

That's a big and hard to prove claim. One reference says that most restaurants didn't employ blacks [1]. WLRN says that the ckaim is from the owners [2]. The New York Times also says "The owners say that Jumbo’s, in Miami’s Liberty City neighborhood, was the first white-owned restaurant to employ and serve blacks.". We are saying this in wikivoice! Secretlondon (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Tails Wx, Another Believer, Prince of Erebor, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492:. Strikes me that the simplest solution is to attribute.--Launchballer 15:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Attributed, with these edits.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's enough, because not only does the article still say it in wikivoice, but the then-owners sold it to a developer in 2014.--Launchballer 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Article now says "Owners claimed". I didn't do that part as the article isn't protected. The sale to developer, I think, doesn't really change that the persons voicing the claim were the owners. Unless the developer took the name, too, they aren't the owners of Jumbo's... they're the owner of the site. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The NYT also has a quote "I can’t tell you for sure whether they were the first, second or third to integrate...", so yeah, saying this in wikivoice seems problematic. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and we shouldn't be saying that anything was "claimed" per MOS:CLAIM. It casts doubt on the assertion but also gives it an air of legitimacy that is questionable. Suggest we pull, since there's no way to know whether it's true or not. And the owners claiming it without evidence isn't a DYK-worthy definite fact.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we simply change the hook? Eg DYK that when Jumbo's employed three black people, thirty white people quit? JennyOz (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This ALT works for me, but I haven't yet been able to access the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Verified.  Done. Slightly tweaked to " that when the restaurant Jumbo's hired three black people, thirty white people quit". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It now says "desegregated" which could mean customers rather than staff. Secretlondon (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Gatoclass, would you be ok with "hired three black people" instead of "desegregated"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It's all hearsay from the former owners, but it's better I guess. Secretlondon (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The source puts it in its own voice. I suspect they may just be parroting the owner's claims, but I can't be sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "... that American stage actress Verna Mersereau performed her traditional classical dances before royalty in Calcutta?"

The article only says that she performed the lead role in the play "Rain" before royalty in Calcutta, it says nothing about what she did in that play, what kind of dances she performed (she learned "various dance styles" and I have no idea what "traditional classical dances" are in the first place, are they different from other "classical dances" in some way?). The article doesn't even mention "traditional". I have the impression that the hook is a piece of WP:SYNTH, joining the claim that she performed in "Rain" in Calcutta[3] with the claim that she performed classical dances in "A romance of Old Egypt"[4]. Fram (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll go farther, this just seems like "dancer dances", whether I knew it or not, why should I care? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd support pulling, if another admin gets to it before me (I have to review the procedure). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Pulled and replaced with a hook that ran last month. I looked for guidance on whether it's appropriate to run a new hook after half the day has passed, and couldn't find any. If anyone knows the answer, let me know! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I read "... that on the same day that the members of Heaven's Gate died in a mass suicide, five members of an unrelated group did likewise?" They did likewise what? For my understanding: "die (in a suicide)". I don't believe that dying, even in a suicide, is something you "do". I my be the only one to have a problem, - ignore me if that is so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I didn't have a problem! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Can we get the thumbnail changed to File:Old Viriamo, back view by Walter Knoche, 1911.jpg? If the blurb is about her tattoos, it makes sense to have an illustration of her tattoos...I was wondering where in the image the 'adze' tattoo was. wound theology◈ 11:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  

  • Thoughts on this, Lajmmoore? I can see good arguments for either picture. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I think it is better if it is a picture of her face, as that shows who she was as a person, rather than a drawing made by a European explorer. Some of these drawings may have been deliberate exaggerations to demonstrate how "other" indigenous people were.. In terms of the adze, @wound_theology it was on her face (as it states in the article), but the photo and its angle, her age and ink fading, make it difficult to see. Thanks for the ping @Firefangledfeathers- it's good to have discussions like these.

  Lajmmoore (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 1)

Monday's FL

(October 28, today)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

General discussion

Image of George I

The image used by the main featured Article Image:George I of Great Britain.JPG has been nominated for deletion since 16 May 2008 on commons due to [[5]]. Should we have this image on the main page on that basis? GameKeeper (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Link for George I directs to a Disambiguous (sp?) page. Team4Technologies (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like copyright paranoia to me Modest Genius ^talk 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because the UK allows for copyright based on "sweat of the brow", meaning that the effort in creating even a faithful reproduction of a public domain work can result in a new copyright. howcheng {chat} 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The more I read about my own legal system, the more I hate it. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I don't know why people keep pointing to that "Avoid copyright paranoia" page; it's not even an essay, but a discussion, where to me, the arguments in favor of more paranoia carry more weight. howcheng {chat} 17:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it's too much effort to write a new essay, duh ;). However, there are a number of salient points: a) the pic may well have been scanned from a book b) if it is a photo there's no way of knowing when it was taken c) the law is suitably vague as to what does and does not create new copyright d) it's highly unlikely anyone outside wikipedia is ever going to notice, let alone care e) even if all the previous issues take their worst case, the pic can still be used under fair use (which should still be allowed for the main page, but lets not get into that discussion again) Modest Genius ^talk 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article on June 14, 2008

Today's featured article is that Wikipedia is not always correct. Never trust Wikipedia for important projects because anyone can put imformation in as I am doing now. Haha!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsable (talk • contribs) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Today's featured article has red writing (Expression error: Unexpected < operator in) after "The fruit can grow up to 30 centimetres" D0762 (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See here D0762 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reported to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. D0762 (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Section started at Template talk:Convert. This is the second time this has happened in recent days, but apparently only for some users and apparently only on the Main Page. If you saw it, please go to the linked section and describe your system and browser. Thanks, BanyanTree 10:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put {{convert}} back onto the TFA. If anyone sees appear again on the Main Page, please report it here. --- RockMFR 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We may want to take into consideration the items listed under 'On This Day' when determining the Featured Topic for that day. It is a little surprising to see the Canadian Flag as the Featured Article on June 14th, which is America's Flag Day. Although this sticks out, it serves as a reminder to avoid what could be worse - featuring one country or religion on the day held in importance for another country or religion when the two do not get along. Wilm1998 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeap! But Canada (not a U.S. state!) and the U.S. have been getting along alright since circa 1812. So it's okay this time. Probably a coincidence, anyway. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

language list

What about a section for languages above 750,000 articles(German wikipedia recently overstepped this border)?--Edroeh (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Or at least for languages above 500,000 (German, French and Polish wikipedia overstepped this border)? --Edroeh (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a section with only one Wikipedia, but I think an argument could be made for a section with 500k+ articles. Anyone else have any thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

500k seems like a good mark to mention. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem all that necessary. The 300k+ one is already the smallest category, and it doesn't even go all the way across the screen once (at least on my resolution). Why bother creating a new category that would leave both of those almost empty? --Rory096 23:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've my memory of previous discussions is correct, I don't think there is much support for a category with only 3 items. There is definitely little support for a category with only one item. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't be adding more lines to the section - four is plenty enough and arguably too many. We also shouldn't have any sections that aren't about one screen-width long - too long or too short both look horrible. Japanese Wikipedia has almost 500K articles, and Italian and Dutch are both headed there - if we want to bump up the top line, I'd suggest waiting for those to be over 500K, and then rethinking the design. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"One screen width" is not a particularly meaningful phrase because people use different monitor/browser window sizes. howcheng {chat} 16:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true enough, of course. I said "about" for exactly this reason. It's still possible to get it close for the majority of viewers. In any case, "too small" is generally easy to judge, regardless of screen width (though even then, people on small mobile devices are an exception). — Gavia immer (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New picture

Put a picture of one of the tornadoes in the news section. There's a good one in the tornado outbreak article. Wrad (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, could you show the specific image you are talking about? Unless it's of a tornado that is part of this particular outbreak, I do not think it would be a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's part of this outbreak! Look at the images in this article June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence. Wrad (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions can be posted at WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. That article has already been suggested and is currently on the main page. We need pictures of the outbreak damage to replace the one that's been there for awhile. Wrad (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, please go to WP:ITN/C and suggest to the ITN people there to use the picture you like! (examples: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].) --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see this image. If only it had been released under CC :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Wrad (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dense and overwhelming text for a welcoming page

I think the text on the Main Page is too dense and overwhelming. It's not this kind of text density is bad, but for a front-page welcoming page, I think it is.

Is it possible to space the elements and maybe remove or reduce text or elements which aren't absolutely essential to the Main Page? 217.132.3.125 (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Like this? --74.13.125.77 (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

By saying overwhelming text I didn't mean the text is complicated or the content too complex. I was referring to the form.

Maybe it's the four boxes (Featured article, In the news, Did you know, On this day) taking over the page above the fold in an unaesthetic form of 2x2 with almost identical dimensions for each box, and the wide text which is both unaesthetic and inconvenient. Maybe giving the Featured Article prominence would change that. It might be a good idea bringing the Picture of the Day above the fold to lighten up the dry feel of the small graphics in the sub-sections (I agree about the too many insects issue, though). Also, the Other Areas and Sister Projects sections are far more important than the Did You Know and In This Day sections. It's important users will be able to quickly figure out whether they landed in the right place to start their search or should change to a different site (such as Wiktionary). New users may find it comforting to immediately be able to access links such as the Reference Desk and the Help Desk (although the Help Desk itself is a disaster area for anyone new seeking help, but that's another matter).

I was thinking a two-column format with the left column wider than the right column (more than the current's format width). Left column would house the Feature Article, In The News (above the fold) and Did You Know, In This Day (below the fold). Right column would start with the Picture of the Day followed by useful links not found in the sidebar (maybe: quickstart guide, howtos, policies overview, project overview, etc.) and links to sister projects. The statistics and multilingual congratulatory text can stay at the bottom or even better eliminated all together or replaced by something more terse at the top of the page. This kind of format will also be more convenient for portable devices which are gaining market share.

What do you guys think? 217.132.3.125 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

From previous discussions, I don't think there is much support for making the POTD a column, we want to keep it wide as it works better in that way allowing us to have a large image and show the text without leaving a lot of whitespace. As to whether sister projects are more important then DYK/ITD, I'm not so sure about that. We already say at the top this is an encylopaedia. If you came to 'wikipedia' and for some reason are not looking for an encylopaedia but were expecting to find a dictionary or a news site, well then it's easy to skim through the page looking for what you want to know. (Or alternative you could just do a websearch for a dictionary or news site). However if you came to wikipedia looking for an encylopaedia, then you may very well be interested in reading about the encylopaedic articles we have, as illustrated by DYK and ITN. Also, I don't think it's a good idea for us to try to cater to all users with one page. There are various versions of the main page, and other alternatives for people with portable devices. There have been proposals to try to make it easier for people with portable devices to access these versions but I don't think it will be wise for us to optimise for them at the expense of the many people who are not using portable devices. Finally, I don't think the categorisation of multilingual wikipedias is intended to be congratulatory. It simply reflective of the fact that we need some way to categorise the languages since there are too many of them otherwise and it's difficult for readers to look through them, and going by number of articles is the least controversial option, trying to categorise by 'importance' of the language is likely to be a disaster. Categorisation by number of articles also helps reaeders quickly identify whether the other language version is likely to be of interest to them. Clearly one with onlt 100 articles is not going to be of great interest to most readers even if they would prefer a different language version. And the vast majority of people in this world, I suspect these days even the vast majority of people using the internet do not have English as their first language so they may very well be interested in a non-English wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

POTD definitely needs to be wide in order to accommodate the occasional panoramic photos we feature. howcheng {chat} 03:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

insect photos

Seems like every time I log in there's a lovely high-resolution photograph of insects. No offense to the photographer (often fir002 I believe), but perhaps he could expand his repertoire a bit? Wikipedia included -- I hope -- a bit more than entomology-related subjects. Maybe images other than photographs would be a good idea. Maps, graphics, ect. Apologies if this has already been addressed. Sammermpc (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you submit your pics and help Wikipedia broaden the pic selection? Or maybe you can log in more often. We have a wider selection than you think. See the archive. --74.13.125.77 (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

--three insect photos since May 1. Doesn't seem like an exorbitant amount to me. 202.131.182.41 (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it just bugs him?--Bedford ^Pray 10:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

*crickets* 86.44.27.243 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we do have a lot of non-insect photos and images (even videos)- all our featured images can be found here. We even have a section for diagrams, drawings and maps. Even if we're talking specifically about Fir0002, on top of his featured pictures of insects, arachnids and the like, he has got some FPs of transport, space, weather, fruit, other animals, flowers, birds, mountains, architecture and more- see his gallery. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Insects and flowers tend to appear a lot because it is posible that if you have the right kits and skills you can produce fairly consistantly good results. Other things have a greater element of needing to be in the right place at the right time in the right conditions.Geni 14:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sammermpc, this has to be pure coincidence because when I schedule the POTD, I make sure not to have picture of the same type all bunched together, so bug photos (for example) are usually spaced out with at least a week in between appearances. For example, in May 2008 we had bug pictures on the 3rd, 7th, and 11th (the latter two were allowed to be close together because the accompanying article was not the respective bug article), with no other bug pictures in the entire month. howcheng {chat} 03:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia hacked?

Flag of Canada from the main page leads to a hacked page? Ozdaren (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You probably accessed a version of the page with vandalism. Pages linked from the main page, especially today's featured article, attract a lot of vandalism. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it was. I just tried to find the vandalized version in its edit history with no success. It did look like it was hacked, since the prank message covered the entire screen, not just the article space. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably template vandalism, that seems to be the weapon of choice at the moment. I'm not going to link for certain reasons, but my talk page was once completely covered in a message so that it was uneditable (the only way to get around it was to manually type the edit address in the address bar). J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I found here. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Todays featured article, possible image

The abandoned city of Pripyat, near Chernobyl

The current FA, The World Without Us is lacking an image on the main page (the book cover is ineligible for obvious copyright reasons). May I suggest this image. It perfectly illustrates both the content (the author talks at length about Chernobyl) and subject matter (city without humans), and would fit easily into the lead. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't use thumb in the image, so I don't know if this is self-evident enough. Input appreciated. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since clicking on the image still gives full information, and in many browsers mousing over the image will give its file name in a status bar and/or popup, and the article contains the image with context, I think it's self-evident enough. I say use it. --86.144.154.44 (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Good picture and relevant. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please add! Abandoned city, perfect! Lunakeet 13:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Either it needs to be cropped or not used at all. Panorama images do not work well on all types of display resolutions on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not use the book cover which is displayed prominently in the article, I think it represents it better.Akels56 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Due to copyright problems, bookcovers and other pics used in articles as 'fairuse images' (e.g. posters, stamps, screenshots,... etc.) are generally not allowed on the main page. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

death notices @ In the news

The death of the American journalist in In the news. Really, this is not the place for information on someone who is of no interest or importance outside the US. In the news has become very US-parochial recently. The Boy Scouts killed by a tornado - internationally newsworthy? I don't think so. There are tornadoes all the time in the US - do we need to report every single one? And to be brutal - four deaths is hardly newsworthy internationally. How come we don't report every death of four or more people from other parts of the world? I suspect this is to do with systemic bias of the editors choosing ITN entries - my guess is that they are probably American. Seriously, this makes Wikipedia look very silly. 81.156.175.234 (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The boys scouts made radio news here in the UK. And you're right, it is systemic bias - so do something about it. Submit news stories, or join the ITN crew an write new ones to be placed in ITN. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Still I think he has a point. If Trevor McDonald or Jeremy Paxman kicked the bucket through natural causes, I doubt that it would end up on the ITN here. Jooler (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This should be discussed in WP:ITN/C where it has already been discussed and I don't think either of these cases are comprable, and nothing to do with the fact they're British Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't they comparable? Can you think of something that is comparable? I'm happy to move this discussion to WP:ITN/C if required. Jooler (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If Trevor McDonald kicked the bucket, someone would be free to submit it as "in the news" and we could see if anyone complained. I am not so sure. In any event, Tim Russert was one of the most well-regarded and important broadcast journalists in the US, and certainly newsworthy. I think it is silly to suggest it be removed because he is an American journalist. The question is, what other items were submitted for INT, from other parts of the world? What more newsworthy story does the Russert item displace - I do not mean hypothetically (cDonald) I mean, what else happened in the past 24 hours that ought to be in the news, but isn't, because the Russert item is occuping space? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's questionable whether anyone would think it internationally important enough to list the death of the UK journalist through natural causes. Certainly I can't remember ever seeing such a death on the main page. I wouldn't have considered nominating Carol Barnes when she died. Yeah, but there was at least 40% opposition to Russert's death being on the ITN page. 60% support isn't the norm for a consensus. It was removed in good faith and then restored. Tim Russert's death is of little significance to anyone outside of the US. BTW I well remember a huge debate about putting George Best's death on the main page (see [11]); someone I suspect who was more well-known and more influential outside of his native country than Mr Russert. Jooler (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In case it wasn't already obvious, I will not participate further in this off topic discussion, and there are similarly other people who will not. If people want to discuss this matter on ITN/C, where as I have mentioned it is alreayd being discussed, they are welcome to and are likely to receive a far better response Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert is internationally well known enough to make the ITN, but Arthur C Clarke and Heath Ledger weren't?? Sorry can't agree! 202.131.182.41 (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said that? If you'd followed the discussion on WP:ITN/C you'd know no one did Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting Tim Russerts death on the Main page goes to show just how bais wikipedia really is. It is very sad and pathetic. If he was not American it would never have made it. So unless you are an American your death is not important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.45.34 (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be stubborn; place the discussion at WP:ITN/C. Any other posts made after this edit will be removed w/o prior notice. --Howard the Duck 14:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Esperanto Wikipedia now with 100,000+

Hi, I'm an admin of Esperanto Wikipedia, and we just reached 100,000 articles. Is there any way you could put us in the appropriate list at the bottom of the main page ? Thank you beforehand ! Thomas Guibal (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Миша13 10:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on Esperanto Wikipedia getting over 100,000! Good job, everyone! --74.13.126.183 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprized that nearly fourty hours have elapsed now since this achievement, and there is no congratulation yet. -- 91.2.168.27 (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're expecting... ffm 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I expect a congratulations in the next edition of Wikizine. Otherwise, I don't think there'll be any outer praise, but I expect rather a celebration at the Esperanto Wikipedia itself. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientology @ DYK

The below was also posted on discussion under DYK section. Another article in that section suggested that this is the place to post content discussion and suggestings for that section.

I noticed there have been a lot of posts in the DYK section on Scientology. Recently 'Battlefield Earth' was a featured article. Is Wikipedia’s homepage being used to educate the public about scientology? I thought DYK articles were supposed to be thoughtful and engaging. The fact that L Ron Hubbard wrote a score for a movie is neither. The scientology facts are not interesting at all, and seem to be reoccurring. The other facts presented are usually very intriguing. When there are so many facinating things about the world I don't know, why would wikipedia waste valuable educational space for garbage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.48.146 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "garbage", but the reason that there have been DYKs about any topic, Scientology or otherwise, is that someone bothered to write those articles up. If you want topics that appeal to you posted on DYK, please start typing. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the Battlefield Earth article? It certainly wasn't flattering to scientology, so why worry? Wrad (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ali Al-Naimi

I'm not sure where to post this, sorry if this is not the correct location, but it is rather sad to see that Wikipedia has such a poor article on Ali Al-Naimi, the Saudi Oil minister, who is probably the most influential person in the world right now, what with the food price crisis. Some experienced Wikipedians should really work on this article.