Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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 08:29 on 7 November 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 with "In the news"

• Why are we using ‘wins’ instead of ‘is elected’ in the blurb on the US election (we used the same wording back in 2016 as well)? Such wordings are typically used for show elections in authoritarian countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't sure exactly which wording was most accurate so I looked back at Biden's ITN, where we used "wins" and went with that. I wasn't sure how accurate it was to describe him as having been elected, when at this point it's just that major news orgs are calling the race. Sam Walton (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, "wins" was used previously for Biden.[1] —Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  At this time, "wins" is more correct than "elected" as he is only elected in early January when the electoral college votes are certified. --Masem (t) 13:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• US Senate Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election and Republicans take control of the Senate.: The bolded presidential election link doesn't cover the Senate results. 2024 United States Senate elections should be included, but that page does not have updated sourced prose on the results. Recommend pulling the Senate results from the blurb until that page is improved.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking, the Republicans won't "take control of the Senate" until 3 January 2025. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I noticed this too and agree with all the points that Bagumba makes. Note that the blurb now reads: "Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election and Republicans are set to take control of the Senate." which makes the Senate bit sound even more tentative and inappropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's not tentative at all. The results of the election will put Republicans in control of the Senate on 3 January 2025. That is as definite as election results can be. It's just that most of the world seems unfamiliar with the multimonth waiting periods for many American election results to go into effect. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, none of the linked articles verify this and so the claim fails core policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Should this say "In the 2024 United States elections, Donald Trump.... " or some sort? The blurb seems to have no context, and the Senate mention seems awkward with context. Natg 19 (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, we don't include election years ITN as it should be clear from context that we are talking about the present election. I can't quite understand the second part of your concern, Natg 19. Could you please clarify what you mean? Schwede66 03:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose my 2nd concern is the same as the above ones, in that the wording for the Senate victory should include the election article for clarity. The current blurb doesn't flow well, as it is discussing two separate (but related) elections. Natg 19 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. Can you (or anyone) make a specific suggestion what the blurb should be? Schwede66 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

My issue above is that 2024 United States Senate elections does not even meet WP:ITNQUALITY with a sufficient prose update covering the results. Perhaps it's IAR-worthy as a US election, but mentioning the Senate is treating the presidential blurb as a WP:COATRACK without the ITN norm of requiring the related Senate page be up to par before mentioning it in the blurb. My suggestion remains: Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election and the Republican Party is set to take control of the Senate. —Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the senate elections from the Trump blurb. Bagumba, as you are an admin, feel free to action these things yourself. When you edit the main page boldly, you sometimes get reverted, but that's life. Nobody will chop your head off, though. Give it a go, my friend. Schwede66 07:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Admittedly, I lean more towards strength in numbers when it comes to fully-protected pages, and then moreso when broadly construing WP:INVOLVED. —Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. Schwede66 07:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Nov. 6, 2024 DYK states Vivian Stranders is a "British-born Jew" who became an officer in the SS ,,, nothing in the main article suggests this Nazi was born a Jew or ever practiced Judaism. This person was an officer in the RAF who became a German intelligence asset and then a German and a Nazi officer. Again, the DYK is wrong. Better might be DYK " Vivian Stranders was a British -born RAF officer who became a German spy and a Nazi officer." —68.129.185.93 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind I added an "a" before "German" in that suggestion. Art LaPella (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Per article "Stranders was Jewish and some of his SS colleagues suspected him of being a British spy." The ref 31 supporting has "Vivian Stranders, an Englishman who had served in the British Army [...] Astonishingly enough, this long-standing British member of the NSDAP and SS was also Jewish — a fact known to at least some of his colleagues" (no page numbers available) JennyOz (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• The new entry for International Inuit Day should be bolded and maybe have its inaugural year added... however, it's a stub? JennyOz (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've nuked it. If someone can expand it beyond stub level in the next 20 hours, please say so (here) and we can put it back. Schwede66 03:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

• Intersex Day of Remembrance should be bolded? JennyOz (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   Done – Schwede66 07:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1932 – The Australian military withdrew from their "war against emus" in - Emu War appeared at OTD last week, on November 2. JennyOz (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Too right. I've swapped it out. Schwede66 07:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 8, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(November 11)

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

Another stupid video game making featured article status?

• Oh lordy, how about trying to ensure that the featured article is accessible to all, and does not feature technical language and jargon not intelligible to the non-techies among us? What on earth does "Microsoft Game Studios bundled Crackdown with an access code" mean? There are no bluelinks for either "bundled" or "access code" so I have no idea. We're not all 15 year old computer nerds, you know. 86.134.116.252 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, I didn't add the original thread and comment: it was deleted by another editor as 'unecessary' wheras I think it's valid and should stay to generate discussion. 86.134.116.252 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire sentence is "Microsoft Game Studios bundled Crackdown with an access code to the multiplayer test version of the much-anticipated Halo 3 Beta." Given the context, I would think that it would be pretty clear that an "access code" is a code that lets you access something.--99.251.239.89 (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We have had the 'is this FA too adult to appear on the Main Page' (but - the people who use such things as a starting point for discussions with children rarely comment), now the 'not another game discussion': is it time for the 'too many x-related entries on the Main Page' discussion - or is it some other 'usual topic's' turn? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the "Lesbian author - please think of the children!" argument (although I absolutely disagree with it), but the "too many video games" argument is silly: we have a limited pool of featured articles. The solution for editors concerned about "too many X articles" is to work to improve articles about Y or Z. A point made more eloquently than I could by other editors above.

Anyway... I much preferred the days when the complaints were about systemic bias: too many Australian articles, not enough Australian articles!

TFOWR 21:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem with video games? :P Simon^KSK 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Most video games are as ephemeral as Lou Bega. Featured articles on video games should be kept to a maximum of one per annum. This will leave more room for the most important content of wikipedia; articles about footballers, marxist claptrap, and little towns in Poland. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you check the archives you'll see that there has been one or two video games put up as FAs every month this year, giving us a ratio of around 1/30. Now are 1/30 of all possible candidates for FA status video game articles? If so, then people are spending way too much time working on them, as no one will really give a crap about most of them in a few years. If not, then the people picking FAs are heavily tilted toward gamers. Either way, just saying you should quit complaining and help pick articles misses the point as it's clear you'll be overwhelmed with pro video game article editors, unless of course they realize that articles about video games are not really that important, compared to the large amount of other possible topics. We have over 2 million articles. If only 1% of them are FA quality, that's 20,000 possible featured articles, so that's not a small sample to pick from, and it's large enough that we certainly don't have to have a video game article every month. I'm not saying never have a game article as FA, but once or twice a month seems a bit much doesn't it?67.176.85.226 (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I count 126 of the 2,951 featured articles in the video game category. So if your 1/30 calculation is correct (one or two a month would be closer to 1/20), then video game articles are being underrepresented on the front page. Of course, you've also severely overestimated the number of featured articles. --Maxamegalon2000 04:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How are they being underrepresented? And 2951/126=23.4. Should one out of 23.4 FA be about video games? How about other games, why are they being left out? Oh ya, gamers are stacking the system, I forgot.67.176.85.226 (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for unbalance among the FA articles that are selected, but the arguments presented by the above two posters seem disingenuous. The first commenter compares video games to "Lou Bega" - he qualifies the statement as "most," but the qualification seems pointless since the video games articles that are likely to be FA are inevitably going to be the most well known video articles, so the implication of the comparison is that no video game is more well known than "Lou Bega". The second poster remarks:

“ ...video games are not really that important, compared to the large amount of other possible topics. ”

Well DUH! Can you find ANY topic on Wikipedia that's "really important, compared to the large amount of other possible topics?" Of course you can't! No one topic is significantly more important than EVERY OTHER TOPIC on Wikipedia, so who cares?

So, lets look at something that's actually relevant. Do video games have common ground amongst people that are likely to visit or use Wikipedia? The answer, supported by evidence (this is only one example of evidence, it's not hard to find more), is unequivocally "yes." Many people in the US and around the world play video games. I think it will be difficult for people to find a topic on Wikipedia that can relate to as many people as video games can.

Just to reiterate, I'm not promoting video game articles on the front page. I'm merely pointing out that while it might not have important social, historical, scientific, etc. implications, it IS a topic that many people can share a common interest in, and thus deserves no LESS time than articles that may have important social, historical, scientific etc. implications. ialsoagree (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The operative word, ialsoagree, was ephemeral. You glossed over that. My Oxford defines it as "lasting for a very short time: fashions are ephemeral. from the Greek, 'lasting only a day.'" Other than Space Invaders, Pac Man, Asteroids, Sim City, and Grand Theft Auto, how many of the video games that one can think of will be remembered as long as Lou Bega? The proper criterion is not current popularity, but staying power. A rule that a game be at least twelve years old before it an article on it is featured would make some sense, would it not?μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense if the qualities of the subject of the article were relevant to feature article status. But it's the quality of the article that matters. Neither current popularity nor staying power are proper criteria. It's called "featured articles," not "featured article subjects." --Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured articles are chosen from among a list of candidates, they don't simply show up due to their quality. It doesn't trouble me that a video game might show up on the front page, if it is actually a classic. But something more than current ephemeral popularity should be a criterion. Otherwise what is supposed to be an encyclopedia becomes top 10 radio.μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This page might make for interesting reading: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. The pool of available FAs just doesn't lend itself to an ideal amount of variety. There's nothing available in the Chemistry and Philosophy categories, and only two articles available in the Health and Medicine category. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that things will change unless the demographics of Wikipedia contributors change significantly. Zagalejo^^^ 05:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Video Games are an emerging art form. It is difficult to predict which games will have staying power, and unfair to compare modern games to their simpler ancestors.

However, Even so, the number of games released previous to 1999 that have had lasting cultural impact to this day is much more substantial than you are implying. You've missed out 'Mario' and 'Pokemon' which introduced characters that became lasting cultural icons. You've also missed "Star Craft" which is played professionally in sold out arenas in some parts of the world. And that's only a fraction of what you've missed. APL (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As APL points out, it's not a good idea to make "lasting popularity" a requirement for articles to get on the main page. You're walking into really arbitrary ground. What defines "popularity" or being a "classic?" How do we keep those requirements consistent between genres that might not have much in common? What about current events - should they NEVER be featured on the main page because they might not be considered important later? What about articles that don't really have any measurable amount of popularity? Should they also never be featured on the main page? Touchy ground that such a requirement would lead us down, to the point of some considering the main page biased against certain topics, perhaps. ialsoagree (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No topic is more important than any other topic? Disingenuous means we're not making arguments we really believe in or are arguing from an ulterior motive, so I don't think you can say we're being that. More people in America drive cars than play video games, so shouldn't we have more car articles than video game articles as FA (we haven't), or any other kind of game in general Ialsoagree. You're right about the demographics though Zagalejo, and since that's not going to change soon the only solution to the problem is to get the editors who are biased toward video games to realize they have a problem and tone back the video game articles as FA. Judging by the comments here though, we've got a long way to go.67.176.85.226 (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Amazing that not Spinoza, nor Nietzsche, nor Zeno of Citium, nor Epicurus, nor Sartre, nor Kierkegaard, nor even Immanuel Kant has a good article. Ayn Rand at least has a good article. You would think at least three of these philosophers would be more important than John Madden NFL.μηδείς (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You were recently arguing against the inclusion of an article about an author, your list of approved topics must be exceedingly narrow.

And that's one of the big problems with deciding this based on article 'importance'. Currently a sports star is up. Personally I can barely care about Baseball players and I like that sport. I don't think the cricket guy up now is very important at all. He's had no impact on my life and never will. I'm pretty certain that someone would disagree with me. What about religious figures? I'll grant that the Pope is a pretty important guy, but other than him, I tend to think of religious figures as somewhat unimportant compared to scientists, politicians, explorers, etc. I'm very certain that people would disagree with me on that. (As well they should! The problem is likely my lack of education on both sports history and religious history.)

So how would such things get resolved? When you're selecting only for variety, it's a job that one dedicated person can do. Everybody reasonably well agrees what 'variety' means given the constraints of the available pool of featured articles. However, If you're selecting for "importance" of subject matter, no one will agree. Suddenly you need a group of people, you need debates, you need votes, you need rules, you need bureaucracy. I'm not sure if that would just be a tremendous waste of time for otherwise good editors, or if it would just be a giant magnet for every wingnut with an agenda to push, but either way it would be a step down from the current system in my opinion. APL (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are what are called straw men and non-sequiturs, APL. First, I did not argue that that author should not be on the front page. I said that one could make an argument that articles which deal with sexuality per se shouldn't be made featured articles and that Zul32's argument shouldn't be shouted down. (It seems that perhaps I was giving Zul32 too much credit, in any case - And I am flattered if my arguments made a lasting impression on you.) As for video games, your objections are overblown. I didn't make an exclusive list of the only possible FA's, I provided a few examples of classics. Was my point unclear? Would it make sense for me to criticize you for the games you left out when you responded? And note well: your examples, Pokemon, Mario Brothers, and Star Craft, all fit the exact criterion I suggested; that a video game be twelve years old before it can be considered for the front page. Your example of the cricketer in the news is about a cricketer in the news, so you are just all over the place, aren't you? It is not necessary to throw the kitchen sink at every target. The argument is more subtle than simply whether we should or should not have articles about video games. The question is, are there no possible rational criteria involved in choosing which featured article goes on the front page? If there are no criteria, the we can simply do away with the FA editor, and simply queue up every featured article according to earliest date of creation. I don't hear you advocating that.μηδείς (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason APL isn't advocating that is that it would make the problem even worse. You've stated above that you believe that a reasonable period between video game articles would be something like a year. If we switched to a first-come-first-served system, video games would appear FAR more often than that, and mildly more often than they currently do. Furthermore, without even the limited control provided by Raul654 in the order of appearance, clumps of articles on similar topics would begin to show up fairly quickly, and the problem would get worse as people figured out how to game the system by holding back nominations to occur all at once (as occasionally already happens in DYK), leading to "theme weeks". I don't even want to imagine the uproar we'd see if seven consecutive articles on, say, American Football teams were put on the front page. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out, disingenuous doesn't necessarily mean "...we're not making arguments we really believe in or are arguing from an ulterior motive..." - it can also mean that the argument is not honest to all the issues of the topic, which is how I meant it. Your argument isn't honest to the different sides of the argument. It reflects on one side, that video games are a relatively unimportant topic among all the possible topics one could find on Wikipedia, and then it (your argument) draws the conclusion that "therefor video game articles should rarely if ever be on the front page." That seems like the definition of disingenuous to me. ialsoagree (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to complain that no-one has complained here about a cricket article being TFA. Wikipedia has gone to the dogs. I give up. Next thing I know, Poop deck won't be vandalised any more and "is gay" won't mean anything to anyone any more. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Certain topics fall into the category 'complained about as occurring too often whenever they appear anywhere on the Main Page' and I was being slightly tongue in cheek.

The point, as made above, is to try and develop 'articles in other categories' sufficiently for some of them to appear on the main page in whatever category and, if you dislike such things enough, develop the 'video games and sports front page.' Besides - the featured article is only up for 24 hours. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, God, there is a Cricketer for the FA. I thought the complaint above was about Muttiah Muralitharan who was just in the news. I amend my statement. The most important content of wikipedia includes articles about footballers, marxist claptrap, and little towns in Poland and dead Cricketers.μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else here a little perturbed that some are proposing, as a solution, that we STOP editors from making well-developed video game articles? How about we encourage others to take what they do as an EXAMPLE and make other articles better quality? I have written a Featured list pertaining to video games, but I have also written good articles on historical subjects, ships, and intellectual property law; am I part of the problem then? Some of these arguments are absurd; shall we improve other articles to be as good as these video game article, or merely make sure that video game articles are all as crappy as some other subjects? Would you like a well-written Wikipedia, or one that makes you fell good about your "important" subjects? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoever proposed that? No one ever said they be "stopped", I just proposed they broaden their horizons a little, or realize that whatever they find important doesn't deserve a FA or two about it every month. 67.176.85.226 (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But - and this is the really important point that doesn't seem to be being appreciated - it's absolutely not a question of the FA folk (Raul, etc) broadening their horizons. The horizons are limited by the availability of articles. The solution is to broaden the available pool - and that means improving articles, not complaining about the editors who either do improve articles or do their best to choose the FA from a limited pool. TFOWR 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I'm a little perturbed. The solution to the problem is to work to improve articles that the original complainants are interested in. Insulting editors who do work to improve articles is not the solution. Scapler, thanks for your work improving articles. You are not part of the problem. TFOWR 18:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The point I was making was that 'certain topics' (many sports, video games, passing mention of topics likely to invoke Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells remarks, two successive mentions of US-related topics) seem to generate much 'talk at a tangent' on this talk page; and as Karl Marx would say, had he been a wiki-contributor, don't complain but do something to promote your topics. And we all have pet topics that can be developed others think too obscure for mentioning on the main page (g). If the main page is too annoying at any particular moment, go via www.wikipedia.com Jackiespeel (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No argument with you, Jackiespeel: my perturbation was caused by the original poster's statement: "Another stupid video game making featured article status? You can tell a lot of teenage nerds are running wiki these days". You're quite right - some topics do generate a lot of discussion. TFOWR 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt I see. Leaving aside the issue of importance, we can easily test your claims that there are not enough FA candidates about non video game subjects. On the Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page list there are currently more non video game articles available then there are days in the next three years, so if another video game article pops up on the main page more than say once in the next six months we'll know for sure that the selecting process is stacked in favor of video game articles and that the claim that there needs to be more non video game articles worked on to improve their quality is a red herring. 67.176.85.226 (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly curious. If another article on (to pick a section with a similar number of articles) biology occurred in the next six months, would the process be stacked in favour of biology articles? And please don't claim that this question is invalid because you view biology as important while video games are not. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's valid, but biology is a far larger subject that video games isn't it, which is in a larger category itself of games. However if there was an article once or twice a month on say different types of birds (ducks and geese one month, sparrows the next ect...) then wouldn't you say we were having too many articles on birds? And notice we have far more FA about video games than other kind of games, which would be like having lots of articles about birds but none or few about fish. 67.176.85.226 (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And to take your suggestion to its conclusion, let's say that we follow the course you've laid out. Only six video game (VG) articles are featured in the next three years. The remaining ~1000 articles are taken from the remaining pool. People continue making featured-quality articles in the same VG/non-VG ratio during this time. But since all non-VG topics are draining out at a much higher rate than VG, what we're left with after a few years is a pool made up primarily of VG articles (not to mention a fairly irate crowd of people who had put work into creating high-quality VG articles in the hopes of getting them on the main page). What do you think would happen next? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion has a nice ring to it.μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pithy statement, but you've just stepped from advocating that articles on video games should not appear on the Main Page to advocating that they shouldn't appear in Wikipedia at all. So, to expand on the argument in turn, what other categories of currently featured articles don't deserve a place in Wikipedia? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm off to bed in a moment, I'll expand on why I ask the above question, in case I miss your reply. Above, you made the case that video games should not be featured for several years after their release to determine whether or not they are ephemeral. This is a defensible position, if not one I agree with. However, if video games are placed under this condition, so must *all* articles be, since we also can't know if the latest "current event" article will remain relevant twelve years hence. Again, it's defensible (just about) to suggest that should, say, 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt become featured, it not appear for several years in order to determine whether or not its effects have been lasting or ephemeral. However, when you extend your argument into declaring that due to their potentially ephemeral nature, articles on video games be deleted on sight until the twelfth anniversary of their release, the corollary is that we delete all articles on current events until twelve years after their passing. And I fail to see how the encyclopedia is improved if no-one can access information on events of current interest. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Explaining humor ruins it. Mine was a silly response to a silly conundrum, what to do once all the FA's except for those on video games run out. My position remains the same, if this is a serious problem, a reasonable solution would be to require that a game be 12 years old before its article could be featured on the front page. In case of another bout of Pac Man Fever, there would always be editorial prerogative.μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we don't have to worry about that for THREE YEARS, let's address why NOW we are having too many video game articles shall we. Just wondering, how are FA quality determined. I notice there are NO articles in the math section, but I've read plenty of good math articles on here, and it's a little hard not to find even 1 math article up to par?

There are mathematics FAs; they've just all been featured on the main page already. Ask the Math WikiProject why they haven't nominated more. Or go ahead and work on them yourself and contribute some geatured articles. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A sleep deprived GeeJo wrote:

However, when you extend your argument into declaring that due to their potentially ephemeral nature, articles on video games be deleted on sight until the twelfth anniversary of their release, the corollary is that we delete all articles on current events until twelve years after their passing. And I fail to see how the encyclopedia is improved if no-one can access information on events of current interest.

I find your assumption, GeeJo, that I am actually advocating deleting all articles on subjects under twelve years old, so bizarre that I suspect you are actually a bad computer simulation of a person, and I hereby declare you to have failed the Turing Test - you can't fool me. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This argument misses the real issue. There's fair evidence for Santa Claus, and maybe the Easter Bunny has been spotted on occasion, but does anyone really think that there's no paid editing going on to get video games promoted to featured ads? Wnt (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. Head on over to the Video Game WikiProject and you will see that the only reason is that there are a lot of passionate people. What I do see here is that you are not assuming good faith, and are making wild accusations against a group of quality editors. As an aside, in my opinion, I have always loved that we have featured articles on somewhat less mainstream or "important" subjects like video games. While Encyclopedia Britannica has very good articles on the most well-known subjects, Wikipedia is unique in that for many video game articles, it is the best source ever compiled on them. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see why the plethora of video game FAs is so surprising. It's fairly well known that Wikipedia's editors tend to be younger, male and interested in computers and popular culture (see Wikipedia:Systemic bias). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"It is fairly well known"? Nice. Weasel words and quoting a politically correct wikipedia essay as if it were actually a source for your statement. I assert, based on the same source, that the real problem is the over-representation of left-handed Scandinavian homosexuals. Not being left-handed, I should know. The coming backlash will be spectacular.μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I am left-handed, and let me tell you, we all have just a little bit of the Scandinavian man-love in us, lol. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Most people accept that the 'lucky dip mixture of front page entries' will cover the range from 'of passing interest' to 'of negative interest', and there will be occasional mentions that cause annoyance (for whatever reasons). Even if several topic main pages were set up in parallel to the language ones ('adult, very medical, certain political topics and so on', 'sports, video games and other entertainment' etc) there would still be occasional 'escapes' of such material to the ordinary main page.

What would the WP equivalent of DoTW be? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It always helps to examine the concrete evidence. Here is the actual list of the as yet unfeatured video game Featured Articles:

1080° Snowboarding · 4X · Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings · Age of Mythology · Arbiter (Halo) · Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare · Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow · Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow · Characters of Final Fantasy VIII · Chrono Cross · Conan (2007 video game) · Cortana · Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion · Devil May Cry (video game) · Devil May Cry 2 · Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening · Defense of the Ancients · The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind · Empires: Dawn of the Modern World · F-Zero GX · Final Fantasy · Final Fantasy Tactics · Final Fantasy VIII · Final Fantasy IX · Final Fantasy X-2 · Final Fantasy XI · Final Fantasy XII · Flood (Halo) · Golden Sun · Half-Life 2: Episode One · Half-Life 2: Lost Coast · Halo 2 · Halo 3 · Halo 3: ODST · Halo Wars · Ico · Kingdom Hearts (video game) · Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories · Kingdom Hearts II · The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages · The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker · Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy · The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II · Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games · Mario Power Tennis · Master Chief (Halo) · Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater · Metroid Prime · Metroid Prime 2: Echoes · Metroid Prime 3: Corruption · MissingNo. · Myst · Myst III: Exile · Myst IV: Revelation · Myst V: End of Ages · Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon · Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System) · PlayStation 3 · Populous: The Beginning · Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki · Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War · Sacrifice (video game) · Sam & Max: Freelance Police · Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) · Silent Hill 4: The Room · The Simpsons Game · The Simpsons Hit & Run · StarCraft: Ghost · Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo · Super Columbine Massacre RPG! · System Shock · Turok: Dinosaur Hunter · Uru: Ages Beyond Myst · Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss · Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne · Wipeout 3

I think that from reading these titles, it becomes quite obvious that asserting that they simply must go on the front page due to their mere numbers means we simply must have a large number of Featured Articles on items which, in thirty years, will be far less memorable than David Naughton and his hit song and TV series, Makin' It. I suggest that of the above list, Final Fantasy, and Myst are the only video game articles that call out to be on the front page.μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we all know there are a lot of games on the FA list. The point is that applying judgment based on subject matter 'worthiness' is not the easily agreed on, process you seem to think.

Deploying a huge debate and voting rules system to make the judgment (Because that's what it would take.) would be a pointless waste for something as ephemeral as the main page. APL (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

( As a point of interest, when posting the above I hit an edit/conflict while μηδείς changed his list of game articles 'worthy' of the main page. Apparently Playstation 3 no longer makes the cut. APL (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes, tricky of me, no? Mwahahahahaha!μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A small point, here, to make. Sacrifice (video game) may well be considered insignificant in a couple years (12 years after its release). If I've chosen a poor example, feel free to substitute any relatively obscure video game with a featured article about it. Regardless, as I browse through other FAs, I see names such as Rufus Wilmot Griswold popping up. Go read his article. Ever heard of him? He seems to have been notable mainly for failing to guess which poets would continue to be notable for generations to come. In other words, the average person today is likely to find him no more relevant today than they would find Sacrifice (which was a really fun game, fwiw). So... why would anyone get the impression that FAs have to be about timeless, enduring topics? To the editors who apparently do think that... stop whining and write articles about topics you think are important. Maybe you'll be more successful than Griswold at estimating notability. Maybe you won't. At least you'll get something accomplished either way... 74.232.78.113 (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The above covers my sentiments as well. It doesn't bother me so much that people would like articles other than video games on the main page, it bothers me that they think video game articles need to meet extra requirements to be on the front page that they aren't also willing to apply to any other article. Why are we singling out video game articles for extra requirements? That's just agenda pushing. ialsoagree (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would argue quite a few of the games you have dismissed like Halo II, Halo III System Shock, Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, Defense of the Ancients & Sam & Max: Freelance Police, probably even Populous: The Beginning could easily be far more notable then Makin' It or David Naughton (actor) in 30 years. And frankly the suggestion by Wnt above that there's paid editing going on, when there's a far more obvious and logical explaination is just silly. And seriously who the heck is going to pay someone to edit/promote Sam & Max, Ultimate Underworld, System Shock, Turok, DOTA, Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne etc anyway... Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wasn't paid for promoting Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST, Halo Wars, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Myst, Riven, Myst III: Exile, Myst IV: Revelation, Myst V: End of Ages, Uru: Ages Beyond Myst, Populous: The Beginning, Spyro: Year of the Dragon, Wipeout 3, Golden Sun or Defense of the Ancients or any I've missed. If Microsoft, Cyan, Blizzard or Sony want to pay me for my hard work, I'm fine with that, but my hobbies have no bearing on material gain (you mean, volunteers... volunteer?) I've done other articles that aren't games-related (natch, today's Edward Drinker Cope), so can we all decide next time this comes up here we link readers to previous discussions and boldly archive? Nothing will change by yammering here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that isn't a blatantly POV call for censorship, I don't know what is.μηδείς (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a blatantly POV call for censorship. I think it's a realistic response to address the tedium caused by dealing with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There are only so many times we can explain how to fix the "problem". Either complainants understand our responses and get involved with the FA processes, or they don't. I don't believe that we're going to find the "perfect response" that manages to explain the solution to the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT crowd: it's simplest all round if we just link to a prior attempt and move on. TFOWR 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fuchs didn't just call for placing a link to prior discussion, he advocated archiving any current one as irrelevant. That's basically the typical anti-free speach "shout down your enemies" tactic of the hysterical PC campus left. This argument that we simply can't even discuss content standards for the FA's is disingenuous. If Fuchs can point out where the notion that one might institute a minimum age limit for a subject as one possible way of addressing a perceived imbalance in cultural articles has already been beaten to death, I would like to see him link to it. What could possibly be more counter to WP policy than the idea that alternative viewpoints should not even be discussed? Does he engage in this elsewhere? I am almost tempted to archive his comments to see how he likes it.μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly be in favour of archiving any current discussion as irrelevant to Talk:Main Page. It's probably worth discussing boilerplate text to advise complainants how to get involved in the FA process, and it's possibly worth discussing a generic response to your complaint (e.g. "Wikipedia talk:Featured articles is where you want to be") but beyond that... nah. Telling people that their complaint is off-topic here isn't censorship. TFOWR 16:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow, will you give it a rest already? Have you even considered that with this many voices telling you the same thing repeatedly, that there just might be the merest whiff of a possibility that you could be wrong? Seriously, haven't you even the FAQ? Don't think you've got this amazing insight that the rest of us haven't already heard hundreds of times before. So when Fuchs says point readers to archived discussions, I'm sure he only means we're really sick of repeating the same answers over and over again. Let's be clear: Featured Articles are chosen for their writing and research, not their subject matter. IIRC User:Raul654 has only banned two FAs from appearing on the Main Page: Wikipedia (which is no longer featured anyway) and Jenna Jameson. That's it. Everything else is fair game. If you have any issues with that, you take it up with Raul654, as he's the only person who schedules Main Page appearances. The rest of this discussion is just "sound and fury, signifying nothing". howcheng {chat} 16:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How about using {{subst:User:Aylad/FA-message}} for brevity's (and Fuchs's) sake? (Appears below...)

Thank you for your input. Articles on Wikipedia achieve Featured Article status based on their quality, not their subject matter. Any article which achieves a high level of quality may be a Featured Article.

If you feel that there are "too many" Featured Articles about a specific subject, the solution is to help editors who are working to improve articles about other subjects. For example, if you believe that too many Featured Articles involve video games, consider helping improve articles related to history, biology, or the Olympiatoppen in order to have a greater variety of Featured Article topics.

Please remember that all editing done on Wikipedia is on a volunteer-only basis. No editors are reimbursed for time spent improving articles related to commercial products or any other subject matter. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 16:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"The notion that one might institute a minimum age limit for a subject" is predicated entirely on the belief that a subject matter's importance is a criterion. As as been explained repeatedly (and you evidently refuse to accept), this is not the case.

You're welcome to propose that a subject matter's importance become a criterion, but that would be a fundamental change far beyond the scope of this discussion page. You essentially are urging the community to pretend that such considerations exist and impose an arbitrary application invented specifically to weed out articles whose subject area you've unilaterally deemed inferior. —David Levy 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly... all this just because someone didn't think video games are important? Who is anyone to say video games aren't as important, if not more so, than films, or people, or novels? Why are video games so looked down upon compared to, say, every other topic on Wikipedia? I don't think it is our place to decide what is important enough to deserve inclusion/exclusion from the Main Page. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then why, exactly, do we have an FA editor? If every article that reaches FA status deserves to be on the front page - they are two different things, so far as I understand - then why do we need an editor? If there are no standards, what is his purpose? (And why, exactly, should Jenna Jameson not be on the front page?) Is he some sort of magical grand poobah, a pontifex maximus, the Queen opening parliament, or something? I have nowhere said that articles on video games can't be well written enough to make featured article status. I have not said that video games cannot be important enough to merit front page placement. It remains a fact that if too many articles on ephemeral video games making the front page lowers the property value, then there is a way to deal with it. Regardless of how many people shriek at the prospect, or how many people do not understand that an if then statement is not a categorical imperative.μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what people primarily object to is the antecedent in your if then. Having featured articles featured on the main page doesn't "lower the property value" of the... whatever you think it lowers the property value of. It's intended for featured articles to be listed there, what the featured article about isn't limited (except, as noted above). Thus, your singling out video games seems inappropriate, at least to me. ialsoagree (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the first indication you've given that you only meant it theoretically. There was never any sense of "if"; from your very first post on this topic, your attitude was "articles on video games less than 12 years old don't deserve to be on the Main Page". Now you've changed your tune to imply, "We seem to be getting a lot of complaints about this, so maybe we can reduce the number of complaints by eliminating the ephemeral ones". As to why Raul654 is the "grand poobah" it's because he was so ratified to be and he's done a good enough job at it that there's no need for someone else to do it. howcheng {chat} 05:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are too many vide game articles on the front page. They are basically culturekruft. I see three games worth mentioning and one game machine in the list above. Even keeping it down to one a month would be an improvement.

Given the IP user's objections, I suggested the criterion of having a video game be 12 years old (a semi-arbitrary number) before it can be considered for the front page as a solution for what some see as a problem. No one said it should be 10 years, or any other suggestion. They screamed that there are no criteria or that we were advocating that people not even be allowed to write such articles.

I fail to see how the fact that someone was elected for what appears to be a unnecessary position in any way validates the existence of the position.

Those who keep arguing that there should be no criteria for which FA gets on the front page other than its being an FA should be calling for getting rid of the position and going on a queue.μηδείς (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No one other than you has deemed Raul's position unnecessary. He's responsible for scheduling the featured articles in a manner that provides as much variety as possible (given the limited pool), incorporates requests (e.g. slotting appearances to coincide with relevant dates) whenever feasible and avoids problematic timing (e.g. an article about a Neo-Nazi on International Holocaust Remembrance Day).

And you continue to assume that the inclusion of subjects that you regard as "ephemeral" is problematic. Isolated complaints (which we receive regarding practically everything) notwithstanding, there is no such consensus. —David Levy 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, why stop at video games? How about similar restrictions on related articles on the following:

• Human culture: That includes video games.
• Cricket. Seriously a match ends after 3 days how stupid can that get.
• Association football. A match that ends in 0-0 is utterly stupid.
• American football: They hug 90% of the time. What the hell.
• Baseball. They throw up 90% of the time. That's gross.
• Pop music. Justin Bieber, U2, you name it.
• The French. Everyone hates them. Including French Canadians.
• Animals. They are lower life forms.
• Plants. See above.
• Biographies of living people. To prevent BLP violations.
• Religion. To appease the atheists.
• Atheism: To appease the religious
• And other stupid articles as they are nominated at WP:FAC.

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so , David Levy, we see that there are criteria - just unwritten ones - and ones that don't apply to video games - and ones that a committee of the whole couldn't handle just as well? I am curious if we care about the sensitivities of Neo-Nazis or faithful Muslims as much as we do Jews? Or does that depend on the FA editor?

Either there are criteria or there aren't. Either they are published or they aren't. Do you prefer unwritten rules?

As for the Duck, when we get more than one article a month about "The French," send me a message. In the meanwhile, I refer you to non sequitur. μηδείς (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

1. The above discussion pertains primarily to the considerations (and lack thereof) behind the determination that a featured article qualifies to be spotlighted on the main page. It was plainly stated that Raul schedules them with variety in mind.

2. Unwritten? Have you viewed Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests?

3. Who said anything about an exemption for video games? As noted repeatedly, we simply have more featured articles in that subject area than we do in many others.

4. Indeed, a "committee of the whole" could not efficiently replace the position of featured article director. For this task, we require prompt, clear-cut decisions, not endless debate and argumentation.

5. I cited a random example. I've never known Raul to discriminate against people of any creed, race or nationality. —David Levy 08:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Medeis, I think I see what you're getting at. Video games, which could never possibly have a noticeable impact on society, should be marginalized. They certainly should only appear on the Main Page when there is absolutely no other article to display. But, for the sake of cooperating with this strange people who insist that singling out video games is unfair, let's check upcoming FA requests and apply the same criteria to those articles.

Aha, I see that on August 6, William Hillcourt may appear on the main page. That's no good; everyone knows that he was concerned primarily with the U.S. -- and we have too much pro-U.S. bias already. Discard it. Aug 9 is good, being a culturally significant emblem that doesn't have much to do with America. Aug 15 must go -- it's another evil video game. Discard. Aug 21's Nafaanra Language and Sep 1's Fountain of Time need to be eliminated, since they have a direct impact on even fewer people than video games. Discard, discard. The Rheinmetall 120 mm gun clearly is unworthy to appear, since it is obviously a commercial interest. How much did those editors get paid by Rheinmetall-DeTec AG to promote their product, anyway? Shameful. Discard that one, too. What a waste of editors' time to write all this bunk that no one is interested in. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I know sarcasm doesn't translate well into text, but surely...

What #should# be allowed on the main page? So long as it as a whole manages to occasionally annoy everybody 'equally and impartially' it must be doing something right.

This section is now 53kb long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an article, on Wikipedia, that will stay up for one day. Is it really that big of a deal? Just read the freaking article and move on or don't read the article and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.115.190 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said above - most people accept the 'main page lucky dip' for what it is, ranging from things they didn't know they wished to know about via 'so what' to 'why is anybody interested in #that#?' There are going to be occasional 'runs' on particular topics 'and no more bias than three sixes in a row when throwing dice.' Jackiespeel (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias towards cricket in Did you know and Featured articles

I mean it's all jolly fun and all, but there is a whole lot more to the sporting world than cricket and cricket players, I don't have specifics but I seem to see cricket related articles every other day on the main page. Just a thought on editorial bias perhaps? Choronzon (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a bias inherent in Wikipedia. Editors work to improve articles that they're interested in. Because of this certain topics get more attention than others. Maybe cricket is one of them (blowed if I know why - damn silly game. This is a proper game). The solution for readers concerned about this is to work on articles they find interesting.

Incidentally, there's a thread about this issue two up from this one. Though that's mostly about how often the subject of "OMG! bias!" crops up here. TFOWR 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Choronzon. I'm delighted Wikipedia hasn't really gone to the dogs. (See my comments above). --Dweller (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly not a fan of cricket, my sport tends to be American football, but I find it interesting to learn the important news of a sport mainly not talked about in my part of the globe. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Choronzon's gone paranoid. There's hardly any cricket compared to N american sports YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Main Page never runs out of things to feature about British sports such as (association) football, rugby union and league, cricket, tennis and golf. XD –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the main page has a very strong bias towards things British. I've never seen any main page entry that isn't written in some variant of this language that originated there Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just look at today's (August 1) OTD. All of the items point back to the British. Wee. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a wee bit excessive, but all? I'm not convinced we can blame the British for MTV and the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising... ;-) TFOWR 11:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The band who were in the first MTV music video were British. And the British participated in WWII. LOL. Basically today's OTD is full of white guys. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Howard, I presume you were being impressively sarcastic when you listed those "British" sports. Hats off to you. Meanwhile, I'm with YellowMonkey - given the massive output of cricket FAs, precious few get to Main Page. Oh, and YellowMonkey is personally responsible for a massive proportion of those FAs. --Dweller (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends. I gotta ask these three guys if they're playing a North American sport (well at least I dunno of a non-North American player of American football, except this guy)... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I'm British, see about 40 minutes of American football a year and struggle to name any current players, but I remember Morten Andersen. By the way, surely ice hockey is a British sport too? --Dweller (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. Lord Stanley is British, and Canada is a Commonwealth realm. That means, basketball is a British sport too since James Naismith invented it. That leaves baseball, which is obviously a cricket rip-off, and American baseball, which is ripped off from rugby, so we've rounded out all four "major" North American sports. Yay. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I protest about the bias against Kabbadi articles in Did you know and Featured articles. --Dweller (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey at least we'd have a yearly dose of the much awaited hurling final. That's not British! They'd kill you if you call them "British." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No wonder that boat sank...

It must be 200 years old. ;) Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha! That's the best laugh I've had at the Main Page for ages! Sheer coincidence that we's have 2 nautical items within hours of each other, but we don't have a picture of the new boat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec):The picture is for the second ITN hook, not the first. Yeah, thanks for the smile :-) Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

While we're all in a humorous mood - today's featured picture is peachy. I'll get me coat... TFOWR 12:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add link on main page permanently

As per certain links like "deaths" etc, I think a link to the current elections year (ie- Elections in 2010 should be placed for easy access on the main page. the Most important ot ITN stuff with elections results is on there and there are always elections some place or the other so it warrants a place there. Then of course the "minor" elections wont even need to qualify for ITN. What do people think?(Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

iirc, the only reason the Recent Deaths link is there is because there has been so much discussions on the strict criteria of WP:ITN#Deaths. And the only reason occasional links to such sports pages as Chronological summary of the 2010 Winter Olympics and 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule were posted was because of complaints a few years ago of ITN starting to turn into a daily sports news ticker. But I'm not in favor of having special links for every category listed on Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items. Isn't that what the right sidebars of Portal:Current events is for? Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

This may be the wrong venue and it likely has been brought up before but has anyone ever thought about adding in a "Today's Featured List" to go along-side the TFA? There may be a few issues with this idea such as the lack of lists (We'll likely run our of lists to put up in 1-2 years) and the quality of lists vs. articles but nonetheless, I think that we should consider a proposal like this. FL should be just as important as their counterparts and they should be allowed to be on the main page besides DYK and the rare ITN.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is how to best display the list on the Main Page. Just the lead? Include the first few entries? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a quasi-WP:PEREN proposal, see User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does it show up in WP:PEREN? I had a feeling that this came up before but I was only suggesting it again. It sounds like a good idea but like I said and you guys pointed out, there are a lot of issues that would come up.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 21:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't on WP:PEREN, hence the "quasi-". The suggestion has been made many times before; see the talk page archives of this page, as well as the archives of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this is a lost cause then right?--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes - nothing can really change on Wikipedia. Aiken ♫ 22:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true but I don't really think that a TFL would be in the works anytime soon if ever....--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I made the link on WP:LOTD to the archived previous proposals more noticeable. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, rather than just adding in a new section, why not make FLs eligible to go up as TFA? You can replace the caption with just "Today's Featured List" instead of "Today's Featured Article" whenever one makes it's way to the main page.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's been discussed too, but feel free to suggest it at WT:TFAR. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling that it would. I don't really want to suggest it over at WT:TFAR; it will likely get shot down. I'll just wait until someone else brings this issue up again to voice my support for a FL to make it to the main page.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 00:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 9#Feature lists on the main page, brought up almost exactly a year ago. Reception to the idea was relatively good, but like many proposals on Wikipedia this one just fizzled out. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not bring it back then? I'd support it.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 01:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was consensus for it then and I doubt there is now. With the greatest respect to FL, a FA is crafted to a higher standard and undergoes much more scrutiny. We will never run out of FA's to feature, we are promoting faster than we are running. I guess the question would be, why is this something we should do?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that FAs tend to be more diverse and more interesting to readers than FLs (with a few exceptions). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there video games lists too? XD –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cluster munitions ban

Resolved

 – Per DC (talk): WP:ERRORS is the place to go. TFOWR 01:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the news entry on this item should be amended to say "...banning the use, production and transfer of cluster bombs in the ratifying nations", or something to that effect. Perhaps this pushes into "duh" territory, wherein I'll be told that people clicking on the link need only read a few lines of text to discover that most major cluster-bomb producing/storing/using nations do not, and most likely, will not ever, fall under the ban. But, still. 76.28.169.130 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS ~DC _{Let's Vent} 01:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have copied this request to WP:ERRORS. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa floods

The number of deaths is stated as 1100 by several sources. I recently changed the article to reflect this and added a source, and several other sources on the article support this. Should we change it from "hundreds" to "over a thousand"? -- bydand•talk 09:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS for small tweaks like this on the main page. --174.89.158.62 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)