Talk:Main Page

Main Page error report

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 16:51 on 8 August 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

Capital Bicycle Club

• ... that residents reported the first cycling club in Washington, D.C. (uniform pictured), to the police over concerns that bicycles posed a danger to pedestrians?

The article does not say or claim that this was "the first cycling club in Washington", just that it was "early".

Also, the source doesn't seem to mention pedestrians specifically – just of the "dangerous potential for accidents". Perhaps a concern was the risk of collisions with horses and/or people and property in general?

Note that the hook wasn't checked in the nomination even though it included a first. It was just waved through as AGF.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I added the "first" claim to the article, citing the same source. Pinging Generalissima and BeanieFan11 to consider the other issues. Beanie, we strongly suggest additional scrutiny for "first" hooks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to take some of the blame here, since I promoted the queue. It's especially embarrassing since ranting about "first" hooks is one of the top ways I make myself annoying at WT:DYK. The unfortunate truth is that when I'm processing queues, I don't have time to read every article in full. I generally just read the hook and then search for keywords in the text to verify the facts. Looking back at the article, I suspect I found "the first such club in the country" and didn't notice this was immediately preceded by "Boston Bicycle Club".

I know this has been said before, but Andrew, you have a keen eye for detail and critical reading. These are valuable skills and in great demand at DYK, so thank you for the much-needed quality control. But it would be even more useful if it was done on the #Next DYK and #Next-but-one DYK sections, so we could catch these problems before they hit the main page. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Different point: the comma after the "(uniform pictured)" should instead come before. So, " ... Washington, D.C., (uniform pictured) to the police". JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Emmanuella Atora

• ... that Olympic taekwondo practitioner Emmanuella Atora described her career as "I hit people for a living"?

According to the source, what she actually said was "Je tape les gens pour vivre". This was not translated by the source and it's not clear what she meant by it as Taekwondo is not usually a professional sport while she appears to have a career as an aspiring professional model. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Also, the line was a meme already, having been used by MMA fighter Francis Ngannou a year earlier [1]. Black Kite (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well spotted. Francis Ngannou is a successful professional fighter and so the boast works better for him. There's merchandise too... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Albert Stanley is also today's FA. Should he be replaced? Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed I've swapped him for someone else. Schwede66 05:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 9, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(August 12)

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

Verbed the Noun

Per: Nashville Sounds, "to helm" is no synonym for "to manage." Managers have LED the club, or people have MANAGED the club, but Managers have not "helmed" the club. Somebody has errored their grammar and it should be fixed. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a grammatical error ... see how we define it at Wiktionary: "(by extension) To lead (a project, etc.).". I would change it not because of that but because of usage: while it's popular in the sports pages, it's too colloquial for an encyclopedia. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Daniel, it's not technically incorrect, but it could definitely be improved. I've made this edit to the blurb. For future reference, it is better to report these things at WP:ERRORS. Jenks24 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're Gonna Get Your Fucking Head Kicked In

No one complained yet?! Lugnuts (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Patience.. that DYK queue has only been up for about 15 minutes :) - filelakeshoe 08:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Twelve when that was posted. Oi! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Think of the children! 92.80.11.110 (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Forget the children, what about my head? The main page is threatening me with physical violence! 74.74.117.22 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, if we know something like this is going to be controversial, it should just be left out!!!! Have some sense people!!! Also, who is responsible for this?Cosprings (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But is it at all controversial? Noone has complained about it (at 14:18 GMT), all of these comments are jocular. FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just too absurd to complain about. It doesn't quite have the pounding subtlety of Gropecunt Lane. Or maybe it lacks sexual references? I've noticed that the vast majority of complainants are Americans, and the media is more likely to condone violence as opposed to sexuality.--WaltCip (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If head was replaced with the c word then we'd be flooded with complaints... Its a playground taunt really. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to complain that I had not had recourse to a Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells reference lately. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with all of you? Children read this website, children should not be exposed to such base vulgarity. Cosprings (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What "base vulgarity"? Are you seriously suggesting that it's OK for children to be exposed to horrific massacres, cannibalism, ethnic cleansing, horror movies ... but not to a rather insignificant intensifier? Malleus Fatuorum 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you really read what I wrote and this is how you respond? Where is my comments did I say anything even resembling what you have suggested? Seriously baffling. I give up on trying to communicate logically and comprehensively with anyone anymore. Not if people are like this.Cosprings (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Vulgarity is subjective. It is the responsibility of children's parents and other guardians to raise them properly, not Wikipedia's editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a creche for all the world's children. (e • nn • en!) 13:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

However, it is the responsibility of a parent to assume whether or not Wikipedia has bad words in it, like f***ing, and most parents would most certainly assume not. Wikipedians can be blocked from editing if they put bad words on Wikipedia; if you don't know what I am talking about, read Wikipedia:Child protection. --J.R.B. 11:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Child protection is most certainly not about censoring swearing. A parent's responsibility is to impose their own level of censorship, and if they feel a few swear words here and there is something they don't want their child to see, then it's up to them to stop their child visiting the website. We routinely feature death, genocide, violence and war on the front page without an eyebrow being raised; Rwanda will soon be main page featured and if I were a parent I'd be more concerned about children clicking through from there to Rwandan Genocide than about a few fucks and cunts. GRAPPLE X 13:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you really think about what I wrote? If you want to produce a children's encyclopedia then feel free, but somewhere else. Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)0

He isn't thinking about what you are writing now, if he already gave up. Art LaPella (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Was he ever thinking? Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Another f-bomb is scheduled in a few hours, at midnight in the Wikipedia time zone. Art LaPella (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a hook for a wonderfully gory giallo exploitation film in that queue; let's see which invokes more ire. GRAPPLE X 21:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Error in In The News

"Prime Ministership" is not a proper word, the correct term is "Premiership". Please correct. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS above. --69.158.118.187 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is commonly used as a word -- not sure whether it technically is one (although it is shown here) -- but I've changed it regardless. -- tariqabjotu 12:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a dreadful pun involving Premiership League here somewhere. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the OP aware that at least one country (the one I live in, Australia) has both a Prime Minister and several Premiers? Makes that opening statement seem rather silly. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, I didn't see the "errors" section, or else I would have posted that there. And in response to HiLo48, all you have to do is visit my user page to see that I'm Canadian, we have a federal Prime Minister and provincial Premiers as well, that doesn't change the fact that the proper term is Premiership and that "Prime Ministership" is not correct in the English language. Tariqabjotu, thank you for correcting. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's in the dictionary. Wiktionary,Merriam-Webster.

It's in newspapers. The Guardian, (Although the distribution of the google hits suggests that it's primarily an Australian and Indian usage. So this may be an eng-var issue. The BBC, for example, seems to almost never use this phrase.)

However I think it's pretty clear that it's wrong to say that it's not correct English.

APL (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because a newspaper or website uses it does not make it right. For example, a study a few years back found that about 30% of Canadian government papers wrongfully used American spellings and terms. That didn't make it right. "Prime Ministership" is a neologism at best, and just poor grammar at worst. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

EB uses it too: [2] Rmhermen (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

EB uses it in several articles actually, including in the titles of some. The validity of the term seems well established, it's in encyclopedias, news media, multiple dictionaries (Collins, Oxford, etc), political journals like this one by this professor of government, the National Archives of Australia, published books and so on. It would appear you're mistaken on this occasion, Fry. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Experts in the field would appear to contradict your viewpoint. Unless you're suggesting that you're better qualified to comment on the validity of political terminology than a Rhodes Scholar and professor of government who has taught at Essex, Princeton and the University of Wisconsin. Personally, I'll side with the expert. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case, since it's decently widely accepted, I've changed it back. "Prime ministership" is clearer about the position in question here. -- tariqabjotu 03:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Widely accepted does not make something right, and "clearer" is rather laughable as far as I'm concerned, it was linked to the article about the office, and even if a few people get confused, they're here to learn, not to have grammatical neologisms used to keep them in the dark. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As HiLo mentioned, premiership can refer to the (separate) position of premier. If it referred solely to the position of prime minister, it wouldn't be a problem. But we are requesting that, to fully understand the story, people either (a) know who Yousaf Raza Gillani is, (b) be familiar with the Pakistani political system, (c) click on the link, or (d) presume it's referring to a prime minister position. That's too much, especially when another acceptable formulation conveys the meaning more directly. -- tariqabjotu 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Some sources mioght support the use of the "word" prime ministership; that does not mean it has consensus. Time for compromise: "The Supreme Court of Pakistan retroactively discharges Yousaf Raza Gillani (pictured) from the post of prime minister due to his contempt of court conviction." Kevin McE (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the blurb as it stands currently. If it absolutely had to change, I think 'office' would be a better term than 'post'. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually have a problem with "prime ministership"? Otherwise, right now it's just Fry's complaint and there's really no need to change it given it's been demonstrated that "prime ministership" is an acceptable phrase in English. -- tariqabjotu 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Prime ministership" does sound off since it's seldom used. I'd like to use Kevin's blurb although I wonder if "discharge" is the right word. Why not "disqualify"? –HTD 07:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fry, 'prime ministership' is not a neologism: the OED quotes it as being in use from 1846 [3]. While I don't like the word either, it is not incorrect by any logical fallacy. 109.149.78.250 (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. My Google search earlier came up with an Australian newspaper article using the term in 1941 in the National Archives, and a transcript of a House of Commons debate from the UK in 1979 where they used the term there too. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The word might have some citations, and they may date back some time, but it is certain not in widespread common use: the phrase premiership is far more frequently used, and used far more frequently in high level publications, so the preference for the unfamiliar and rarely used term, even if its meaning is easily guessed, seems counterintuitive and not in keeping with general practice. There is more to getting appropriate phrasing than not being incorrect. In terms of googlehits "Cameron's premiership" outranks "Cameron's prime ministership" by more than 13 to 1. Are those arguing for prime ministership suggesting that articles such as Premiership of Margaret Thatcher should be moved to Prime ministership of Margaret Thatcher? If they do not believe that this would be an improvement, why are they defending the word in this context? I see several internet headlines that refer to Gilani's premiership on Google news, not a single one referring to his prime ministership. Gillani's article uses premiership twice, and prime ministership not at all. Prime ministership is (in part) underlined in red by my spell checker, premiership is not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we move the articles. Simply there's no reason to change the main page after the fact when it's not actually incorrect or likely to be misunderstood, particularly when there are legitimate reasons why the PM term may be preferred (whether or not there are also reaons Pship may be preferred). Even more so since there is a suggestion of WP:Engvar here (above it was mentioned in India, perhaps the same applies to Pakistan). Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Simply there's no reason to change the main page after the fact when it's not actually incorrect or likely to be misunderstood": ironic, if you look at the edit history of the template and how the word was introduced. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay I admit I didn't look at the history and wasn't aware of [4] so apologise for that. But although I don't know if I'd agree the change, I still don't see any reason to change it back. Generally speaking, because of the desire to avoid wheel warring, we don't really practice WP:BRD on the main page. If a change is made even if arguably it shouldn't have, provided it isn't wrong, it's generally left be even if some feel the original wording is better. Consensus to change may result in a change as well, but it's been clear for a long while there's no consensus here. As I've said, I've seen no evidence the change can be regarded as wrong. If anything, I see many additional Google News results suggesting the phrase is common in Pakistan even in other cases like candicy for Prime Minister. In fact, while as I said, I don't know if the change was necessary, I'm reluctant to fault TA for it. From the description below, it sounds like it was a resonable decision at the time. Anyone trying to fix errors in the main page has a bit of a hell of a role to play. If they take too long to fix errors people yell at them for taking to long. If they make a change which seemed resonable at the time, people yell at them if they don't agree with the change. Edit: I should also make clear that TA's actions don't fall in to what I said anyway even if I still don't know that it was necessary. Note the key phrasing likely to be misunderstood. Whether or not this was correct, there was apparent concern premiership may be misunderstood which was the reason for the original change. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Incidentally, a simple Google News search found [5] (already linked above), [6] and [7] so your claim doesn't apply to searches for me. Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

From a U.S. point of view, where we seldom read about prime ministers or premiers, I would take it for granted that "premiership" means being a premier. And my main experience with the word "premier" was from a Canadian making a speech about how Americans ignore them, after I confused their premiers with their prime minister. Art LaPella (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Kevin McE - I don't understand your absolute position on this. As I've already said, it's a common enough expression in my country, for obvious reasons. Its meaning is also 100% obvious. So to me, it IS familiar. It's VERY intuitive, rather than counter-intuitive as you claim, for anyone looking for logic in language. Yes, I know you can argue that English isn't logical, but that won't allow you to say it's intuitive! I wouldn't be confused by Prime ministership of Margaret Thatcher. And nor would you, really. You just wouldn't like it. And that's not a reason for any decision in Wikipedia. Now, I'm not taking an absolute position on this. You can believe what you like. I'm just pointing out that your argument is hollow and illogical. HiLo48 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine. If people really believe that the choice of words of one admin, changing the initially posted blurb without any discussion, deserves some sort of precedence over the vast bulk of common use of the phrases in question, let it be. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's NOT what I fucking said!!!!! Misrepresenting what others say will never, ever help you win an argument!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Whereas swearing proves the reasonableness and impeccable logic of your viewpoint beyond question. Congratulations, I must concede to you (and look at the indentation: it wasn't a direct reply to your comments) Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you just ignored me pointing out how poor your logic was. Thank you very much for that. And you think I showed poor manners? Great! HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh please. I changed the blurb because it was wrong. As the associated article (and the Supreme Court decision) says, he was no longer PM of Pakistan as of April 26 and all orders made since then are null and void. Whether that ought to be reflected in the infobox of the article is still a matter of debate, but that retroactivity is a critical part of the story. The original blurb implied he was no longer PM as of sometime this week, period.

I've reworded the blurb and, in the interest of not making this blurb even longer than it already is, I removed the mention of the Supreme Court. Probably an unsuitable change for you as this is just the choice of one admin. -- tariqabjotu 21:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in to say that Kevin's compromise wording seemed pretty reasonable to me. I would be mildly misled by premiership, given that the US has neither premiers nor prime ministers, but clearly the precedent exists for it to be so. The compromise wording makes it unmistakable and avoids the argument entirely. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 21:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that Tariq has made a change. Obviously an admin making a change needs to choose a wording, but if that wording is controversial, the mere fact of it having been chosen by an admin does not give that word selection an assumption of suitability that requires extraordinary argument to override it. I believe that Tariq is a reasonable enough person to not expect such an elevated status to be given to his preferred phrasing, and consider his closing comment above to be out of character for him. Kevin McE (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't 'merely' chosen by an admin, it was also supported by myself and HiLo, and backed with evidence. In fact, if Tariq's original choice of wording was taken as implicit support by him for that wording, there's more support for his original wording than any of the alternatives at the moment. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 22:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong with my comment? Perhaps you meant otherwise, but I see an emphasis on the fact that my wording and change of the blurb was undiscussed. People make changes to ITN (and other sections on the Main Page) all the time without any prior discussion or a request on WP:ERRORS, and most of the time there's no furor over that. The fact that you have/had a problem with prime ministership should not make the decision to change a wording on the Main Page any more or less acceptable -- as this is commonplace and, in some ways, necessary. Likewise, should anyone have an issue with the mention of the Supreme Court being omitted, I'd expect the argument to not hinge on the fact that its omission was "undiscussed" or the "word choice of one admin". -- tariqabjotu 22:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That is misrepresenting me. I did not object to the fact that you chose a phrasing without it being previously discussed: I objected to the assumption (not made by you) that once a phrasing had been posted, that even in the face of evidence that the word is not in common use in at least some ENGVAR regions, and that alternatives are far more widely used, and that wikipedia articles bound by wp:commonname do not use the phrase chosen, and when compromises have been proposed and gained support, that that some presumption of greater suitability of the posted version exists. Do you believe that there should be such a presumption? Having seen your willingness to edit your own posts in the past, I assumed you did not, and in the light of that, your final sentence seemed out of character. I apologise if this is not out of character, in which case I have evidently overestimated your reasonableness in the past. Kevin McE (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you actually name someone who either 1) Opposed the compromise? 2) Thought the prime ministership version was better then the proposed version? I haven't actually seen any of that in this discussion which was primarily about whether prime ministership was wrong, or should be replaced with premiership for which my reading of this discussion, there remains no consensus. There are also people including me saying it's not nearly a big a deal as you are making it out to be, without necessarily objecting to using the compromise if some people feel it is that important (but who do object for a variety of reasons to changing it back to premiership even if that was the original contributors wording). I can't speak for TA, but my impression is he was saying he wasn't willing to edit the main page based on Fry1989's single questionable objection which is resonable and keeping with the way we usually handle the main page. The fact that the single objection came from someone who provided no sources and kept insisting prime ministership was wrong in face of evidence to the contrary surely didn't help convince TA there was any merit to needing to change to any compromise version. Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't direct enough in my previous statement. Simply put, I don't know how Probably an unsuitable change for you as this is just the choice of one admin. is discordant with the belief that content on the Main Page is subject to change. -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if a consensus has been reached, but I thought that I might make a comment about this controversy. According to Merriam-Webster Unabridged online dictionary (subscription required, Merriam-Webster Unabridged), "prime ministership" is a variant of "prime ministry," which is defined as "the office of prime minister" or "the term of office of a prime minister." "Premiership" is defined as "the position or office of a premier." To be clear, "premiership" should NOT be used because it conveys that the person held the office of premier, not a that of prime minister. Either "prime ministership" or "prime ministry" is correct, but it seems that, according to Merriam-Webster, "prime ministry" is the more common variant. (See this for the Merriam-Webster which does not require a subscription.) *Also, I believe that users and editors should not be rude or belligerent on this talk page. The goal of the discussions here is not to air out personal disputes, but to reach a consensus on what edits should be made on the article page. Thanks. Dar5995 (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No personal disputes here mate. It just seems that some facts I stated didn't fit a myth in some other people's heads. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, belligerence and swearing have no place on Wikipedia talk pages (not saying you did any of that, but others on this talk page have been going at it). Dar5995 (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Funnily enough, despite the original complainant being Canadian Premiership of Stephen Harper has yoyoed between that title and Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper with any WP:RM ever followed. There was some discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premiership of Stephen Harper where it was claimed the term Premiership is not used in Canada. Meanwhile, Prime minister uses prime ministership once and premiership never. Prime Minister of Australia used prime ministership twice and premiership one time. Howard Government has yoyoed between that title, Premiership of John Howard and Prime ministership of John Howard. Prime Ministership of Gordon Brown was created when someone moved Premiership of Gordon Brown to that title without discussion (which was quickly reverted). Ditto for Prime Ministership of Tony Blair, Prime Ministership of David Cameron and Prime Ministership of Benjamin Disraeli and probably more (same person did the moves). Funnily enough, we have a 2001 special election to the prime ministership created as a result of a poor naming for an article. Both L.N. Sinha and Andrew Fisher used prime ministership but not premiership. (The later uses it extensively including as a section title.) Some more articles which use prime ministership at least once (haven't checked if they use premiership) Janardhana Poojary, Elahi Bux Soomro, Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Manmohan Singh, Ben Chifley, Benjamin Netanyahu, Kim Campbell, John Howard, Sam Hinds, Souvanna Phouma, Gordon Brown, Joop den Uyl, John Turner, List of Prime Ministers of Australia, Liberal-Conservative Party, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Australian federal election, 1966, 2012 Papua New Guinea Defence Force mutiny, Australian Labor Party leadership spill, 2010, Salman Khurshid, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, David Lange, Deputy prime minister, Fijian Association Party. I could go on and on but I think these are sufficient to make the point. All these hints of some sort of wikiwide consensus doesn't seem to fit with the facts on the ground. Unsurprisingly since when we have two options neither of which is incorrect, we accept both options since we never require wikipedia wide consistency and engvar in particular encourages use to follow local usage if there are multiple options when it doesn't cause undue confusion. And so far, I haven't seen any say they actually didn't understand the term prime ministership other then believing it was an odd or wrong term (which isn't the same thing), as people have said premiership is far more likely to cause confusion. Which doesn't mean we have to use prime ministership, but does mean there's no reason to avoid the term prime ministership, like say Lakh, just because it may be rare in some places whereas the term premiership seems to be common and also I think accepted even in places where the term prime ministership is common. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Prime ministry" is also an acceptable term as a variant of "prime ministership" (see Merriam-Webster). Since premiership is seemingly ambiguous (since it can refer to the office of premier), it should be avoided in this context, because here it is a prime minister, NOT a premier. Dar5995 (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I dislike Google hit counts since they can be incredible misleading particularly if not subject to careful analysis. But since one was used above.... Supposedly "harper's premiership" has 766 results whereas "harper's prime ministership" has 7,630. In reality if I actually look at the results, I find pmship has 65 whereas premiership has 135. Meanwhile "clark's premiership" has 1,420 supposed and 138 actual results while "clark's prime ministership" has 254 supposed and 53 actual results. "rudd's premiership" has 172 supposed and 68 actual results. "rudd's prime ministership" has 196,000 supposed or 301 actual results. "gandhi's premiership" has 2610 supposed or 326 actual results while "gandhi's prime ministership" has 43,400 supposed or 235 actual results. "gillani's prime ministership" (following above) unsurprisingly finds nothing while "Gilani's prime ministership" has 5450 supposed or 85 actual results while "Gilani's premiership" has 18500 supposed or 201 actual results. "Sharif's prime ministership" has 48 supposed or 15 actual results while "Sharif's premiership" has 857 supposed or 158 actual results. "mahathir's prime ministership" has 190 supposed or 41 actual results while "mahathir's premiership" has 6,490 supposed or 380 actual results. So if these results actually mean something (I'm not convinced they do) it seems while there is a preference to premiership in some countries, the UK is one of the few where the preference is significant. I definitely don't see any reason we need to avoid prime minister like the plague as some here seem to be suggesting. (The fact that prime ministership is not common in the UK is not a good reason in itself any more then we avoid certain terms and spellings just because they uncommon in the US.) Even Google Ngram only shows a 2.5 to about 5.5 times difference in recent times [8] which doesn't seem that large considering we can premiership refers to a lot of things besides someone's prime ministership. Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

On this day - June 22

The German invasion of the Soviet Union is not mentioned? Are you kidding? The Chesapeake–Leopard Affair is more important than the start of the biggest war in the history of the world? --93.188.37.239 (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dunno why. Doesn't seem to have been on in 2010 or 2011 either (based on talk page) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Operation Barbarossa#Reasons for initial Soviet defeats is tagged as needing more references, thus making the article ineligible to appear on the Main Page. —howcheng {chat} 15:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan Turing

It would have been Alan Turing's 100th birthday tomorrow - is it too late to get in a mention for the father of computer science and artificial intelligence? Richerman (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Added to OTD. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it usual to include birthdays in OTD? I thought it usually highlighted anniversaries of historically important events, and while Turing is undoubtedly of great historical importance, his birth was not. Kevin McE (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Centenaries have been included before; Dickens' birthday was listed this February, although that was a 200th, rather than 100th, birthday, and he's a wee bit more important than Turing. I'm not fussed either way on this particular one but there is precedence for it being done. GRAPPLE X 19:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd !vote against anything that turns OTD into a birthdays column, even a centenaries of birth column. Kevin McE (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not common, but we do feature births and deaths on centennials. —howcheng {chat} 21:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure others would agree it's worth a mention: "Google Home Page". 2012-06-23. Retrieved 2012-06-23.. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC) - hey look, I've even already retrieved it tomorrow.

Just another view, amazing we're all looking at this website, advocating free info for the world, etc on devices that wouldn't be possible without the birth of Alan Turing. Perhaps his "birthday" isn't important, but his existence (by virtue of his birth) is, per Google and the BBC etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So, the centenerary of the birth of one of the most important people in the development of the computer doesn't belong in 'on this day' and it isn't newsworthy? - Incredible! Richerman (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he gets a single line "100th anniversary of the birth of Alan Turing" at the top, then he's just in the list of births, between 1910 Milt Hinton and 1916 Len Hutton... and yet he's "the father of computer science and artificial intelligence". Wow, the price of fame, eh? When's he going to be next "in the news", exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Lugo

The Paraguayan senate is going to vote to whether or not to impeach Fernando Lugo in less than 2 hours. I demand Lugo on the main page! Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been on the Wiki too long because the first thing that I thought about when I heard Lugo was "that guy whose the icon of being on ITN too long". <.<;; hbdragon88 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, same guy. Raul654 (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support iff the infamous ITN picture is used. Yeah, that one.--WaltCip (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  

  They like me! They really like me!

• Support I've got a fever, and the only prescription, is more Lugo! --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm just so glad he's back! The world feels right once again... but since he's apparently been impeached this will presumably be the last time. I demand a permanent main page Lugo monument! CMcQueeny (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• So sad that he'll probably never be on the Main Page again, unless someone makes his article a TFA. Can we get OTD to use his picture every June 22? —Strange Passerby (t × c) 03:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I can just see it ... no Lugo blurb, just the photo. There will be some other blurb, and it will say "(Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo pictured)" and people will come on to the talk page and ask why his picture is there, and we'll just have to answer, "Because he's awesome." —howcheng {chat} 06:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes. LUGO!!!! 66.183.104.162 (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• LUGO! LUGO! LUGO! He's my hero. Lugnuts (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are we using a different photo? Go back to the traditional one! Modest Genius ^talk 11:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Let's use the old picture and keep it there for weeks :P I'm just joking about the keeping it there for weeks part, but I'm serious about using the old pic. Can someone boldly change the pic now? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Go back to the old pic? Why? I think I prefer the new one because a) it is more recently taken b) I don't think this Lugo meme thing is funny. Can we be more serious about what we are doing? --BorgQueen (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to write the same thing. It isn't appropriate to modify the main page for the sake of an inside joke. However, given the event's nature, it might be reasonable to switch to a photograph in which Lugo isn't smiling. —David Levy 12:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The picture isn't substantially more recent, and I think a case can be made that while the newer one is better for Fernando Lugo's infobox, the slightly older one is a better picture for the Main Page. As David said, his giddy smile doesn't match the nature of the story (and just looks strange to begin with), he's looking toward the margin, and it makes it more difficult to get a good close-up. The only negative is that mic in the way, but, aside from meeting the meme, I genuinely think the picture is better for this purpose. -- tariqabjotu 13:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. If the current image were much more recent (and therefore served as a significantly more accurate depiction of Lugo's current appearance), that would outweigh the above concerns. But the difference is only about 13 months, so it isn't a major factor.

I wouldn't support the other photograph's use for the sake of a meme, but we shouldn't avoid using it for that reason either. —David Levy 15:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The general tenor here (to me) is that the other (not smiling) Lugo pic is better, so I've switched them. Raul654 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! Lugnuts (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• { Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

God bless Lugo. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Now he's gone again, and forever this time D': 66.183.104.162 (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not if he gets locked into a power struggle for ALL the Wikipedias. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

can we link "plurality"

thats one of those words that i feel like a lot of people won't know what it means. could we make it a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLO (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that when we agreed some time ago that the word was the best succinct description of the situation, although not widespread through many ENGVAR regions, that we would do precisely that as a matter of course. Kevin McE (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Lan/Tam merger.

It has been confirmed that Chilean airline giant Lan and Brazilian airline Tam are to merge to form a massive airline called Latam. It will be Latin America's largest airline. Is this news viable for presentation on the main page?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18560343 http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/06/22/brazil-tam-completes-share-swap-for-lan-merger/ http://ilovechile.cl/2012/06/22/lan-tam-merger-official/60569 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.12.150 (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

News stories should be debated at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Stubs

We should have a list of small articles for people to edit and make bigger. --Dennydoo4 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Such a list would be too large to be workable but there are hundreds of stub categories you can use to find something small within a field of your interests; try a search for "stub" and refine it to include only category titles and you should find something. GRAPPLE X 01:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types may be helpful. Albacore (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The use of sliver locks

We need to list the use of silver locks in our pages, so that users will know why it is semi-protected.174.19.131.156 (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If someone tries to edit the page, he or she should see a page notice that includes the reason for the protection. -- tariqabjotu 04:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Call for participation in PhD research

Appologies for posting this on this talk page, but I am looking for ITN, current events, or any other interested editors, to participate in a doctoral research in sociology. Your participation would include answering around 10 simple questions via e-mail. I am interested in your editing experiences with all topics connected to current and ongoing events.
All those interested can contact me via e-mail or through my talk page. Your participation would be much appreciated.
Max Weber83 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Noteworthy for news?

You posted as news: In basketball, the Miami Heat defeat the Oklahoma City Thunder to win the NBA championship. Is this really appropriate for noteworthy international news? Putting in country specific sporting trivia like this devalues the news section and may undermine Wikipedia's reputation as a truly open, international non-UScentric information source. Most of the rest of the world wouldn't even know what the NBA championships are, and care even less. It's not as if there is nothing significant happening in the world right now. I think this was an error of judgement, either that or I want the Rugby League results in there. Ex nihil ^(talk) 02:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Where were you when the Gaelic football and hurling items went up before? For the record, The NRL is in WP:ITNR, just like the NBA Finals, but no one is nominating it. –HTD 03:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Check the archives. We get a comment like this at least once a week, that it's either too US-centric or EU-centric or whatever. I believe the good people at ITN try to make sure we get a wide coverage of events from all over the world - and sometimes that means seeing something that one portion of the world won't care very much about, etc. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 03:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Basketball has influence all around the world. It's a bit harsh to call what is almost certainly the number one league (in terms of popularity and fame) "UScentric" [sic] when it is followed by a great number of people around the world. If it were NCAA, then I'd probably agree with you. But it's not. — foxj 03:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

i'm convinced there's just as much of a bias to try to be so non-US centric that American events have a more difficult time getting a fair shake. Two recent school shootings in the U.S (one where three people died in the Midwest, seven died in a private university in Oakland) didn't make ITN, while the 2011 Rio de Janeiro school shooting breezed on there, no trouble. And The Penn State sex abuse scandal generated 7K worth of heat on ITNC when it was posted last November. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If we only included items that "most of the world" knows about, ITN would be perpetually empty. At any rate, your wish was granted some time ago, sporting events that most Americans have barely heard of and certainly don't care about get posted on a regular basis. Besides, Wikipedia doesn't exist to parrot "everybody knows" information, or to act as some kind of gauge or arbiter of importance on the world stage, but to present information that you may not have known before. So if you didn't know the NBA finals are one of the biggest sporting events in the US before, why come to gripe about it here when clearly you've been enriched with knowledge by its inclusion ITN? -OldManNeptune ⚓ 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit I am shamefully bias as a basketball fan by saying this, but really? This is the NBA finals. It doesn't get much bigger than this in the world of basketball. But then I agree that the NCAA-tournaments and other "junior" level US-sporting events should never be posted, they have no international sporting significance whatsoever. And to the post directly above, those school shootings were not of any international impact, nor will they be long remembered in the countries that they occurred in. All of them. I guess the Brazil shooting may of garnered more support because some ignorantly think school-shootings are "routine" in the US whilst in Brazil they are not. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why basketball always gets a hard time in these parts, considering it's the most global of American sports; you can even argue it's as or even more global as the British sports of rugby (any code) or cricket. In those two sports it's the same teams that always qualify for their respective world cups, while in basketball there's always some variety in participation. I get that it's not popular at all in the UK but it has to be as popular as rugby in the Continent.

On the flip side, no one gives a shit when any of the GAA events went up. I bet most people have a different idea of what GAA even means. lol. –HTD 12:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I enjoy watching Gaelic football moreso than I do baseball. Don't knock it ;) Also RE: the shootings - note that the Brazil item was nominated over a year ago and ITN/C feeling has shifted massively since then on most issues. — foxj 13:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I dream of the day when there is discussion about inclusion of a sporting event and HTD has the discretion and maturity to choose not to moan again about the inclusion of Gaelic Games at ITN/C. You did not agree with the consensus: we get it. Kevin McE (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I dream of the day when Kevin stops pushing for BrE in Main Page blurbs. –HTD 14:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on, guys. Lighten up. — foxj 14:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. –HTD 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants a longer discussion on this, click the letter "T" on my sig. –HTD 14:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I retract my previous statement that Kevin has not pushed for BrE in blurbs, and apologize for any inconveniences that this has caused him. I repeat: I HAVE NO IDEA IF KEVIN EVER PUSHED FOR THE USE OF BRITISH ENGLISH IN MAIN PAGE BLURBS. –HTD 15:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just as an FYI for the OP, the NRL premiers have been posted the last two years (and possibly before that, I wasn't here then) and will continue to be posted annually as long as someone updates the page, though why anyone would watch rugby over real football is beyond me :) Also, I live in Australia as well, and I know plenty of people who follow the NBA and were interested in which team won the finals. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Finals were somewhat international. They featured French, Canadian, Congolese-Spanish, Swiss-South African players, as well as a coach of Filipino descent. In addition, the finals were broadcast in 215 countries and territories. Spencer^T♦C 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

On channels nobody watches, at midnight, for the benefit of insomniacs. Can't get to sleep? Watch a sport where everyone scores, all the time. --86.168.161.42 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Featured article.

I don't believe that a defunct US television show from twenty years ago deserves to be plastered on the front page of this international website.