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 19:57 on 2 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"

The "pictured" line for the World Series was not removed when the picture was swapped (pinging User:Schwede66).:Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Just noticed that, too. Schwede66 19:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• Add "Victory Day in the Maldives" near "Culture Day in Japan". MAL MALDIVE (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 8)

Monday's FL

(November 4)

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.

Today's POTD

In the description of the featured picture for Diwali, we should wikilink the mythical city Ayodhya (Ramayana) instead of the actual city Ayodhya. The reason is explained in the second paragraph of the article Ayodhya (Ramayana):

“ The historicity of this legendary city is of concern to the Ayodhya dispute. According to one theory, it is same as the present-day Ayodhya city. According to another theory, it is a fictional city, and the present-day Ayodhya (originally called Saketa) was renamed after it around the 4th or 5th century, during the Gupta period. ”

Also see the section Ayodhya_(Ramayana)#Historicity. --Lekhak93 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Parliament expenses row

I hate to be pedantic but it says the British Parliament, i know that that's what it's normally called by most people but technically it is the UK Parliament as Northern Irish MPs sit there as well. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know im being pedantic but it would give me peace of mind if it was changed and i cant do it myself being no good at these things!Willski72 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou!Willski72 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Although, equally if not more pedanticly, "British" is the adjectival form of "United Kingdom", there being no "Unitedkingdomish". "Britain" is ambiguous and may or may not be considered to include Northern Ireland. The change, though, cleared things up nicely. Bazza (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You can see why they left it at British cant you, "UnitedKingdomish" would take far to long to say! Dont ask me why because i cant tell you but for some reason Northern Ireland is not part of "Britain" (UK instead) but the people in Northern Ireland are "British", even if they dont want to be!Willski72 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Britain" is the island; it's been known as that for an awful lot longer than the United Kingdom has existed. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct but Northern Ireland is not on the island of Britain (or Britannia as it was called by the Romans) it is on the island of Ireland. They are both in the British Isles though. Northern Irish people are called British by convention and because it is easier and simpler (and many see themselves as such).Willski72 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt all of the Northern Irish would self-identify as British! I wasn't sure if you realised, as you said "Dont ask me why because i cant tell you". J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I know they arent, in fact its probably (very rough figures) 60% would call themselves British 40% would call themselves Irish. The point of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was to unite all the kingdoms of the British Isles together which was done in the Act of Union at the beginning of the 19th Century. Mainland Britain had been united 100 years before that as Britain. It all got complicated in Ireland with the fight for Independance etc and it was decided that Ulster (Northern Ireland) would stay part of the United Kingdom while the rest of Ireland would form its own Republic. The Republic of Ireland is within the British Isles but is no longer part of the United Kingdom (they would call themselves Irish), by contrast Northern Ireland is still part and its now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Everyone on the British mainland is British, there is no word for "UnitedKingdomish" and yet Northern Ireland is linked with that MORE than with Ireland. So the general consensus (not everyone agrees) is to call them British as well (even if a large minority dont wont to be!)Willski72 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• (Cough!) *Great* Britain. The island is Great Britain. There are other, lesser, Britains. I think Willski72's point about the British Isles is pertinent; it's why the Northern Irish can be called "British" despite not living on Great Britain. And of course, they can also be called Irish, but Ireland is another potential mine-field for Wikidrama. And on that note, I'll slink off before I get embroiled in any drama. Cheers! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• "But the people in Northern Ireland are "British", even if they dont want to be!" Try telling that to Seamus Heaney... even the BBC doesn't go down that road. --candle•wicke 13:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright let me put it slightly differently. The people in Northern Ireland are seen in international circles as British, even if they dont want to be. I later pointed out the very rough and simplified percentages of agree and disagree. I see your point and i apologise for not elaborating more clearly on the point.Willski72 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be right. I don't tend to get involved in this type of drama either. However, do you possess a reliable source for all of these statements which are potentially questionable? Or even a source? "Probably" doesn't really work very well here for anything... --candle•wicke 22:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Youre quite right and the main problem with pretty much anything to do with British constitutional matters is that there are virtually no sources that could not be argued against, especially in obscure matters such as this. Its quite funny really when you look how obscure this argument has become, it was originally only about the name of the parliament at Westminster! It then descended into a conversation that i am struggling to keep up with! I propose, with the agreement of others of course, that this somewhat confusing and in depth argument be stopped before it turns into a full blown article of its own! Considering that the reason for the section in the first place has gone, i think this is probably a good place to stop (in a good, solid, no decision made position); we could continue this argument for many year with no decision actually being reached!.Willski72 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really arguing so it's fine with me. :) --candle•wicke 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Phew! Hopefully thats the end and we can all go home.... (cue the hand through the ground, twitch of body, eye opening etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

DAMIT! Ruined the effect by forgetting to sign! Looks like im the one opening the eye, sticking my hand through the earth and twitching!Willski72 (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hand through the ground? Is that a thinly veiled reference to Britain retaking Ireland... oh no, wait, everybody is supposed to go home now, right. ;) --candle•wicke 06:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea! I was thinking more along the lines of a random user coming along and starting the argument again... but it looks like were OK on that front.....Willski72 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So far so good. --candle•wicke 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to argue further about the {Noise of User being wrestled to the floor, keyboard smashing, loud shouting. Silence falls.} Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else want to try!!!!Willski72 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they've all gone home... --candle•wicke 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they have! Its amazing! I think they got the hint after we got rid of Michael of Lucan....Willski72 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Got rid of him? That's a little bit confrontational... what did you do to him? That loud shouting followed by the prolonged silence is rather worrying... --candle•wicke 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arguments and abuse, eh?

Man looking for an argument: "Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!"

Abuser: "OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse."

M: "Oh, I see, well, that explains it."

A: "Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor....(Stupid git!)"

This joke would have been far easier if wikiquote has more content...

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, room 12A... is that where we go to solve the mystery of the loud shouting and prolonged silence? --candle•wicke 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe.... Look he had it coming i did warn him!Willski72 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh ... hello... why am I lying here surrounded by a crowd of people? Did something fall on me? I just wanted to discuss the [There is a sound of heavy footsteps, and a strange crunching sound. Silence falls.} Michael of Lucan (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Michael, something did fall on you. It keeps falling on you at the end of your sentences. Silence. I wonder if we'll ever find the source of that strange crunching sound though... will that answer be in 12A too? --candle•wicke 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Someones deleted the fact that Michael of Lucan is actually "{Muffled talking along the lines of 'we warned you' followed by a piercing scream and a heavy thud.}"Willski72 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is no such thing as censorship on Wikipedia. As I said, I am L----------------------. So now you know. It's out in the open. Michael of Lucan (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, walked into the talking doors again. It seems their going to extraodinary lengths to stop even Michael of Lucan from admitting his true identity as {a loud bang rings out and a groan of pain is heard.}Willski72 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is the correct term for all the "Islands" that includes Ireland and the United Kingdom. --Spacepostman (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. We've agreed to put aside our differences on this and are instead preoccupying ourselves with such topics as censorship, falling, reward money and the contents of a mysterious room called 12A. We've discovered that this is much more fun - and there's money involved!!! (well, maybe). Now back to the main business - you are L... Lindsay Lohan? --candle•wicke 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! That was funny! No hes really Lo{ choking sound followed by a faint hissing noise and the crunch of a plastic bag.}Willski72 (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. I had to cover my ears, there was an awful hiss crunch sound there. --candle•wicke 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Sorry about that, my hot air ballon had a whole in it and it fell on a plastic bag which made me choke with laughter.... Anyway Michael of Lucan told me that he was actually Lordi from Eurovision song Contest a couple of years back, all of them! Would you believe it! {whispering in the background along the lines of "what the....?}Willski72 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hallelujah and many congratulations! Everybody happy now that we've made our minds up about who we are (or have we)? Adding further voice to this fairytale, what is that light shining in my eyes now? Love? you say? Hold me now, I believe I wanna go for a bathroom break everyway that I can – Why me? (Etc...) --candle•wicke 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be so much easier if someone could just come up with a term to describe people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Something a little easier to say than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland-ish. UKOGBANIish? (pronounced: You-cog-banish). I can picture it now: "An expenses row forces the resignation of several Youcogbanish MP's". 130.56.86.30 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

UKOGBANI would do I think. The double I of "Ireland" and "ish" doesn't work too well. Several Ukogbani MPs are removed from power following a row over money. --candle•wicke 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If only we had an encyclopedia handy, so we could look up Alternative names for the British...-gadfium 02:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not UKists but only pronounce the U, like UkistsWillski72 (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Several John Bulls, some pegs and some MPs from Wales and Northern Ireland are embroiled in a controversy over expenses? No, the alternatives don't really work I'm afraid... --candle•wicke 16:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

John Bull would of had more honour than to claim expenses in the same way that some of them have! Roast Beef isnt that expensive and he can pay for his own tudor beams, moat and duck house!Willski72 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Um... MPs as farm animals? Is that an appropriate use of valuable Wikipedia paper? Please think of the trees! --candle•wicke 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No the duck house (which is in the mock tudor style) is for his ducks, which are protected from duck thieves by a moat.Willski72 (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you mean the guy with the moat was trying to protect his ducks?! :-O --candle•wicke 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ducks are a valuable commodity highly prized in certain circles. They can swim AND fly AND walk, why they have not yet taken over the world is beyond me....Willski72 (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't think... no, it couldn't be possible... but... no... yet, could it be that the ducks were behind that claim or even all of the claims?! I was thinking those politicians were looking a bit clueless when it came to trying to work out what was going on... --candle•wicke 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes its very clever, the politicians are merely a front for our duck overlords! The politicians are paid £64,000 a year for this smokescreen while the UK Council of ducks is made up of 646 ducks who live off these puppet MPs expenses (on average about £140,000 a year). They can therefore afford to live in their mock tudor duck houses, protected from prying eyes by their moats!Willski72 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick - someone call The Daily Telegraph! They might be able to squeeze this astonishing revelation into their front page for tomorrow! --candle•wicke 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried, they wouldnt listen, not even when i offered to swim across the moat to capture one of the ducks mock tudor houses.Willski72 (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But what can you do? You know what ducks are like for fowl play!Willski72 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cacık, a Turkish cold appetiser yoghurt variety.

It's a neigh-on clucking disgrace at this stage - those quacks moove out of baadness if you ask me... barking mad the lot of them... some of them are right bad eggs, thinking they're the cream of the crop when in truth they're out to save their own bacon after milking the system and scrambling the small fry, but they'll end up with yoghurt on their faces yet... --candle•wicke 16:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

.....er yes, thats just what i was going to say!Willski72 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I got there before you... --candle•wicke 16:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadnt quite finished writing them all down yet! I'll get some of that yoghurt, stand outside Parliament after Prime Ministers Question Time and wait for them all to come pouring out. They'll think its world war 3.... with yoghurt!!!Willski72 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Normal usage is that Britain means UK & is therefore, illogically, bigger than Great Britain. Peter jackson (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What about abnormal usage? --candle•wicke 03:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Or indeed ignormal usage?Willski72 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant ignoble? But we'll not give you any grief over it... --candle•wicke 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake! Very kind of you! Levitating ducks may be a match for our duck overlords some day!Willski72 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of levitation. --candle•wicke 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's going to swing off the pitch!Willski72 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Might be a painful landing... --candle•wicke 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"In association football, FC Barcelona defeat Manchester United..."

Why does the purity talibans of Wikipedia persist calling football or soccer a term nobody else is using? Like the kibibyte silliness, this is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what the article is called. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand the problem here. u want to call football, soccer? when most of the world actually calls it football. Ashishg55 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There are ~300,000,000 English speakers who would not call it Football. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

URGENT NOTE I think it is important to point out quickly that there are scores of pages of discussion on the subject of what this game should be called - see discussion at the article Association Football. Angry people should read the previous half million pages there. We all know it's a US/Rest of the world issue, which will never be resolved, unless we get together and nuke the Yanks. Our User team in North Korea is working on this, and hopes to have results shortly. Have patience, comrades. Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

lol J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well i know this has been discussed quite a bit before. But here is the thing. entire India calls it football. thats 1.1 billion people. That alone should be enough of an argument against the 300 mil from US. Just because US decided to create their own local game and call it football because they suck at the real one, does not mean entire world now needs to change the name. Ashishg55 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you, India aren't brilliant at football neither ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How many of those 1.1B are native english speakers? I understand that India is technically bilingual, but I was under the understanding that large portions of the population spoke Hindi only. However, even if all 1.1B speak the Queen's English, there's no excuse for making a sentence confusing to 300+ Million people, and nearly unintelligible to a large portion of that 300+ Million. APL (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Before someone corrects me, I know I said scores of pages of discussion, then a half million pages. In estimating the pages of actual discussion, naturally I have excluded from the half million the totally unreasonable arguments of those based in the United States (which no one else agrees with, of course). However, to save space I also omitted all the utterly fair and reasonable comments abusing them viciously for being unreasonable. :-) Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ashishg55, I don't have a problem with Wikipedia choosing one or the other term ("football" or "soccer"). After all, both terms are widely used. I do have a problem with Wikipedia using the term "association football" - a term nobody is using. Hence my comparison to "kibibyte", another term nobody is using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is clarity. "Football" on its own is ambiguous and confuses people in USA. "Soccer" on its own is unambiguous but virtually unused by non-USA readers. (Does it confuse them? Or just offend them? I'm not sure. Either way not good.)

"Association Football" is clear to everyone involved, just as "American Football" is clear to everyone involved even though no one in America ever spells it out like that. APL (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya i dont mind association football either since it is proper term anyways. And for my indian argument - India may not be 100% english speaking being developing country and all but they do use football to refer to the sport (and i know they suck too lol). And even if u were to exclude non-english speaking population (ones who do not understand english at all). Even then the number would be a lot higher than 300 million. So making a 300 mil argument is useless comparatively. Ashishg55 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As has been every single time this sport has appeared on the Main Page, "soccer" is not just restricted to the USA; Canada and Australia also use the term to distinguish it from other sports called "football". howcheng {chat} 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is soccer just a made up word to replace football because Americans couldnt be bothered to think of a name for their own game? Which was there first? Who knows!Willski72 (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary says : "Colloquial abbreviation for Association football." That's a rather unsatisfying answer, though. A commenter on the talk page claims the abbreviation was started by students at Oxford. There isn't a cite for either. APL (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

See Football (word). howcheng {chat} 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, one question answered!Willski72 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neat. Wikipedia does have an article on everything! APL (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at everything Modest Genius ^talk 23:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would appear so!Willski72 (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In rugby union, the player pursues his opponent through levitation, an art which only the very best have mastered.

• Just 'Football' should have been the term used. In football (soccer) the players use their foot to kick the ball. In American football they use their arms to carry an egg.--These girls should eat less bisquits... (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So in rugby they do what? –Howard the Duck 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont want to know!Willski72 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Famously, rugby players do it with odd-shaped balls. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The better quotation is "Rugby is played by men with odd-shaped balls". Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my Urgent Note at the start of this, this is essentially a conflict between the US and the Rest of the World. The US has an odd local game. It's a bit like Rugby, but it is only played by wimps who wear armour in case they might hurt themselves. Unlike Rugby, it's played almost entirely with the hands, but they do use an egg-shaped ball. Logically, they should call it Handegg but they insist on calling it "Football".

The Rest of the World can see the absurdity of this, but Americans always had difficulties in using English properly. All we can do is keep referring to "Handegg" until they get the point, or start playing a real man's game.

At this point, maybe we should just be practical. Let's nuke 'em and solve the problem. Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a fella called Kim something or other, who lives in one of those pesky communist countries, who maybe able to help us with that --Daviessimo (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But does he have one of these? ("That's not a nuclear football, that's a nuclear rugby ball! No, it's a nuclear American football!") ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

American football is not played "almost entirely with the hands". I'd reckon it and rugby have the same number of instances where the ball is kicked; in American football's case after every the point after touchdown and most of the time during the fourth down. –Howard the Duck 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We must agree to differ. However, I gather that you accept that Handegg players are wimps, who wear armour in case they get hurt. Real men play Rugby, of course. They only get substituted if the blood makes the ball slippery, or when important bits of them are falling off. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that they are secretly wearing full body Boxing Gloves to improve the chance of causing long term damage rather than the superficial, egg-lubricating injuries found in rugby. 147.72.72.2 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The igloo.

If we're into real sports, nothing beats ice hockey since they hit each other with sticks, chase a "puck", play back-to-back games, and play in igloos (see "more color" section below.) –Howard the Duck 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, Australians and Canadians have joined the sons and daughters of freedom in rejecting this legacy of British imperialism. (As a side note, does it ever concern the British that most of their former empire (aside from Ireland) has not done well at international soccer, and in fact seem to prefer either cricket (India, Pakistan), rugby (South Africa, New Zealand) or homegrown variants of whatever forgotten original soccer evolved from (US, Australia, Canada)? Hell, out of those countries the US is (I think) the only one whose soccer team has ever advanced past the first elimination round in a World Cup).

I can see from this thread that I'll have to create an article on Stefan Markovits's Offside (excellent book looking into why soccer never caught on in the US (short version: had a chance in the late 1920s but blew it due to infighting between the dominant league of the time and the national federation (which, it may be of interest, insisted on calling itself the U.S. Football Federation until 1947)). Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, Daniel, but I moved your post down from the middle of my earlier post. Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, note that both the one true sport and that excuse to eat strawberries are both British inventions. Personally, I'm concerned that New Zealand has stopped calling soccer "soccer" and is now insisting it's called "football". On the subject of real-men sports, Murderball is the original name for Wheelchair rugby, which in theory is rugby for athletes with a disability, and in practice is a sport for people who think ice hockey is a game for wimps. I believe that having a disability isn't compulsory, since you'll almost certainly have one after playing murderball. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Which pretty much confirms that ITN is not North American (U.S.)-centric, at least on sports, with 4 recurring sports items as opposed to the aforemention British inventions with 8, plus a few more such as snooker "world" championship. I didn't include the original subject of this thread since everyone plays it. –Howard the Duck 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether Ireland was included in the "only one whose soccer team has ever advanced past the first elimination round in a World Cup" but it would appear that checking Wikipedia ought to confirm that it has surpassed the record of the US since 1990. The US (with all its world might) seems to have managed only quarter-final appearance and a second round appearance (in 1994 when they were hosting the tournament) whereas Ireland already had a run of one quarter-final and two second round appearances in the four World Cups before 2006 (the length of time it took the US to get to get to the quarter finals for the first time since when exactly?) Also, if anything, there seems to be more armour used in ice-hockey than the other sports mentioned - one wonders how these pampered players would cope in a proper death match like Gaelic football or hurling... no doubt they'd demand a pay rise too... --candle•wicke 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I said "aside from Ireland". Read it again.

Actually, I think that ice hockey has rather moderate padding ... certainly the shoulder pads I wore playing football are a lot bulkier than their hockey counterparts (which, in turn, are bulky compared to lacrosse shoulder pads). And you can blame the NHL for mandating that players under contract since after 1979 or so wear helmets ... it's certainly reduced injuries but I do miss watching players like Bob Nystrom skate down the ice with his blonde mane bouncing around. Granted, the elbow and knee padding are kind of thick compared to what football players wear (and elbow pads are optional in football; many players don't wear them, at least when playing on grass), but then again in football you're not putting those elbows and knees down on ice. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean that... gasp... basketball is the toughest sport? They do wear tank tops and shorts only, though. –Howard the Duck 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, sumo wrestling MUST take the cake on being the toughest sport ever. –Howard the Duck 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're all forgetting Bowls, now that can get vicious! (Not bowling for anyone getting confused!)Willski72 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Basketball... course it's tough - they're not afraid of getting an elbow in the face. And, speaking of bowls, the next World Bowls Championships will be held in Adelaide, Australia from 24 November – 9 December 2012. Any objection to me adding it to WP:ITNR? Once every four years only so we missed last year's... --candle•wicke 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria bus accident

Moved to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#ITN candidates for May 28

Bacon booze in DYK?

Is it by coincidence or design that there are two "bacon and alcohol" articles (Bacon Vodka and Bacon Martini) in the curred "Did You Know" section? Isn't it against the ethos of DYK to have hooks for similar topics on the main page at the same time? -- saberwyn 08:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See Bacon Challenge 2009 and the subsequent discussion at Talk:DYK. You could have seen far more than two bacon items on the update :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

More color.

Can we get more color? More color on the front page. For the aesthetic factor. It may delve into the general discussion of the theme, but I tend to think of it for the front page. e.g. a bit of friendly yellow and happy cyan in the mix to give it a more harmonious touch. --AaThinker (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about colours that most match the main news event, such as red for the bankruptcy of GM etc.Willski72 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lesson #672 of Wikipedia: there is ALWAYS a Main Page redesign proposal in progress. The most recent one just died a horrible death here a couple of months ago, no doubt a new one will start soon. However, constantly changing colours are not appropriate, especially as items/colours may mean different things to different people of different cultures, not to mention that changing them would be nightmare for the section editors and admins. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant it truly only limited in colors and strictly presentation. I probably though go more into the realm of themes (for wikipedia overall) so I won't continue it here. --AaThinker (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, having red colors for the news item about Detroit will be anti-Penguin bias. –Howard the Duck 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Who would have guessed it could have more than one meaning!Willski72 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, the penguins presumably! :) --candle•wicke 23:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

These creatures are getting cleverer, they can swim, walk, almost fly AND play hockey!!! The world is at their feet!!!Willski72 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify, and address my penguin-phobia - are you saying penguins can almost play hockey? 'cause hockey-playing penguins would be terrifying, but I can copy with penguins that can almost fly and almost play hockey... Also, don't forget that these birds of evil invented their own operating system, then blamed it on a human. I use Linux just to placate the penguins... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Im afraid they can play hockey. Even as we speak they are practicing their evil plans to woo all humans with hockey while secretly attempting to dive-bomb them while they're distracted. But not being able to because they can only almost fly....Willski72 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong with Portal:Arts

-User:The Transhumanist

Thanks for the warning; temporary fix. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Globepage question

With the "first" page of Wikipedia, why, on some computers do several of the language links get superimposed onto the globe? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this page. On most modern browsers (Internet Explorer 7+, Mozilla Firefox 1.5+, Opera 9.0+, Safari 1.0+), the page should appear fine. Any display problems are usually due to a small screen resolution (800x600 or greater should be sufficient, always set your resolution to the maximum possible) or old, incompatible browser version. In future, please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Help Desk. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth should someone 'always set your resolution to the maximum possible'? Modest Genius ^talk 02:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Library terminals are unresettable by users (and often have strange blocking policies). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the maximum resolution of TFT LCD (and other types of LCD) monitors is usually their native resolution, what they should be run at to maximise usable screen-space and prevent eye strain. At much lower resolutions the stretching of the image (1 pixel of the image being larger than one pixel on the monitor) causes it to look fuzzy and out of focus (see this image, ignoring the green vertical lines), which causes your eyes strain, besides just not looking so good. For a CRT monitor it makes less difference. Many TFT/LCD screens will tell you their native resolution if you press the Menu button or equivalent on the front. See also [1] and [2]. If you're having problems with reading text at your screen's maximum resolution, then you can easily increase the text size of your operating system (e.g. Windows, Mac OS X) or your browser (e.g. IE, Firefox, Safari) or both. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tip

Just so you know, Meta-Wiki changed their image, so you might want to update the image under "Wikipedia's sister projects".--Cubs197 (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I see the same logo that's been in use since November 2008. —David Levy 02:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Smaller text

Why did all the text at Wikipedia suddenly got smaller? 83.108.225.137 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold down Ctrl and move the mouse wheel. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That worked for the articles, but the edit text is so small I can berly see it, and the wikipedia logo is smaller. I only have this problem with Wikipedia, no other website. I use firefox. 83.108.225.137 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still thinking it's a zoom problem... Hm.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried View > Zoom > Zoom Text Only ? 79.71.2.215 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, its fixed now. 83.108.225.137 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)