Talk:Main Page/Archive 140

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 135 Archive 138 Archive 139 Archive 140 Archive 141 Archive 142 Archive 145



Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You should probably raise this at WP:WQA (deals with incivility) or WP:ANI (deals with serious incidents). Wherever you raise it, you should provide examples - I took a quick look at your talk page, and the revision history of some recent articles you've edited, and I couldn't see anything obvious so you should, where possible, explain exactly what's happening and ideally provide diffs. Good luck! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SHOUTING doesn't help, it's just rude. And rudeness is also quite rude. And I'm removing the name from your post. --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's the same person who tried to assassinate you in Episode II? --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If there was a reputation function on Wikipedia, I'd give you +1. That was beautiful. Gpia7r (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Zam Wesell was killed, so it couldn't be her. Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And what are you talking about, "Reputation function?" Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on how much I liked Sbrools comment. On some internet forums, you can give another user reputation, or "rank them up" for things they say that are particularly appealing. Gpia7r (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering other recent discussions have descended to the use of rectal thermometers in unmentionable areas I would be quite glad if I were you and your biggest problem is a stalker... mind you, when you're royalty and are regularly in danger from attempts on your life it probably pays to look over your shoulder now and again... but if you really want to save yourself I would avoid a guy named Anakin who you may or may not have met depending where you are in time... you're too good for that guy and he is going to be your ultimate downfall in the end so just save yourself all the bother he's going to give you and run... --candlewicke 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Anakin...I'm pregnant with his baby. He keeps having wierd dreams about my baby killing me when it is born. What's so bad about him? He's not that bad; otherwise I wouldn't have married him. Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... I tried... but I guess you can't change what's meant to happen... you're right - your baby killing you? How can babies kill you? You should tell him to stop trying to scare you with his sick outlandish farfetched fantasies. He should know better if he's going to be a good father and husband. --candlewicke 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Candlewicke, you should see this. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 15:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Obi-Wan just told me that Ani turned to the dark side! Can it be true? He was so much stress! It could be possible...I'll file for divorce right away! But first, I'm going to Mustafar to find out if all this is true. Her majesty Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yowuza, I am glad you've informed me of this. Your majesty, it shows in clear detail why you are being stalked. However, this material is slightly disturbing (and I'm glad it's not on Wikipedia as it would violate BLP with its horrible claims about the Queen). Can you check your mode of transport before you go to Mustafar please? Just in case you find another stalker... --candlewicke 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I will now click on said link to find what has greatly disturbed me so. User:Queen Padmé Amidala

That explains very well why I am being stalked. But why do you think those things about Ani? Other than killing those Tuskens, he has never done anything really bad in his life...that I know of, that is. Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He executed a hundred cuddly ewoks who stole his dinner, by chopping their heads off with his lightsaber! I know man, I WAS THERE!!Willski72 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we believe Wikipedia

Mr. Wen said that Wikipedia's articles sometimes are unbelievable. The reason is that everyone can edit or alter an article.

So rediculus! I don't think so, how do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You could start by telling us who exactly the mysterious Mr. Wen is... --candlewicke 10:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's General disclaimer may also help answer your questions. --Allen3 talk 11:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You may also be interested in our article on criticism of Wikipedia Modest Genius talk 11:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the beauty of it is that if someone changes it incorrectly then someone else will come along and change it back correctly. It works itself out in the end.Willski72 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes and you can help too... :) --candlewicke 21:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While I think Wikipedia is a very useful resource, I have to agree that there are certain articles that tend to get skewed quite a large way, often due to gaming the system. I think that Wikipedia should include a disclaimer at the top of every page cleary stating that anyone can edit it (it used to do this, though I never think it went far enough). The disclaimer should also state not to take information at face value and to always check for reliability of the sources. Far too many people take Wikipedia as fact, without realising the origins of the information - even the media are guilty of this - I've often seen mistakes created on Wikipedia propagated throughout the media. As it stands, I cannot wholeheartedy recommend others to use Wikipedia, but with such a disclaimer I would be more inclined to give Wikipedia my reccommmendation. (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of Wikipedia is orders of magnitude better than the reliability of the internets in general. Some people will take anything at face value, even if they googled it on some geocities page. These people only have themselves to blame, and for these people, Wikipedia is a huge step forward. Anyone who actually does have half a clue will know to be critical of their information, not just information found on Wikipedia, but also information from so-called reliable sources or commercial encyclopedias,not to mention commercial newspapers. Reliability of Wikipedia is on par or better than that of commercial encyclopedias (not to mention commercial newspapers) in some cases, and worse in others. It is arbitrary to make this into a case against Wikipedia particularly ("why can't you always be better?").

This isn't an issue in any case, since the proper disclaimer is already linked from each and every page. There isn't anything to add to what it says there. caveat emptor. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is best considered as a point of first resort - and both "caveat emptor" and "there is no cure for deliberate stupidity" apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I always start my research at Wikipedia, and then I follow the sources at the bottom of the page. I then compare those sources, and go from there. But I always back up anything with additional sources.--MahaPanta (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well there you go. Isn't it great when issues are resolved without conflict? :) If you don't trust Wikipedia you trust the sources upon which it is built and if you don't trust the sources upon which it is built you... uh... --candlewicke 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a 100% reliable source. Tell that to Mr Wen. If he's a historian by training, he may give you a gold star. Especially if you make it clear you've read that link. --Dweller (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. It's that bloke from the pubs, best mate's, window cleaner's brother-in-law. I think his name is Nick and he is 100% reliable :) --Daviessimo (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

True, especially when he's got a few pints down him!Willski72 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's such a terrible stereotype. Some window cleaners are not alcoholics. --candlewicke 19:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[citation needed] Algebraist 19:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Candlewicke we are talking about the window cleaners brother-in-law and not the window cleaner himself!Willski72 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To draw all these themes together, suddenly I hear a very old crackling recording, and George Formby sings, "Wen, I'm cleaning windows" ... Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, if you google "100% reliable source" most of the results contain references to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I'm afraid many prefix the phrase by unconstructive words such as "not a". Hmmm. Everyone's a critic. Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's okay; that's why we've the ellipsis: "Wikipedia is...a 100% reliable source". (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke, don't try to change what I said. I said I start with Wikipedia, but I also look into it myself. NC Live, SIRS, Facts on Files, and other library services should always be used in conjuntion with an encylopedic service like Wikipedia. Besides, if you only use Wikipedia, what ever your writting will basically be a paraphrased Wikipedia article. So basically, I'm saying that I follow though with what I find on Wikipedia instead of half assing it. --MahaPanta (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he was talking about you Blah42b10 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Look at my first comment, it's not that I don't trust Wikipedia. Wikipedia, being as open as it is, is also open to vandalism, unlike a dissertation supervised by a committee of doctors and an examining committee that acts as a jury at the oral examination of the thesis written by the canaditate that is putting their entire time in the program (the past 4-8 or more years of their life) and was guided by a professional primary adviser who is putting their job on the line by supporting this dissertation. But that dissertation makes a great source for a Wikipedia article. The problem is that while most vandalism is reverted in less than 4 minutes, someone can use that dissertation or an article from a peer review scientific journal, and just slighly twist information from it and post it on wikipedia. This subtle version of vandalism can go years un-noticed.--MahaPanta (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you, and I do the exact same thing with my school reports, but the part about the vandalism staying in the article for years un-noticed is not true, most of the articles that students use for papers and research would be some popular pages, and therefore be either protected and/or watched and revised constantly so I'm sure someone would notice that something isn't right, other than that, I pretty much agree with you fully Blah42b10 (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It is true, I think you misunderstood what I mean by subtle vandalism. This is what I am reffering to.--MahaPanta (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, but the ones that were never corrected or took a ling time to correct were probably ones that not very many people read, but if they were, then we have a problem, thanks again though Blah42b10 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem. The problem is that the vandalism could be as subtle as misquoting or quoting the author of a source out of context. The solution is as simple as reading the source of information on Wikipedia for yourself before using it in a paper and never using unsourced information. --MahaPanta (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That is what i usually do when I am writing a paper for a class, and if I see a problem, I fix it. I prefer just reading articles and fixing them once I see vandalism over using tools and checking the recent edits log because of the fact that some vandalism can go unnoticed for a while, but most of the time I catch it within a relatively short amount of time and fix it. Blah42b10 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, most vandalism is reverted in less than 4 minutes. It's only the "most subtle and persistent forms of vandalism" that is over looked, and that was only found in 2 precent of the articles surveyed in the article I linked to previously. That is comparable to errors found in some of the most famous paper encyclopedias like World Book and Encyclopedia Britcania.--MahaPanta (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like to use the printed encyclopedias because they are often either outdated or underinforming, and therefore often unsuitable for my, and others' needs, but I often use them as a "filler source", one to just use so I can have an extra source and I only use information I could have gotten off of Wikipedia, but my teachers make us have a certain number of sources, so I spread out the same information among different sources. Plus, I wonder how much is 2% of the articles, hmmmmmm. Blah42b10 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I know that, I was just pointing out that those printed encyclopedias are not open to vandalism, and have paid editors, and they still contain errors. So I think we can believe Wikipedia just as much as we do printed encyclopedias, as long as we check the sources and don't use unsourced material.
It was only 2 out of the 100 tested.--MahaPanta (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, but how much is 2% of the total amount of english articles on Wikipedia? Blah42b10 (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
About 58500. I would be careful about believing 2% as an extremely accurate number though, since that sample set of 100 articles is pretty weak. (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thx, I don't have access to a calculator right now and I don't have time to do it by hand, and I agree, plus the study used the random article button, which when I use all I usually get is asteroids, strange European towns and Elvis movies Blah42b10 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that, even if

  1. sources are cited
  2. they're "reliable"
  3. they say what the article says they say

that's no guarantee that there aren't other "reliable sources" saying the exact opposite. There are no 100% reliable sources. The only way to be sure is to look at as many sources as you can, as up-to-date as you can & as specialized as you can. Even then you only get the opinions of experts, who aren't infallible. Peter jackson (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that there are no 100% reliable sources is wrong, if I find a source that states that 1+1=2, and that's it, then it is 100% reliable, unless 1+1 does not equal two anymore (I am talking in base 10, so no base 13 jokes please) Blah42b10 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Reminds me very much of this xkcd strip. GeeJo (t)(c) • 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice one lol Blah42b10 (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The question, although it uses the word 'belief', is ultimately about 'truth'. Truth is a slippery concept, and there are a variety of approaches, all of which are approximations. Mathematics prefers the 'tautology' approach: if one makes the standard assumptions (including assumptions about logical reasoning), then statements such as "1 + 1 = 2" follow from those assumptions. (New proofs do have to be independently verified before being accepted by the mathematical community.) Wikipedia relies on 'verifiability': that is, what passes for truth in Wikipedia is a statement that has appeared in a source or sources independent of the writer. Science emphasises repeatability of experimental results, and what passes for 'truth' in science is (something like) not having proved the result false. All these approaches have their weaknesses - for example, hoaxes - and all must develop ways of handling them. Pingku (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I remember the ancient "Definition of Neurosis". A sane person knows 1+1=2. An insane person knows 1+1=3. A neurotic person knows 1+1=2, but it makes him nervous.

Trying to define truth, and trying to verify it, makes me nervous. The only people who know "the Truth" seem to base it on faith, which is seriously scary. "I believe it to be true, therefore it is." The rest of us know that truth is a shifting, amorphous thing. And, yes, even 1+1=2 is not true for every set of premises. Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if you define truth as whatever you believe, everything you believe is true! (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless you believe that whatever you believe is wrong Blah42b10 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't even believe the BBC now... so it would be no crime at all if you couldn't believe Wikipedia. "An earlier BBC report wrongly said that 105 MPs did not turn up. It should have said that only 105 attended." --candlewicke 17:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
How can we believe that that article isn't wrong, but then that would mean that we can't trust them so I guess you're right either way so nevermind. Blah42b10 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If they're telling the truth about the inaccuracy they're wrong about a right but if they're lying about the inaccuracy they're making a right appear wrong. The BBC has misled itself and cannot be trusted now no matter which way you look at it thus compromising any source which uses the BBC as a source. This includes Wikipedia but also several news organisations and Wikipedia uses several of these several news organisations thus compromising itself. Also, news organisations are using Wikipedia as a source in some cases and may be obtaining information from the compromised sources which Wikipedia contains, reporting it and allowing Wikipedia to pick it up and spread it to other news organisations all over again and these are spreading it to other news organisations and back to Wikipedia via these now newly compromised news organisations thus increasing the amount of inaccurate sources being used by Wikipedia while all this time everybody thinks some of these sources have to be believable so is anything even worth believing at all? --candlewicke 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say yes, I guess you could say that you believe that nothing is believable, but then that would contradict your belief, so it creates a paradox, unless you don't believe in them either Blah42b10 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is Wikipedia a credible source? Eh. I like to think it is, but we have to work on that. Is it a factually accurate source? Sure. It's as accurate as anything else. You should never trust information without verifying it, and that's why we have references. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What i wanna know is why is this topic being discussed on Main Page Talk? lol Ashishg55 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I don't know lol Blah42b10 (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
People say don't trust wikipedia because anyone can edit it. I say trust it because anyone can edit it. The everyday person doesn't see the amount of discussion that goes on behind the scenes. They don't understand how much it takes to edit something and get it to stay on the page, especially when it comes to popular articles. Zombie Virus (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, there's so much computer red tape on this thing its unreal! (Although in this case some of that red tape is necessary otherwise we'd have some really wacky stuff on here!)Willski72 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do they call it red tape, and why not duct tape, I think that would make more sense Blah42b10 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
See red tape.-gadfium 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it! We should start a wikipedia campaign to pressure the worlds governmnents to say duct tape instead of red tape!Willski72 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria bus accident

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

Sign for archive bot MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of Château-Thierry

The picture postcard attached the the Laurens Shull piece - which is also in the Battle of Château-Thierry article - is not exactly NPOV. This battle was a victory for the combatant allies, who included a large contingent of troops from the US. To put it very politely, the US had finally come off the fence and joined the war, after years of catastrophic slaughter in the trenches of northern Europe.

However, the label on the postcard overstates the importance of the Battle of Château-Thierry in isolation. The battle of Château-Thierry was part of a much wider battle, to which the US soldiers certainly contributed bravely, and in which they were an important factor in achieving victory. And that wider effort was indeed a turning point of the Great War.

The postcard is an interesting object, but it was published later in the US as a piece of patriotic puffing about a victory. It should not be reproduced without a little comment to give it context.

Let me stress again that this is not to demean the bravery of the US troops, whose arrival, however delayed by their government, made a difference[1]. Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You handled that very delicately bravo! If its propoganda then that should be mentioned, is it?Willski72 (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]. For "made a difference" please. You can't go around making such outrageous statements without providing a source. Very uncouth. --candlewicke 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The postcard is no longer in the Did you know? section of the main page. I was able to view it on on Google's Cache of the main page as it was yesterday two hours ago. The Cache has since been updated by Google ,and the post-card can no longer be viewed in the Did you know? section of the main page. Tip: To find which archive contains the fact that appeared on Did You Know?, return to the article and click "What links here" to the left of the article. When you find "Wikipedia:Recent additions" and a number, click it and search for the article name.:[1]Archive

Stadt (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke - As an over educated person, I know the history of everything (and have learned to value nothing), and do not need citations. However, as you and I must assist the Masses, citation now added. As indicated by my user page, I am too lazy to do any work on this, so I have added the fifth item which came up on Google when I put in "made a difference" and "Great War". That seems to be how "citations" are selected for many articles, so I feel no shame. ;-D Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a terrible pain being over-educated as the under-educated masses all expect so much from us when one is tempted to simply lounge around and commit acts of criminal laziness. This is of course our divine right. But it's so much bother telling them that so I save time by disguising my laziness through regular bouts of back-breaking manual labour. --candlewicke 18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if i'd taken up that rectal thermometer job i'd be rich enough to agree with you both now....Willski72 (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you inserted "job" in there as the sentence might otherwise have read of an insertion of a more painful kind. --candlewicke 20:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and we wouldnt want that now would we....?Willski72 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it simply depends... there are those who would be quite excited by the thought of torture or being tortured. There are also those who would request a bucket... --candlewicke 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I might just go and lie down in a corner somewhere and cry...shudder.Willski72 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that (above) they've managed to turn the alcoholic window cleaner back into a debate on reliability. --candlewicke 23:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
And we never found out who Mr. Wen is. Blah42b10 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Its just not as easy to descend serious arguments into farce these days!Willski72 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but as far as I can see they do that themselves anyway without much effort - unless you count a fictional character being stalked into the wrong universe as a serious matter... --candlewicke 19:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is, is the character really fictional? Would she be on Wikipedia if she were not real?Willski72 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe she is from an alternate universe, and by some strange warping of space and time, and whatever other related types of diminsions that we do not currently know about, she is posting on Wikipedia in our universe from her's, or whatever. Blah42b10 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes thats the sort of thing im talking about, maybe a worm hole or something.Willski72 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a wormhole only connect space within the same universe and not a connection between universes? I don't have time to check the article, but I'm pretty good with physics of that sort. Blah42b10 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well its a good job someone is because i dont have a clue! I highly suspect you are correct and i therefore change my phrase to,

"Yes thats the sort of thing im talking about, maybe a TARDIS or something"

Hopefully thats more logical(!) Though im not sure they had them in the star wars galaxy which, we are reliably informed, is far far away.Willski72 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes more sense, and yes of course they had them, until the time war... unless some jedi or sith or something stole the Doctor's TARDIS, which would mean that he is either stranded there, dead OR maybe they didn't steal it but he is actually a jedi. (Runs to write ideas down)Blah42b10 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be interesting, the doctor with a lightsaber. Maybe his sonic screwdriver extends!Willski72 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GENIUS!!! Blah42b10 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you know.... i try not to brag!Willski72 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Why is the election in Iran not news? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been, most days since the election. I'd guess it's because not much is happening today - the BBC are reporting that there are no protests today. Check Portal:Current events for events in Iran on recent days. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Happy now? :D --candlewicke 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops, just seen this! I'm guessing that as soon as I opened my mouth, there were protests. Darnit! If I had an embassy in Tehran, I'd be having diplomats expelled right now... Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I meant by the time I noticed this the tit-for-tat exchange of diplomatic expulsion was at the top of ITN. :D And if I had an embassy I would expel and restore diplomats for fun every day... keeps them on their toes... ;) --candlewicke 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Iran is very confused country. In Iran, they always live in danger and war. Therefore Irans people think that they don't need a news. Because, they know well about their situation. Also, they don't like be know aobut the other country's people (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC) jANG jI hYEON

Link on Jackson's death

I think the link "Michael Jackson" in the Michael Jackson's snippet (spelling?) in the "news" section should lead to the "Death" section of the article, not just the "Michael Jackson" article. Or is there a reason it doesn't?G man yo (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's any kind of policy, but section links are generally avoided from the Main Page - they can disorient new readers by starting them halfway down a page, and removes control from them. —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that the article is made, maybe link it to Death of Michael Jackson? Dkl1456 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that that article should not exist. But, although it can be disorienting, many of the other links in the news section lead directly to something explaining the news event, and not just the person in the news event, and I am of the opinion that this link should follow suit. But fair enough, if nobody wants to change it, then I'm cool with that. G man yo (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the death article should exist either, and am seriously considering nominating it for deletion. It is nothing but fluff and media speculation.--Susan118 talk 02:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this actually is already linked on the main page. Very disappointing that the main page would link to an article with so little substance. --Susan118 talk 02:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) It should be Pop star Michael Jackson (pictured) dies at the age of 50, after suffering cardiac arrest.. This is In The News after all, and not Featured Article of the day. MickMacNee (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the Death of Michael Jackson page should be linked there. --Evildevil (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I too prefer this version Modest Genius talk 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this too. Pyrrhus16 20:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the two huge sections of junk above, maybe now an admin might notice this section. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is on the Main Page talk and ANI and not one reply for hours. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try on the proper place, i.e. Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors perhaps? 10:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't an error, oh mysterious one. MickMacNee (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Linking to the wrong article or with the wrong word, is indeed an error. If you still don't agree, the simple fact is basically, any change to an existing item is considered an error (this makes sense since if there is an imperfection on the most visible page on wikipedia which is supposed to highlight our content, that seems like an error to me) and belongs in the error section whether it is far more likely to be noticed and dealt with by admins. (Admins particularly those familiar with the rules associated with the main page and therefore willing to make changes do not generally monitor Talk:Main Page because issues that require admin attention rarely come up here instead there tends to be just a bunch of mostly OT stuff like help I'm being stalked even though there's no evidence etc as there are more appropriate sections for them to be dealt with. In particular, raising an issue here which requires timely admin action is pretty much pointless. If you read the very big header, it also makes this clear. "This page is for discussing improvements to the entire Main Page only. This is not a place to ask general questions or submit content." and "Main Page Errors: To report a problem about the current content on the Main Page." etc Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to above, and the post on my talk page [2], it was absolutely not an error, anybody with the most basic understanding can see that, it was a simple adjustment of the wording, which was already correct. And the discussions I removed were absolutely not relevant to this page, so were perfectly removeable as off topic nonsense filling up the page, per WP:TALK. It did not belong here, it should not have been prolonged, and it most certainly has no business being in the page's archive. And admins should be watching this talk page regularly, especially as you point out, people post here when they should be in another venue, regularly. If there are non-standard practices occuring on this page, or basic issues arising from poorly worded instructions, or de-facto bad standards such as ignoring WP:TALK being practiced by the regulars here, none of that is a problem for me to change, or work around. MickMacNee (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation error in Trans March hook

Resolved: Fixed by Jarry1250. Shubinator (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be no comma after the word "March" in the hook currently in queue 1. Otto4711 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Reposted to WP:ERRORS. (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Events in Honduras

Until the nature of what's happening in Honduras is clear, I don't think it should be labeled a "coup d'état" as is done on the main page. All actions undertaken by the military, the Supreme Court and Congress appear justified in the Hondruan Constitution, especially as Zelaya was not respecting the Court's decisions declaring the referendum illegal. Zelaya was abusing his power, and any president doing so loses his or her status as president, and may be arrested.

[[ (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)]]

People from there are sending in messages to television and saying this is not a coup. Why is Wikipedia calling it a coup and being one sided? The people are saying he acted like a dictator. Why is it called a cup d'etat?

Chenzou, China

{{editprotected}} I think that the first "In the news" story should say "Chenzhou, China" instead of just "Chenzhou" since most people probably have not heard of Chenzhou. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 01:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Germananic Flute

I have added information on the Hohle Fels page about the bird flute found. I don't think there should be an individual page created just for the flute, atleast not as of yet. So can we please get a link to the page saying something like "Archeologists confirm the discovery of a 35,000-year-old flute in Hohle Fels cave, the oldest confirmed musical instrument, in Germany.", and link Hohle Fels? We really should have a link to an article where people can find out more information on the subject being discussed.JanderVK (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You cannot change the link now after all this time. what does it matter anyway? they can still find it caus flute is linked too. 03:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree there should be a link with context. But there's an early link to Hohle Fels on the Flute article, however, which I believe provides readers access to the information. Sure the link can be changed, even after all this time; however, it doesn't appear to be essential. --Mysidia (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the logic on having to scan through the flute article just to find information on this particular flute. Would you scan through the literature article to find information on William Blake's writings, no you wouldn't, you would search William Blake. Yes, it is also relevant enough to change the link! It's still on the front page news section, and people still click on it. I'm glad someone took the initiative and atleast linked to the Hohle Fels cave article, which has to do with this particular flute. (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Flute contains more information then Hohle Fels so it remains the appropriate article to link to for ITN. It also seems to me this is the proper thing since the discovery is of far greater significance to flute then Hohle Fels. The information is fairly early in the article, so this hardly seems a big deal to me but if the appropriate thing to request was a link to the specific subsection covering the new development (i.e. history) rather then linking to a largely irrelevant article as the primary topic. Also, as mentioned in many places, this should be reported in errors not here Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the main page?

?? - (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why am I not able to edit the Main Page? Algebraist 15:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, this is a wiki, and YOU ARE BREAKING THE WIKI SPIRIT by not letting me edit the main page. (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is not going to work. WP is not run by such pie-eyed idealists that they'll let a known vandal edit the mainpage because he has appealed to the "Wiki spirit". APL (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No feeding, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed [3] Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah i want to edit it too, oh wiki gods.-- (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Crash

Did wikipedia just crash? i was trying to browse some article and a This Wiki Has A Problem page popped up everytime, whats the matter?--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was down. I posted a question over at Commons and got a short explanation from BanyanTree. Newsboy85 (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, i see, thank you for the information brother (= --Josecarlos1991 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
TechBlog entry about this --mav (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson dead?

Sky News, BBC, TZM and CNN are all reporting that Michael Jackson has died, I advise the editing admins for the main page, not to 'jump the gun', per se, he has been known for his publicity stunts. Worth watching though. Murgon (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Most aren't reporting it as "official" yet, but I agree that, at this point, we should take reports with a pinch of salt. Not sure if it is worth the main page anyways, but still... J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Just heard on the radio, the LA Times are saying he is in a coma, I think the 'dust fallout' is going to make reporting this on the mainpage quite hard, leave it for a few hours. Murgon (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
BBC says LA Times and CBS are reporting him dead but CNN isn't so it is very unclear at this time. --candlewicke 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a messed up situation. Murgon (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
NBC mirrors the LA Times report. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN reports he's dead too. ESTEMSHORNtalkSign 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, deaths from natural causes don't really go on the main page. There was a fight over it when Sir Edmund Hillary died. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Hillary was nothing compared with the King of Pop, the worldwide popularity and sudden, shocking death of Micheal Jackson should be reason enough to appear on the main page. User talk:Pho3nix-

Could you produce a link to the policy page where that is said please? I have never read it myself. Murgon (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be on the main page, even though he is an extremely famous person, if we put this on the main page then why shouldn't we put Ed McMahon(or however you spell it), Farrah Fawcett and other notable deaths recently? Blah42b10 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ITN is now far more open than it was. This could hit the main page; personally, I have no opinion. Note, also, that Jackson's death was not expected- Hillary's death was less of a surprise. This is an argument in favour of including it. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a news story about Lucas Glover winning a golf tournament. Does anyone seriously consider that to be more important or notable than one of the most famous stars in the world suddenly dying at an early age? Why the hell wouldn't this be considered notable enough for the front page? Zincomog (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's now official: "A Los Angeles city official confirmed that Michael Jackson is dead. The official said he died away at 1:07 p.m. Pacific time."[4] Please update. -- Taku (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not until that comes from a reputable news source should that be considered official. Murgon (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
LA Times, NYTimes, BBC, NBC, Fox News, all confirm his death. I don't think this should be a "reported to have" anymore. Also, maybe we should put a picture up on main page? Mononomic (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe File:Michael Jackson 1984.jpg for the photo? Certainly more interesting than European flags... Mononomic (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we make the picture just a little bit bigger (maybe 80-100px wide)? Mononomic (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#ITN candidates for June 25 Mononomic (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
An example of indescribable irony if you didn't see it or had forgotten. --candlewicke 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not irony, that's an interesting coincidence. "Irony" is one of the most often misused words on the Internet, and you provided an excellent example of how it is misused. Danthemankhan 18:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it standard policy only to announce the deaths of heads of state on the main page?-- (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He's the King of Pop, isn't he? ;-) Teemu08 (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Wadester16/Smile That made me laugh. wadester16 02:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Without reading the previous discussions, I assume there was consensus that he follows this criterion: "The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such." Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think it broke the record for support at ITN previously possibly broken by an old flute about an hour earlier (that one still hasn't been updated or posted because the internet came down around me and possibly everyone else and ITN was invaded by those mass edit conflict causing types that turn up and are never seen again). The media seems to be verifying Michael Jackson as the cause of this crash - which would indicate that something very unusual happened across several sites, including this one. --candlewicke 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Video which I thought was a good summary of the international reaction. "BBC reporters on global Jackson reaction". --candlewicke 15:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And another showing various television coverage - "TV stations report Jackson's death". --candlewicke 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Any word on when the Heir apparent of the King of Pop, Fresh Prince will take the throne? Vdrj2 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I don't see any evidence for breaking any records. In fact, I'm pretty sure we've had way more then 6 before particularly before ITN became so dead. Indeed, I suspect in the old days admins would easily be yelled at if they added controversial or unclear items with only 2-3 supports. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Well that was then and this is now. That's why I said "previously possibly broken" and linked to a comment by someone else. But for two in a matter of hours to get that much support is unusual for 2009 at any rate. And admins getting "yelled at" for adding items? Where have you been? That's still going on... --candlewicke 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

After the mourning period.... but before the afternoon period!!!!Willski72 (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

After the sun rises. Or should that before the moon walks? --candlewicke 03:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it off the front page. Now we can get on with other things. Peter Greenwell (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't moved from the main page, it was told to Beat It ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Surely you can't be serious! Peter Greenwell (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! What have i unleashed!Willski72 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's BAD! BAD! REALLY REALLY BAD! Ahem, sorry. --candlewicke 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You know i thought better of you Candlewicke, outbursts such as that are not wanted on this encyclopedia! Next someone will come up and start shouting about thrilled zombies and criminals that are getting soft (or some such nonsense!)Willski72 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Careful now, this could get a bit dangerous. --candlewicke 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with you lot is that you just "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough". There, i have done one, are you satisfied now!Willski72 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't win. --candlewicke 18:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, this post is a bit of a thriller wasn't it? I mean, I know it's just human nature that we have to cry over his death. He was gone too soon but just be happy. We've just got to leave him alone, and We're almost there. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Right thats it! I asked nicely, i tried to appease you! I tell you know that you are responsible for what i have been driven to! Remember that as they put me 6 feet under! (Sound of rattling followed by a 'click' 'click' 'click', a gulp, a loud bang and a soft thud.....)Willski72 (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No! Just give it one more chance! :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Leave Me Alone. --candlewicke 23:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Im dead and i cant get away! Oh look i've still got that gun (loud bang followed by a soft thud).Willski72 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'. You Got To Be Startin' Somethin'. --candlewicke 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if i was in hell before i have no idea where i am now.... and those bloody Michael Jackson song names are still going! (Loud bang followed by a soft thud)Willski72 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep on, keep on... don't stop 'til you get enough... --candlewicke 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no i havent got any bullets left!Willski72 (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Loss of 3,000 articles

Anybody have any idea why our article count dropped from over 2, 929,000 last night to 2,926,000 this morning? Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The deletionists have won? –Howard the Duck 13:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again the expansionists have been defeated by the minimalists, it is only a matter of time before there is nothing left....Willski72 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a massive exaggeration. Majorly talk 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Willski72, have you actually taken a look at the AfD? I'm someone who can certainly support mass creation of those kind of stubs- I'm dismayed about how patchy our coverage of fungi is, for instance. But that was obviously a sound deletion, due to the massive amounts of major errors within them. J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Knowing Willski72 as I do, I can say without fear of contradiction that Willski72 never, never, never, ever, ever, ever exaggerates. Never ever. Not ever. No sirree. ;-) (I suspect Willski72 may be satirising dramah - they are a bringer of light-relief in general. I did see the AfD, and fully agree with the deletions). In other news, I'm pondering what would be the better name for a (hypothetical) band: "The deletionists have won", or "Anybot's algae articles"? TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The latter, I reckon. "The deletionists have won" would be a headline on an ultra-inclusionist newspaper on the day a known deletionist was elected to ArbCom. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Willski, I bet this goes on all the time. Tomorrow you'll wake up and there'll be 30,000 new articles and the following day there'll be 8,000 less. It all works out in the end. --candlewicke 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

First let me say i was not in any way being sarcastic (!) and i fully believed that i would wake up one morning to find that Wikipedia had imploded on itself! However i now take great comfort in the knowledge that this was not the beginning of the end but just the normal workings of a somewhat erratic machine! PS "The deletionists have won" would be a far better name for a band than some of the rubbish they come up with, it has my full support.Willski72 (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

PPS "Anybot's algae articles"??? There really is no contest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talkcontribs) 09:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry!Willski72 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere out there there will be someone with a recurring nightmare wherein they go to sleep at night with millions of articles on Wikipedia, but when they wake up and check the main page's top banner, it says "1 articles in English". They go to Special:AllPages, their heart racing, and all that appears is a single page called The deletionists have won. They click on it, short of breath by now. All that appears on the page is "Wake up". They wake up in a cold sweat, knowing that won't be the last time they have that same dream. Dreaded Walrus t c 09:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that would be very scary, especially if (for some unknown reason) the page called "The deletionists have won" was flashing bright red or somesuch colour. It would also be even scarier if the article went on to describe the mass murder of the expansionists in the middle of a meeting by gas through the air vents/deletionist indoctrinated man with machine gun etcWillski72 (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The articles deleted were deleted because they were made by a bot an contained factual errors. Wikipedia is better without 3000 inaccurate articles. The deletions were a result of a near unanimous debate. Attempting to make this part of the largely exaggerated "deletionists" vs "inclusionists" disputes demonstrates a real lack of awareness of the true situation. There are enough real issues on Wikipedia, no need to make up ones that don't exist. Chillum 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel like a dog thats just been kicked for goodnaturedly barking at the wrong person! (I was joking... as i have been all the way through... just in case you hadnt already worked that out).Willski72 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now you have pointed this out. The satire was so close to reality I got confused. Chillum 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This gives you more time to join the Wikipedia:Three-millionth topic pool! - BanyanTree 05:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Re astronomer Rolf Brahde, it's heartwarming to see Norway back in the DYK column. Sca (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Has it been absent for long? There are currently several European countries directly mentioned at ITN - Czech Republic, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, Sweden and Russia and Italy but no Norway... --candlewicke 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Recent additions, this is the fifth Norway-related item in the last week. Algebraist 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the vast population (a fifth of the worlds!) and the large surface area (4th biggest in the world!) this is a shambles! Or maybe i've mixed Norway up with China?Willski72 (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right... people are always talking about Norway here so it must be big. Considering Europe has like 2/3 of the world's English-speaking populations (or something) I'm guessing they must all live in Norway or maybe moved there from other countries to escape all the sudden floods and exploding trains and now they're all celebrating there because Wikipedia has restored them to their rightful place alongside the United States of New Zealand and Zimbabwe. (Did I get that right? No? Oh.) --candlewicke 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, don't knock Newzlandia. We invented the jet, the atom and Mount Everest (though that last one was a joint invention). Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't even know you were from there. Um... (Inserting other country...) YUGOSLAVIA! Is that one OK? Wait, that doesn't exist right? So nobody can be offended (hopefully). If you're from Yugoslavia pretend it's some other non-existent country like Kosovo... oops, touchy subject. Um... Neverland! There we go... right on topic as well... and if you're Peter Pan you don't exist, OK? --candlewicke 01:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a statistical fact that Norway once controlled a huge empire and defeated Germany single-handedly in the Second World War.Willski72 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh curses, now our Secret has finally been exposed. We "Europeans" are all really Norwegians. When we are not working on our Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius encyclopedia, we write fake articles on the imaginary countries of "Europe". We warned you not to tell the non-"European" editors. The whole game has been spoilt. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Slip of the tongue, im sorry! At least they still dont know about the Luxembourg's huge new navy thats 3 times bigger than any other. Woops!Willski72 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Keep using code words like Luxembourg for our fNordic state. They'll never guess. Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Careful now. Next thing you'll let slip about the countries of Amenesia, Invisibia and Nonexistencia having never been mapped by non-Europeans. --candlewicke 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you hear that North Korea has just built 2000 new ballistic missiles with nuclear capacity and that they can fire as far as 10,000 miles in only 5 minutes?Willski72 (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I thought this was a series of jokes but your above comment has made me realise this was an error. My humblest apologies. --candlewicke 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes well.... always remember never to mess with Russia. Its powers are too mighty to comprehend!Willski72 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Front page is losing its appeal

Put some more bright colors in it. --AaThinker (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a regular suggestion, one that has caused widespread debate but always leads to nothing. See WP:PEREN for more information. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Not only is this a regular suggestion, but it's to be a regular suggestion by AaThinker, apparently. —David Levy 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a rule against it I can't find? --AaThinker (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A rule against repeatedly posting the same suggestion (without even noting this fact)? No, but it's rather unproductive and time-wasting for all involved. —David Levy 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Did You Know

Two of the items in Did You Know are non-compliant as they fail to deal with Canadian subjects. Can someone fix this urgently? Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not something to be fixed. They don't have to deal with Canadian subjects. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've checked, and the Royal Mail article does have a link to Canada Post. So, only the Wiltshire article fails the "Refer to Canada" test. Clearly some error. :-D Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by the "Refer to Canada" test? I know it is Canada Day but it doesn't mean all DYK hooks have to be Canada-related. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your majesty - I am joking. {Bows and grovels, backs from the Borg throne room then, unplugging self from the Hive Entity, enters escape pod. Sound of airlock closing.} Michael of Lucan (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Groan... --BorgQueen (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You really shouldnt have those escape pods within easy reach of jokers, or at least have a guard there watching the thing!Willski72 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, today's TWO Norway-related DYKs are the best yet! Sca (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


In the news "Republic of Ireland" should be pipelinked to show Ireland as Republic of Ireland is not the name of the country and the main page should be accurate and reflect this.MITH 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action.MITH 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, knowing next to nothing about the country, I wonder why the article is named "Republic of Ireland"? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's complicated. But I would just like to say that it was "Ireland" all the way from P:CE and ITN/C to posting and as soon as I noticed "Republic of" on the Main Page I moved to point it out before any scene was made... it just shows how quick these things are noticed... --candlewicke 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Up until recently it was felt the island deserved the name Ireland more than the country of the same name for whatever reason/POV. However an Arbcom case (WP:IECOLL) is currently ongoing and the titles of both article are due to be changed. You will likely see an ad for the upcoming poll on your watchlist quite soon.MITH 17:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Since when was the Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border cow proof? I know it's a secondary consideration to the 'name of Ireland' POV wars, but in the case of this news, I would have thought it was pretty important to distinguish between state and island. Although sadly, neither the article, or even the sources for the news, don't bother to expand on exactly where in 'Ireland' brucellosis was a problem. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the independent Irish State is a source of continual discussion on Wikipedia, because it has emotional issues for many people. Like the name of Football/soccer/Association football, this issue cannot be resolved by discussion. You will not stop the dispute without mass slaughter of one side or the other. Wikipedia aims at consensus, and for that namby-pamby reason rejects mass slaughter as a solution.

I have clear views on both subjects, but have learned not to express them. Peeing against the wind only gets you wet - the wind flows on regardless. Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how an admin posting two words produces a debate on the mortality rates of cattle. At least that might be the best idea if this is to continue. Alas, it was inevitable... I did my best... :( --candlewicke 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia aims at consensus, and for that namby-pamby reason rejects mass slaughter as a solution".

Is it me or can you just not have fun any more!Willski72 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, some people get so ANGRY when their rights are trampled on... others get angry when their cows trample on them. --candlewicke 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes.... can be a bit of a bother when one of your cows tramples on you cant it....Willski72 (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about one? --candlewicke 21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are trampled on by only one cow from Ireland, then its ok, because you are not going to get infected, but if you are trampled on by only one cow from Ireland, its not ok, because you will be infected. Wikipedia (and the Irish newspapers:, making the world dumber, one news item at a time. MickMacNee (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How many cows are we talking about here?Willski72 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A proposal

I'm posting this here because I don't know where else to post this, since it doesn't apply to a single article or even to a specific project.

I've noticed that some of the articles on Wikipedia contain content that definitely isn't appropriate for small children, yet they could still come upon them accidentally by using the random article feature. Clearly, Therefore, something needs to be done. Wikipedia isn't censored, so that's not what I'm proposing. Rather, any articles detailing the processes of human reproduction (with or without pictures) or excretion (with pictures), as well as anything else that may be determined inappropriate in the future, should be moved to a separate namespace, perhaps "Adult:" or something similar. Then, on the page for that subject in the main namespace, a warning template should be placed stating that the content isn't appropriate for children and containing a link that a person can click to go to the article if he isn't bothered by the inappropriate content. --Aruseusu (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPM or one of the other village pump pages would be a better place for this. You'll need a better argument than 'clearly', though. Algebraist 23:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A proposal for further discussion. - BanyanTree 07:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

North Korean launch-imprecise

Shouldn't the item about the North Korean launch be changed to reflect that they were cruise missiles? In its current form the text implies that they were ballistic.--Fireaxe888 (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. I follow the line that people expect the worse, especially from a communist dictatorship that has shut down its borders and is well known for its nuclear ambitions. Its imprecise not inprecise by the way, but i wont hold it against ye!Willski72 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

hi i edited and page and i would like back to normal please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

More information please. --candlewicke 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Language panel

I cannot see Hindi, Tamil, JKannada OR ANY OTHER INDIAN language on the language pnel..--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main_Page_FAQ#In_what_order_are_the_other_Wikipedias_displayed.3F_Where.27s_my_language.3F for an explanation Modest Genius talk 15:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A little further digging has thrown up some relevant discussion at Template_talk:Wikipedialang#Hindi_Wikipedia Modest Genius talk 16:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Capslock. Cruise Control To Awesome.-- (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Video Game Articles

What we need are more video game articles. A lack of snippets on the front page that link to meticulously written articles about this medium will lead to loss of credibility in the scientific world. Please include more video game articles. Thanks. (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming its safe to interpret that as sarcasm, your complaint is hardly a new one. Bottom line, an FA takes a great deal of work, and people are going to be more prone to do that kind of work on a subject they find interesting. The best way to get the sort of topics you think are "appropriate" for the main page on there is to work on those articles. Complaining here is far less likely to prove fruitful.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 17:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The false assumption that our objective is/should be appealing to the "credibility of the scientific world" aside, apparently Wikipedia editors are actually more interested in science than video games, considering that there are at least three times the amount of scientific FAs than gaming FAs. That reminds me: is there some stats tool out there that quantifies FAs and TFAs by general topic? It'd be helpful to know the exact percentage a certain type of article appears on the main page without having to sift through a long list of titles. Nufy8 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

20,000 -> 40,000

Where is the discussion where it was decided that Wikipedias in other languages listed on the Main Page need to have at least 40,000 articles, changed from 20,000? -- (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I asked this question, wasn't logged in. --AdamSommerton (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it was done in this edit. I don't see any discussion for this on Template talk:Wikipedialang, but you should bring up any concerns you may have there. howcheng {chat} 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that I posted a more detailed explanation at Template talk:MainPageInterwikis#Georgian Wikipedia. —David Levy 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I was just curious. --AdamSommerton (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduras and the OAS

The News section states that the OAS has suspended Honduras, but shouldn't it also be noted that Honduras actually left the organization prior to being suspended? AP: Honduras leaves OAS after body decries coup LCpl (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

According to OAS, "an illegitimate government" cannot remove a member nation. [5] --BorgQueen (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To Infinity and Beyond on Main Page

Hi, not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but can one send a page to AFD if it is on the main page? I'm going to assume the answer is no but I'd like confirmation. Thanks very much, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is not on the main page, is it? Anyway, probably you can send it to AfD. More appropriate place for such questions is one of the divisions at Village pump, though. --Tone 09:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, at DYK. Thanks for the tip off about VP - I've still not really figured out what exactly that's for! :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Curiously, I can't find it in DYK, not even the link... VP is indeed useful when you are not sure about something, people there are helpful. --Tone 09:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a bit irritating, it got taken off around an hour ago. D'oh. Never mind then... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 :-) --Tone 09:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with you nominating a page at DYK, but, once it is nominated, it should probably be replaced. I think there's a policy against DYKing AFDed articles, but not AFDing DYKed articles. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Independence Day

So D-Day only got a featured picture and was excluded from "on this day" under the "it only should appear in one section per day", but now we have a featured picture and on this day for Independence Day. Are there 2 standards at work here or has policy changed as a result of the d-day discussions? Knowledgeum :  Talk  08:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned as a holiday (because this recurs each year), but does not have an item in OTD. Whilst you have a point, I think the current setup is fair enough. Modest Genius talk 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The other difference is that the main article in POTD is Trumbull's Declaration of Independence, not Independence Day (United States), whereas on June 6, both OTD and POTD would have led to Normandy Landings. howcheng {chat} 20:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It's been explained here (so I assume its true) that OTD is not intended as a list of The Most Important things that happened today. It's not a top ten list. It's been explained that it's intended as an interesting assortment of things that are at least moderately important. If that's true, and I can't find the policy that backs it up, then all these questions of "Why this one, but not that one?" become meaningless. APL (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:OTD#Criteria for listing items on this set of page: "[Basically], a combination of the 'majorness' of the event, the mix of items already listed, along with the relative completeness of the article, are the criteria used, along with the requirement for appropriate 'context'." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, all else being equal, an article that wasn't listed last year (or in recent years) takes precedence over one that was (as a tie-breaker when there isn't room for both). Correct? —David Levy 01:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ideally, yes. If "the most important or significant events" was the only criterion, that would put a tremendous burden on admins since it would be 100 percent subjective. On a day-to-day basis, events that are "the most important or significant" to one person, group or organization are not necessarily felt the same way to another. Thus, it could make the section either purely original research (if picked by admins/users here) or a copyright violation (if it is based on a third party). Therefore, we have other factors that are a bit more objective like listing a mix of topics and whether the articles are well-written. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

7/7 bombing

Were the July 7th bombing in London, 2005 not thought of as notable enough to go in the 'on this day' section? There are no recent items hare either. Sorry for the late comment, not much use. -Finkzizard 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

(moved to bottom) Because such events are generally featured on the 10th anniversary (or 20, 30, you get the idea). Sorry, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Garden, I hate to contradict you, but not a single item on OTD was a multiple of ten years ago. Personally, I would consider the 7/7 bombings more significant than the sliced bread anniversary, but I'm probably a little biased- they were in my lifetime, and in my country. J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Woops. My bad. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for puting my comment in the wrong place, this year was a significant anniversary as today the memorial for the deceased was unveiled. -Finkzizard 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Our coverage of the memorial is practically nil. We have a brief mention on 7 July 2005 London bombings memorials and services which I just updated, but no article. There's enough coverage to warrant one, I will write it tomorrow if no one beats me to it. J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikinews has an article, if anyone is interested in reading it. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The memorial has been mentioned in Ireland by RTÉ if you need or wish to use a non-British source. --candlewicke 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)