Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This page is for discussing improvements to the entire Main Page only.

This is not a place to ask general questions or submit content.

If your question is related to the entire Main Page please search to make sure it hasn't been answered before:

If your question is not directly related to the Main Page, consider the following locations:

If in doubt, please see the Questions Help page for details on posting a question unrelated to the Main Page.
20:56, Tuesday March 17, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page Error Reports

Main Page Toolbox
Yesterday
March 16		 Today
March 17, 2009		 Tomorrow
March 18
TFA TFA TFA
SA/OTD SA/OTD SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.		 POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.		 POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
In the news / In the news suggestions
Did you know / DYK Suggestions / Next Update / Queue
Protected main page images
Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ
It is now 20:56 UTC
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

To report an error you have noticed on the current Main Page or tomorrow's Main Page please add it to the appropriate section below. Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered, so please be specific. You can do this by pressing the [edit] button to the right of the appropriate section's heading. Also, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~)

Note that the current date and time are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which may not coincide with your local time zone. The next day's featured article of the day, picture of the day, and anniversaries update at midnight (00:00) according to UTC. The current time is 20:56 on March 17, 2009 (UTC). (Update)

Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made. Lengthy discussions should not take place here, and should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.

References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error, and a suggested rewording is helpful with a stylistic complaint. The main page usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.

[edit] Errors in the summary of Today's featured article on the Main Page

[edit] Errors in In the news

The picture of Maurico Funes should be flipped to face the center of the page. The same should probably also be done for the TFA picture. Emw2012 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we do not misrepresent reality for the sake of prettiness. If it has been done in the past, it should not have been. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
To my understanding, this is supported by MOS:IMAGES and fairly common practice both at FAC and on the main page. Emw2012 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
MOS:Images states: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text... However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences". There has also been discussion on this page recently which has shown consensus against changing the images - Dumelow (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Comment A new item should be added to Template:In the news by Wednesday, 18 March 2009 16:22 Wikipedia time (UTC).

Today is Tuesday, March 17, 2009; it is now 20:56 (UTC)

Time since last update: 4 hours. (verify)

To update this updateclock to the current time use: {{ITN-Update|2009|03|17|20|56|48}}
Reset Clock | Purge

[edit] Errors in Selected anniversaries/On this day

[edit] Errors in Picture of the Day/Today's featured picture

Reporters: please first correct the regular version.

[edit] Errors in Did you know?

Comment
 Earliest time for next update is Tuesday, 17 March 2009 23:03 Wikipedia time (UTC).

Today is Tuesday, March 17, 2009; it is now 20:56 (UTC)

Time since last update: 3 hours. (verify)
Reset Clock – Purge


[edit] General discussion

Shortcut:
T:MP

Contents


[edit] Video on Main Page

DUCK AND COVER - of people can't access this movie, without downloading something first. I thought it was just me, but from talking to my colleagues it's clear that none of us can run these movies on Wikipedia - although we use Wikipedia every day. Most of us access Wikipedia from work, where we are barred from downloading new applications onto our PCs. You are only annoying us by including video pieces that we can't run.Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC) comments moved from Errors page --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dweller - to avoid timewasting dispute, I will accept your edit in moving my comment down here. However, with respect, I was drawing attention to a fundamental error in the mode of production of the picture, not commenting on its content. In effect, you have applied subjective judgment to what I said by denying that it is an error.Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues you raise are worthy of more general discussion, not just pertaining to that particular video. So this is the more appropriate venue. Furthermore, it's not a correctable "error", making placing it there less relevant as well. I accept I made a judgement call, but I stand by it. Meanwhile, let's see what people think of the issues you raise. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Michael of Lucan, Wikipedia never makes the guarantee that all people will be able to access all of its knowledge and resources from all Internet-capable devices. For example, for containing information about China that may be seen as detrimental to that nation's reputation, most users in China cannot access certain portions of the encyclopedia.
Wikipedia does make the guarantee that its knowledge and resources will, where possible, remain free to use for any purpose by anyone who can access it. The non-proprietary file format being used for our videos helps to preserve that guarantee. A universally-accessible encyclopedia is a fine ideal, but Wikipedia has placed its priorities on near-universal utility.
Now for a useful answer... try YouTube, it has the video in its entirety (and it can easily be resized to full-screen, which is nice). Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand your points, but let me give you an analogy. Suppose I create an article in the English language part of Wikipedia, but I write a large chunk of it in Russian, without translation. Suppose that I refer to the Russian part frequently, and the information in it is key to understanding the article. In theory, that information is freely available to any English language speaker who wants it - by getting a translation. In reality, the article becomes frustrating and loses value for most readers. It would be promptly edited to remove the Russian text, and make its information available in some other way.
That is parallel with the video format used by Wikipedia. It would be better not to use these items on the Main page, and no article should assume the video is seen by the reader. I believe it's not seen by most readers.Michael of Lucan (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If I could download a Firefox plugin that would allow me to read Russian flawlessly, then your analogy would work. (That would be a pretty cool plug-in.) However, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the current solution is ideal.
Since embedded off-site links are obviously unacceptable, perhaps you could find us, or help the developers to create, a free way of embedding OGM files that is more universal?
Then you would have a proposal for change that could be acted on instead of just a complaint. APL (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
The comparison doesn't hold up. You are unable to unable to view the video format due to the technical restrictions of the machine you are using... not because you lack the education or cultural background to understand it.
Any format chosen would present software compatibility issues. QuickTime? Can't view it without software support. Windows Media? Can't view it without software support. FLV? Your browser must support Flash video. (Insert file format here)? You still need software support.
To quote from WP:Creation and usage of media files, "Wikipedia uses Ogg Theora for video because it is open and royalty-free." Most of the formats supported by your machine probably do not offer these advantages. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 15:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Get your IT department to install a codec on your machines that supports playing OGGs. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Firefox 3.1 will have Ogg Theora support built in. (Signpost article) At that point, the other browsers will have to decide whether they need to jump on board or if they can continue to marginalize Ogg Theora in favor of their proprietary formats. Wikipedia has never allowed those proprietary formats, so the ball has been in Internet Explorer et al's court for years. - BanyanTree 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
For my part, I enjoyed seeing Duck and Cover, I remember those drills in grade school, at 1 p.m. on the first Wednesday of every month, when the air-raied sirens would wail.
Years later I heard a different version of the instructions: "...go to the basement, kneel against an outside wall, place your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye." Sca (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Michael of Lucan's point isn't that everybody should be able to see the video, but rather that it shouldn't be showcased on the main page because many can not see it. I think the solution is to get your own computer that you can configure how you choose. People with slow connections sometimes set their browser to not show images, but they wouldn't complain to everybody to stop refering to images in the articles.
173.49.91.134 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you can argue IE is marginalising Ogg Theora in favour of proprietary formats. IE doesn't support any video format by default. Also there is no video format that is a required part of the web standards. P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not supporting Michael Lucas or arguing we should use proprietary formats, just pointing out there's not specific reason why you can argue IE, or for that matter Safari, Chrome etc are at fault for not supporting something which isn't a part of any web standard anyway and was only 1.0 in November 2008 and let's face is barely used by anyone. Now if Theora was part of HTML 5 you might have a point but it's not. P.P.S. This may change if Silverlight is made a default part of IE8 Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
In jumping on the technical bandwagon, many of the purist commentators above have missed the point being made: the videos can't been seen by most people because most people do not have the software to view them. Moreover, most people would not know how to get the software, let alone install it confidently; most people will balk at the Wikipedia instructions about what to do to get the software. Note that the above includes almost all schools and libraries in the UK (and probably other countries as well) which, like it or not, remain glued to Windows and its accompanying software because they are told to, and it works. The remaining minority - technicians like me - either are not allowed to install the software (like me) or have done so and are happy. To summarise: including videos on the main page is, for most people, a waste of screen space. Bazza (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Privyet, Russian speakers. I dropped out of this discussion because I felt it had become a discussion between people reinforcing each other's prejudices. To follow my earlier analogy, a group of Russian speakers were reassuring each other that the Russian text was perfectly clear to anyone who took time to learn Russian or just get a translation. Nekulturny, I'm afraid.

Bazza and an earlier anonymous writer understand the real issue. The issue is NOT about whether there is a technical solution to see the videos. The issue is NOT how to teach people to get that technical solution. The issue is certainly NOT about blaming users who fail to get that solution.

The issue IS reality. The reality is that the majority of Wikipedia users do not have that technical solution available to them. The Duck and Cover piece on the Main Page was irritating to them, since it made no sense without seeing the video. They did not see the Picture of the Day. They did not even see a picture - only a meaningless gray blur.

There is little point in continuing a discussion about how and why they can't see the video. If the vast majority of people can't see a video, it is pointless to refer to it on the Main Page of Wikipedia. As Bazza says, including videos on the main page is, for most people, a waste of screen space.Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority can't see it? Really? Do you have evidence to support this assertion? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that they can? I've made the (reasonable, in my view) assertion that most people in the world use Windows PCs to view web sites; and that means that, unless they are able to install the required software, they are not able to view .ogg media. If you have evidence to contradict this, then enlighten me please. Bazza (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Bazza. Many users are forbidden to download onto their PCs. Even if not blocked, why would they download what is (for them) an obscure application of marginal value on a single site that they use? Many can barely use the package pre-loaded on their Windows PC, let alone taking the strain of downloading something new. These are the real users of Wikipedia, not the trained minority in its talk pages. As a test of my sanity, I spoke to twelve people about this in the past couple of days. Nine of them use Wikipedia, and zero can play videos on Wikipedia. STOP! Of course, such a small survey has little scientific value, so don't flame me or produce your survey from your Systems department. This is just a picture of life among real wiki-users. Michael of Lucan (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I am using a Windows PC to view this website, and although I have downloaded no special software to enable this, I am able to view the .ogg file with no problem. It may be that I am in the minority, or it may be that I am not. I have no real evidence either way. Do you? I sometimes visit websites where I am unable to view the content without downloading software support (or upgrading that support) for a font, Flash animation, or proprietary media format (QuickTime, RealAudio, etc.) I would assume that most veteran users of the Internet are accustomed to this aspect of the online world. Am I mistaken? I don't know, since I have no statistics on how many computers come pre-installed with support for non-native formats.
The tone of much of this discussion seems to be that downloading a plugin or codec from a trusted source is the end of the Internet as we know it. In fact, it is quite ordinary, and if a particular machine does not allow its users to do so, how is that a problem with the website? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You have identified the problem, now. Having to confirm that's it's OK to download a "plug-in" or "codec" is the end of the Internet as we know it. "Plugin"? "Codec"? "Trusted source"? Technobabble to most people. It is not quite ordinary: quite ordinary is clicking on something which says "view video" and being able to view a video. The nearest a lot of people have come to this sort of thing in the past is clicking "OK" in response to "You have a virus: do you want to remove it"? and finding their PC unusable and expensive to fix. You still have not got the point that if content is not available, then it is a website's problem: why publish if it can't be viewed? Bazza (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? My gosh... I have never had access to a new, Internet-capable computer that didn't require installing at least a dozen codecs and plugins in order to view the content on major websites. This page requires a particular non-Roman font, that page requires QuickTime, another page requires Flash, and those other pages require Java, RealPlayer, Adobe Reader, Excel Viewer, and a number of other things to function correctly. This has held true from Windows 95 all the way up through Win2000, WinME, WinXP, and Vista, using Internet Explorer versions 4 through 7. Firefox likewise tends to require downloads from time to time in order to stay up-to-date. I'm not sure that you're really talking about the majority of users, here. Anyway, one could argue (and I will, if requested to do so) that surfing the Internet without understanding minimal "technobabble," as you term it, might lead to a number of problems... including ever-increasing familiarity with those virus warnings you mention. Again, not Wikipedia's fault if you attempt to use a tool without understanding it first. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


To more directly answer your last sentence, by the way, the Duck and Cover video is accessible and viewable under the same conditions as any other video in any format on any website: the conditions that software support has been added by you, your system administrator, a previous owner, or the factory worker who installed your operating system and other software. To apply the rule that "a large percentage of computers lack the software to view this file, so it shouldn't be on a particular website" would result, eventually, in the removal of all videos (and most other file types) from all websites. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Outdent & Rant-- Feel free to use an Operating System that includes players that can handle freely available video formats, or download a video player that supports more encoder-decoders (codecs) than just the ones developed and patented by the parent company. I can't see how wikipedia can use patented technology and still remain the free encyclopaedia. Its what's available, whats free and is available in many browsers. If you use a system that is fundamentally broken and doesn't control what goes into it, don't be surprised if it doesn't work with other group's systems. If you get lucky and the push for it to be in HTML 5, and by chance your chosen vendor actually decide to support standards (which by past example is not that great a chance), then your problems may disappear anyway. The only valid comment is the availability of sufficient, or consumption of excess , bandwidth. 129.78.64.102 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be an extreme solution, but a solution nonetheless. I'm thinking that if downloading a simple plugin is a problem (although it shouldn't be seen as unreasonable), switching to a whole new operating system is most likely not a realistic option. 129, I took the liberty of altering one of your wikilinks... I suspect you wanted the visible word "available" to link to "Firefox," rather than the vice-versa. Unless I'm being unusually dense this morning, it's far more readable after my minor edit. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually quite a number of codecs include by default in Windows were not originally developed nor are primarily patented by Microsoft. And this seems to be extending (Windows 7 for example will include H264 support in the Ultimate edition). Also Firefox does not support Ogg Theora or Vorbis by default. Firefox 3.1 will but that hasn't even been released. And actually, the only other browser which has current plans to include Ogg Theora and Vorbis support is Opera. Google stance is unclear but Apple (along with Nokia) was one of the key companies opposed to the inclusion of Ogg in HTML5 so it seems unlikely Ogg will be supported in Safari any time soon. So your comment that Ogg is available in many browsers is highly misleading. Also it's questionable IMHO if DLL hell is still much of a problem in modern versions of Windows (16 bit programs are not even supported in x64 versions) and while I'm not an expert while NTFS's ACL system may be different from traditonal Unix file permissions I think it's highly questionable if you can say Windows is fundamentally broken because it uses ACL (which most OSes nowadays are using to some extent anyway) instead of Unix file permissions. Also I think it's questionable if you can say Vista doesn't have control over what goes in to it. So in conclusion, while I'm fully supporting the use of (believed to be) patent free codecs in wikipedia, most of your rant was extremely misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
168, Thanks. Nil: The rant is not misleading, it is quite correct, but is certainly a rant. Read Dll hell sections entitled "static linking" and "Incompatible versions"; this is and will always be a problem when you have third parties contributing binaries -- there isn't much you can do about it if the ABI changes, without recompiling and re-linking; not readily possible without source. I don't think microsoft has control over symantec cisco, ea games, nokia, apple or other third party vendors application contribution. Secondly Firefox does support ogg in 3.1 as you say, and is available. Thirdly, H264 is patented as are many of these. Finally we will have to wait to see what is in HTML5, and what vendors do ;). Anyway, I am not going to post again, as we really aren't going to achieve much; I leave you the last word. User A1 (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Today's featured article: Lazare Ponticelli

It should say Nicolas Sarkozy in the text, not Nicholas Sarkozy. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, it would seem. — neuro(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has a much better top image now (File:Lazare.JPG), with him and his medals. Would look much better on the main page. I would do it but I am not clear on the temporary uploading and protecting of the local copy of the image, it's normally done by a bot, presume I just manually do it, tag it with {{C-uploaded}} and protect it? Mfield (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I went through it and am confident I got the process right so i was bold and went ahead did it. Mfield (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What just happened to the picture? It had been this: (File:Lazare.JPG), now it's this: (File:LazarePonticelli.jpg). The new one looks terrible, it's low res, and it doesn't have the medals. Worse, it looks like the old one has been deleted even. What's the justification? Licensedlunacy (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC) GAH! the actual page we're linking to used the (File:Lazare.JPG), and so it's broken too. It doesn't look good in the slightest to have the featured article start with a big broken link to a picture.Licensedlunacy (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted for copyright reasons. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The reasoning is here - apparently it's a copyvio from here. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Shame- I thought it looked a little "too good to be true", but assumed it had been thoroughly checked before being put on the main page. Not the kind of article it's easy to illustrate. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If someone here is looking to do their wiki good-deed for the day, track down Fréderic Coune and get his permission to use the pic. Raul654 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like he's a professional photographer. Raul654 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The uploader claims to be the photographer. I have my doubts but I would suggest people wait before trying to get permission. Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I did run a tineye check on it before I switched it in which came back empty. But I should also have looked at and been suspicious of the uploader's lack of contributions. Mfield (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured pic- no way to treat the artist

"The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp" is (first and foremost) a painting by Rembrandt, please!

The artist is mentioned but only in small sized letters like an after-thought.

This is an inappropriate way to cite the author of the work which you at Wiki regard as one of the finest images on Wikipedia. The right way to describe this image is to state its name, then its author, then its date (if known), before any detailed discussion of its subject.

Amandajm (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Check it. They're all like that, nothing different about today. –  LATICS  talk  08:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well it's changed now anyway [1] Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Lactics, the difference is that that image is significant because of the author, rather than because of the subject. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Obligatory misalignment complaint

Bernard Madoff was taken away by aliens in a space ship after pleading guilty? Sorry I just had to... Normally the misalignment complaints are so boring but this one was actually funny (at least to me). And incidentally in case it isn't obvious I'm not actually complaining since if anything it's a good thing :-) Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He was sentenced to search for extrasolar planets, apparently... --Tone 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The scam involves a spacecraft? Now I understand why all NASA projects have such big budgets.... They are scams?!?! --74.14.16.147 (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
...What? Macarion (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Today's featured picture caption

Are we suggesting that swallows migrate? Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture's a sparrow, not a swallow --JustWong 17:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustWong (talk • contribs)

[edit] Grammar in the First Line.

"Chelsea Football Club are a professional English football club" is completely WRONG.

Chelsea Football Club are a professional English football club = it is a singular club.

Should be: "Chelsea Football Club is a professional English football club..."

207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, read the article itself...I'm correct. Would somebody please fix this GLARING mistake? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
See American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. "Chelsea Football Club are" is correct in British English. As it is a British organization, the article takes British English as a rule. Note that prior to going on the Main Page, the article had "are" as well, but it was changed, most probably by an American unaware that it was valid grammar. No bets on how soon it will take a Brit, infuriated at American presumption, to change it back.
Also, ALL-CAPS has never made any statement more credible. - BanyanTree 06:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least somebody didn't type 'football(soccer)', so we must be grateful for small mercies :-)
BTW, I'm a Brit and the verb really should be 'is', despite the big-time BS you might read elsewhere on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Tell the Chelsea Football Club then? [2] "Chelsea Football Club are delighted to confirm..." Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Doing so would be futile because it would merely result in the blank and uncomprehending gaze of the grammatically challenged ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to stem from a misreading of the grammar rules. The collective noun takes 'is' when it is discussed as a single entity: Chelsea Football Club is an English football club... However, it takes 'are' when the members of the collective noun are acting as one body: Chelsea Football Club are delighted to confirm... For the record, I'm British, using British English. Modest Genius talk 16:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What you say does not concur with the formal grammar lessons I received at an English grammar school. This is what I was told: as far as number is concerned, there is singular and there is plural. Singular nouns, such as 'club' and 'government' must elicit a singular verb. The explanation that I was given regarding the use of, eg, 'are' with 'club', 'government', etc was that some people are confused as to what is actually singular or plural; that is, because a club is made up of more than one person, it is regarded by many as a plural noun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.160.75 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If you were taught that as correct British English, then you were taught wrongly. The situation is as our article (citing the Cambridge Guide to English Usage) states. Algebraist
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage didn't exist when I took grammar lessons LOL. And I wasn't taught wrongly. What I was taught makes perfect sense because it doesn't result in the use of plural verbs with singular nouns. The fact is that the use of plural verbs with collective nouns is a colloquialism that is commonplace within the sporting fraternity in the UK. Common usage does not necessarily validate what would otherwise be considered as a grammatical error. In other strata of UK society this usage is much, much less prevalent, so you will see 'the government is..', 'the BBC is not responsible...', etc, etc. An explanation that is closest to a validation of collective noun + plural verb is that when members of a unit are acting as individuals then it is permissible to use a plural verb, eg 'the class are doing their homework'. (I actually disagree with this because a different and more thoughtful form of subject would remove disagreement between noun and verb, eg 'the class students are doing their homework'.) However, 'Chelsea Football Club are pleased...' does not conform to that attempt at a validation because here we see the members acting as a single unit. So whichever way you look at it 'Chelsea Football Club are pleased...' is incorrect. Maybe we need the equivalent of the Académie française :-)
I guess I didn't realize that the home page of wikipedia was supposed to be written in The Queen's English. I thought the goal was to make it more accessible, not less so. Sorry. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Sarcasm is really helpful - BanyanTree 05:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Articles about British entities use British English. Articles about American entities use American English. It doesn't make Wikipedia less accessible-I'm sure the vast majority of people can comprehend a different grammatical standard. It sounds awkward to me as well, but my Murphy grammar textbook agrees. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue discussed by members of the Football WikiProject. Longstanding consensus is that this is acceptable, if not universal usage in British English. For the grammarians among us, pedantically careful usage is to refer to the club as singular and the team as plural, but it is not incorrect for both to be used as plural. It's just a quirk of a quirky language, in usage by quirky people like me. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have raised some important points, the first being that it has been an issue within, significantly, the football fraternity. Indeed, the use of singular nouns with plural verbs is almost totally confined to language relating to sporting issues in the UK. Elsewhere, as I have said earlier, it is much less prevalent. For this reason, once again I would suggest that this usage should be regarded as a colloquialism - something that is perfectly acceptable amongst those who agree to its usage. Compare this issue with the colloquial 'double-negative' such as 'I haven't got no/I don't have no...'. Once again, this is perfectly ok amongst those who commonly use such expressions. However, to extend this form of acceptability to the point of being regarded as good grammar is going too far, in my humble opinion. The bedrock of good grammar must be logic: can it ever be regarded as logical to use plural verbs with singular nouns? The answer must be a resounding 'no'. Maybe we need another class of nouns - the 'singural' - a noun that may be regarded as either singular or plural. Don't forget where you heard this first :-)
This is not the place to air your thoughts on correct English grammar. If you can find any reliable authorities that agree with you, post them to Talk:American and British English differences. Algebraist 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet another typically churlish response that is commonplace here. In case you didn't understand what was said, the issue is really about whether colloquial language should be used in articles in an encyclopaedia. That is an issue that can be discussed here because it follows on from the original comment.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the language in question is colloquial. It is not colloquial, as explained in our article, citing a reliable authority. If you disagree with this, find a reliable authority to back you up. Personal opinion on grammar is not appropriate on Wikipedia, and even less appropriate on Talk:Main Page. Algebraist 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] March 15th Events

Of all the important events to occur on March15th, why is the assasination of Julius Caesar not listed? It seems rather odd that one of the few pivotal points that decided the fate of Western civilization isn't even mentioned in the "On this day..." section. Geosultan4 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, this has an interesting answer. The admin who tends selected anniversaries hid it, noting "Date is Roman Calandar". Roman calendar#Converting pre-Julian dates asserts, "For example, it is well known that Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March in 44 BC, and this is usually converted to 15 March 44 BC. While he was indeed assassinated on the 15th day of the Roman month Martius, the equivalent date on the modern Julian calendar is probably 14 March 44 BC." Getting some sort of consensus on how to characterize this at assasination of Julius Caesar, with references, should probably take place before asking SA to choose between the probable actual date of the 14th or the modern assumption of the 15th. - BanyanTree 02:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Then, can we have Ides of March at the top of OTD instead? --74.14.16.147 (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't that have the same issue that Roman calendar#Converting pre-Julian dates says? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No, 'coz ides is always the 15th. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, its the 15th on the Roman Calendar, not the Gregorian Calendar which the section revolves around. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
As long as the calendar has months, there is an ides every month (though no one cares about the other months), whatever calendar it is. Let's let people click and read why the assassination, etc. are not listed. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Two Column format

I have a widescreen monitor. It is difficult to read text when the sentences are spread so wide. Is it possible for Wikipedia to have a two-column (or multicolumn) text for better readability? 117.199.18.225 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On the main page or in general? Can you elaborate?  GARDEN  10:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As a rough workaround, don't maximise your browser Modest Genius talk 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that. And if it was split two columns, it be weird for people with smaller monitors, so there's not a good solution either way. –  LATICS  talk  22:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, you could register an account and have one of the resident CSS geniuses make you a stylesheet... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hadwiger conjecture

... that the Hadwiger conjecture (diagram pictured) implies that the surface of any three-dimensional convex body can be illuminated by only eight light sources, but the best proven bound is that 16 lights are sufficient?

... Huh? Now maybe I fail at english and/or maths, but does this make sense in some manner? I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but this seems to not work. WookMuff (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this meant for WP:ERRORS? Too late now. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks perfectly fine to me, such that I can't see what you're objecting to. Can you explain what the problem is? Algebraist 12:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Pls note that this item has already left the Main Page and gone to the DYK archive. --74.13.131.118 (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a perfectly understandable sentence. It means a certain type of surface can probably always be completely illuminated by 8 light sources, but that the lowest number that anyone has managed to find a mathematical proof for is 16 light sources. Modest Genius talk 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I imagine that confusion might follow from the lack of parallelism; the sentence seems to suggest that the latter clause is part of the conjecture (it is, instead, a standalone comparative observation), a deficiency that the insertion of "that" before "but the..." would have remedied. Joe 17:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A closer read suggests two other problems, one syntactic ("bound" is better followed by a quantity than by a phrase or clause) and one substantive ("sufficient" isn't quite the right word, conveying in one construction an understanding opposite that that is intended), that impair meaning and inhibit comprehension. But that's really much more than one should spend on an item that is no longer live. Joe 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The news box

There's something a little off with the In the news section; the text isn't going around the picture like it should.Simplebutpowerful 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be alright now. I had copied some markup from where the image was suggested that I shouldn't have. - BanyanTree 08:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In the future please report problems with the main page at WP:ERRORS (the top section of this page). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
And I thought it was just my computer... :) --Candlewicke ST # :) 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page"
Personal tools