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 entire Main Page, consider the following locations:

Questions about using and contributing to Wikipedia
Submitting content to a Main Page section

If in doubt, please see the Questions Help page for details on posting a question unrelated to the Main Page.
05:44, Saturday May 30, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page Error Reports

Main Page Toolbox
Yesterday
May 29		 Today
May 30, 2009		 Tomorrow
May 31
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 / Prep area / Queue
Protected main page images
Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Sandbox
It is now 05:44 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 05:44 on May 30, 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

UEFA Champions League
The match summary was plagiarized somewhere else, so currently there is no prose about what happened so that means it was be taken down for the meantime until someone comes up with a match summary. –Howard the Duck 03:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it not make more sense for someone to just add it? --candle•wicke 12:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It's sorta policy that no prose = no show. –Howard the Duck 14:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
What's up with the admins here? This report was posted half-a-day ago and it hasn't been acted upon. –Howard the Duck 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Same over at WP:ITN/C... maybe they're all off on some bonding exercise and left us to run the thing... you can't say that article is lacking in prose... --candle•wicke 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose too many admins currently. -- Luk talk 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Seriously though, there's an article about the event so I don't get why it should be removed. -- Luk talk 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, far too many of them... it's a lot bigger than the Bulgarian bus crash... surely you aren't saying that all that prose and all those sources aren't part of the update? --candle•wicke 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing about the match per se in the match section. The only prose about the match per se is in the third paragraph of the lead. Plus the fact this got in via copyvio has to mean something. This has nothing to do with the bus crash or if this is the biggest news of the moment. No prose, no show.
(I should've watched the match earlier this week but I got too lazy.) –Howard the Duck 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
But you surely don't expect the article to just detail this one event second by second, do you? I presume that could be found in any of the sources and that, this being an encyclopedia, it would be more suitable to include information on how the fans and teams and referees, etc. came to be there and what the media reported about the significance of the game than how player X tripped over their own toe in the twelfth minute or how player Y spent several minutes rolling around pretending to be hurt unless there are some significant long-term consequences to either of these "accidents"... --candle•wicke 19:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Like surely someone can come up on how the goals were scored, since the build-up of the crosses and such seem to be important. The pundits were raving on how "fluid" Barca's offense was. Other sporting events came up pretty fast but "meaty" summaries which were expanded over time, for example the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final article has a fine match summary on it. Recently, same for the 2009 Monaco Grand Prix and the 2009 Indianapolis 500. It has been almost a day since this error report and nothing has been done. Now, if this were the Super Bowl Sonia Sotomayor an admin would've brought down the hammer really quickly. –Howard the Duck 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't Sonia the one that actually got posted despite heavy opposition and then managed to stay posted for several hours despite a call for it to be culled on this very page? --candle•wicke 23:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Even that had some updates. This has none, or in reality, was removed from being a copyvio.
P.S. One day had gone by. Where are the admins? They could've at least commented. Or something. –Howard the Duck 02:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
They're up to something behind the scenes... hmmm... maybe they realise that we've solved it ourselves. --candle•wicke 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem has been solved, although it seems the match report was just the box score in prose, but that should be enough. What's appalling here is the laughable slowness of the admins in addressing this issue; and to think they created this place in the first place to make sure something gets corrected quickly. LOL. –Howard the Duck 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
ITN doesn't have many regular admins - that is the problem. When one goes on holiday and another has exams or something it must get really hectic for whoever is left. Of course, if you were an admin you could always address the issue yourself. ;) --candle•wicke 03:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There should be another class of users that can edit locked pages. Maybe the rollbackers or an entirely new class. But still, boo to slow admins. –Howard the Duck 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It isn't just an ITN problem. This page is generally slow. For DYK stuff WT:DYK is always faster. Shubinator (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, like those who hang around for three or four years and reach a severe amount of edits could receive an invitation into this exclusive club. I propose the name "lockbreakers", just in case this somehow takes off at any stage... it's no more silly than "rollbackers" at any rate and the rollbackers would be inferior as all lockbreakers would have to have achieved rollbacker status first as well... --candle•wicke 03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This page should just be deleted if they won't make use of this. –Howard the Duck 04:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[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 Saturday, 30 May 2009 08:21 Wikipedia time (UTC).

Today is Saturday, May 30, 2009; it is now 05:44 (UTC)

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



[edit] General discussion

Shortcut:
T:MP

Contents


[edit] Parliament expenses row

 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far so good. --candle•wicke 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to argue further about the {Noise of User being wrestled to the floor, keyboard smashing, loud shouting. Silence falls.} Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Got rid of him? That's a little bit confrontational... what did you do to him? That loud shouting followed by the prolonged silence is rather worrying... --candle•wicke 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Arguments and abuse, eh?
Man looking for an argument: "Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!"
Abuser: "OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse."
M: "Oh, I see, well, that explains it."
A: "Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor....(Stupid git!)"
This joke would have been far easier if wikiquote has more content...
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, room 12A... is that where we go to solve the mystery of the loud shouting and prolonged silence? --candle•wicke 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Isles is the correct term for all the "Islands" that includes Ireland and the United Kingdom. --Spacepostman (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood. We've agreed to put aside our differences on this and are instead preoccupying ourselves with such topics as censorship, falling, reward money and the contents of a mysterious room called 12A. We've discovered that this is much more fun - and there's money involved!!! (well, maybe). Now back to the main business - you are L... Lindsay Lohan? --candle•wicke 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


It would be so much easier if someone could just come up with a term to describe people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Something a little easier to say than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland-ish. UKOGBANIish? (pronounced: You-cog-banish). I can picture it now: "An expenses row forces the resignation of several Youcogbanish MP's". 130.56.86.30 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
UKOGBANI would do I think. The double I of "Ireland" and "ish" doesn't work too well. Several Ukogbani MPs are removed from power following a row over money. --candle•wicke 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If only we had an encyclopedia handy, so we could look up Alternative names for the British...-gadfium 02:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The courtesy of using the edit button

The top of this discussion (General discussion) has the hidden message: "Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so have the courtesy to use it."

I am aware that the edit button is "important" but what choice does one exactly have? It can either be used or not, I know of no other way to communicate through either courtesy or contempt. Ironically, you can't even see this message unless you attempt to edit and even then it is hidden away in obscurity. If it means something else then it isn't putting its message across very clearly. --candle•wicke 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about exactly?--Metallurgist (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems contradictory. It calls for a courtesy in using the edit button as though not doing so is rude. But then you can't even see the message unless you've already used the edit button in the first place. --candle•wicke 11:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe the point is that it's asking you to use the edit button for the specific section that you're editing, instead of the edit button for the whole general discussion section (except if you are adding a new section, in which case the new section should be placed at the bottom). My understanding is it's important & courteous because it labels the edit summary as to what's being edited. This seemed clear to me, but do you have a suggestion as to how it could be better worded, since it is obviously not clear to everyone? Brainmouse (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I would recommend it not to be hidden for a start... --candle•wicke 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. The purpose of the message is to discourage those who seem to like to add new messages to the top, which is contrary to wikipedia guidelines and normal practice and confuses the discussion particularly in a page like this which has a transcluded error page at the top and other special things and also to encourage those adding new messages to the bottom to use the edit button or new section as appropriate rather then the edit this tab page. The reason it is hidden is because it's not necessary to be seen unless you are actually one of those people. If you are already using the edit button, then you don't need to see the message. Similarly if you are using the new section tab. It is only if you are one of those people who is trying to add the message to the top (or worse are going to delete the whole page) or perhaps are going to add to the bottom or add to an existing section but are using 'edit this page' is it useful for you to see the message. Hence it being hidden is the correct thing to do. Note that contrary to what you seem to have suggested, you will not in fact see the message if you use the edit button or the new section tab, only if you use the 'edit this page' tab. As I've stated, this should be discouraged even if you do add your comment to the bottom since it's easier for you to accidently remove content, doesn't have a useful edit summary unless you add it manually and also probably more likely to generate edit conflicts. In other words, what we're trying to say is the fact that you've found the 'edit this page' tab is good, but it would be far better if you found the edit button or new section tab as well and learnt to use them. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the edit button and the edit this page tab or something, the difference seem obvious to me particularly if you read the hidden comment but whatever. In any case, I've added mention of the new section tab to avoid any future confusion. Tis true if you can't find the edit button, new section tab or edit this page tab, you won't be able to add new messages, and you won't see anything helping you to find them, but to be blunt with a very big header directing you to places to get help, as well as the tabs and buttons being in somewhat prominent locations, it seems to me if you are really incapable of finding them it may be a good thing you don't edit. In any case, you can't be discourteous by not using the edit button or new section tab if you're not editing Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why a repeated Featured Article?

May 26, 2009: U2

This article for U2 appeared as a Main Page Feature recently. If Wikipedia has over 2,000 feature articles, why would this one be repeated so soon? Ed8r (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When was this? --candle•wicke 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
U2 has never been on the main page. Majorly talk 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I too thought this. I've been observing its state of featured articleness for some time, wondering when it would appear, nearly certain it never had... --candle•wicke 10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe some U2-related stuff got to be on DYK or OTD or TFP. –Howard the Duck 17:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you don't follow the FA process behind the scenes, it's easy to misunderstand it. I used to be under the impression that 'featured' and 'has been featured on the Main Page' were the same thing - maybe Ed8r saw the U2 article earlier, noted then that it was already a FA, and made the same mistake I did? --GenericBob (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic Wikipedia

The arabic wikipedia has got over 100,000 articles now. It should be moved from the over 50,000 to the over 100,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.82.201 (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

and also please update the main portal of the wikipedia http://wikipedia.org/ "i know that's may be out of your tasks but please tell the foundation that thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogaio (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to bottom of page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫
I've mentioned this on Meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template#Arabic. Looks like someone has already updated the main page here, for future reference, asking at Template talk:Wikipedialang may (or may not) be better. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually looks like someone already did it at www, I didn't look properly. In any case, I've also noticed it's possible for anyone to edit Meta:Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template/temp and in a clearcut uncontroversial case like this, admins should just update the real thing accordingly. If they don't notice, you can try asking at Meta:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat or alternatively ask at the template talk page and attach an {{editprotected}} which also exists on meta Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Expo 67

Expo 67 is mostly about montreal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.118.154 (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dweller (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Essam Alshawali

Essam Alshawali sports Tunisian born on September 25, 1970, is one of the most prominent sports commentators in the Arab this time, the comment on football matches sports channels, radio and television network of the Arabs. He has a great deal of sports information. Comment gives the game a sense of excitement and fun. Is characterized by a high tone voice, is always chosen to comment on the match strong.

Essam Ahawali selected the best Arabic commentator for the years 2005 and 2006, according to a poll conducted kooora site sports —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalunia2005 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Click Essam Alshawali and create an article. You don't need to register an account, but you'll probably find it easier to communicate if you do, and it costs nothing and takes about 2 minutes. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Um you do need to register to create an article... In fact, you need to wait 4 days to be autoconfirmed. You can of course ask at Wikipedia:Articles for creation for one to be created (as your told when you try to create one as an unregistered user) if you say you'll provide the content if you don't want to register and you'll be able to edit it after it's created. Do note that all articles need to meet our WP:Notability requirements which means amongst other things, they need to have WP:Reliable sources (for example newspaper articles) discussing the subject. These can be English or a foreign language. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops, of couse, silly me. Sorry. Just one more reason to register an account! --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image Problem

Regarding the featured image- It claims to have been made around 1930 on the main page, but was actually made around 1830. 81.77.28.178 (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's right enough. From the image page: Woodblock made ca. 1930 exactly the same way as they were made by artisans ca. 1830. So perhaps they were first made in 1830 but this particular one was made in 1930. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, oops! And there's me, thinking I know this sort of thing! Oh well. 81.77.28.178 (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It's alright mate ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Supreme Court Justice

Obama just appointed a new Hispanic (fist Hispanic) Supreme Court Justice. I think this should be included in the "In the News" section. World (talk • contributions) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It was up for a while, but there's plenty of chat at ITN/C (you will need to scroll down to see it, I probably suck at linking) to explain why it isn't, or won't be, or should be... Feel free to add your input there. 147.72.72.2 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It was deemed not "international" enough. –Howard the Duck 03:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually there are plenty of reasons it was rejected including the fact there is no new Supreme Court Justice, as you must know having participated in the discussion Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no new Supreme Court Justice. She still has to be approved Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There'd be one soon. What the GOP did was like token opposition. The Dems would've nominated Mother Teresa and they'd object. –Howard the Duck 16:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Obama appointed her, the Senate has to confirm her appointment. Its semantics to say whether there is or there's not a new SC justice. –Howard the Duck 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
What's semantics is arguing over whether approved or confirmed is different. What's not semantics is that she is not a Supreme Court Justice currently and that she could be rejected, as candidates have in the past, or be filibustered by the GOP (until and unless Al Franken takes his seat perhaps or if the Democrats decide to do the nuclear option). And she is not currently allow to serve in the Supreme Court. If it emerges tomorrow that she supports the use of terrorism against American civilians, I doubt she'd be approved by the the Senate even by most Democrats. If and when there is a new Supreme Court justice 'soon' we can add it then not before. If I had a 10 cent coin for the number of times people said something is going to happen 'soon'... I would note I'm not aware of any sources which call her a Supreme Court Justice (funny enough they call here a nominee), nor of any sources which say there is already a new Supreme Court Justice (they may say her confirmation is likely, that's quite difference from saying there's already a new Supreme Court Justice), and WP:RS is in fact what we care about on wikipedia, not the word of Howard the Duck or the word of User:World. I do have to say though it will be kind of funny if she dies, is rejected, rejects the position (has she even said she'll accept it) or otherwise doesn't become an actual Supreme Court Justice and then at some stage later you and others come back and say we need to put someone else up especially because s/he'll be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice when according to you, we've already had a Latino Supreme Court Justice. I guess it's the same as the way we've already had Stone-Campbellite Supreme Court justice, haven't we? [1] Nil Einne (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh did you know we had a Catholic marine justice? At least I think so. If someone converts to a religion after they've been nominated and rejected, does that count? Anyway I could look at Category:Rejected nominees to the United States Supreme Court to find out what other wonderful Supreme Court justices we've had (and try to dig up those nominated and who didn't make it but aren't there e.g. because they nomination was withdrawn, the person rejected it, they died, or simply no one added it yet) that no one else knows about but to be honest, I'm bored. Still at least the Supreme Court got Borked justice. Oh and with apologies to Sotomayor I actually kinda hope she somehow doesn't make it, won't that be a laugh... Nil Einne (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Claim or fact?

The main page news section says the nuke detonation was just something North Korea "claims", but then the article says everything DID happen, right there in the intro paragraph. Is there some kind of de facto sense of veracity to their claims that's being employed? 70.90.131.254 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GM is done

Probably should be "in the news."--UhOhFeeling (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C. –Howard the Duck 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "In association football, FC Barcelona defeat Manchester United..."

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

That's what the article is called. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont understand the problem here. u want to call football, soccer? when most of the world actually calls it football. Ashishg55 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There are ~300,000,000 English speakers who would not call it Football. J.delanoygabsadds 18:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

lol J.delanoygabsadds 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well i know this has been discussed quite a bit before. But here is the thing. entire India calls it football. thats 1.1 billion people. That alone should be enough of an argument against the 300 mil from US. Just because US decided to create their own local game and call it football because they suck at the real one, does not mean entire world now needs to change the name. Ashishg55 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As much as I agree with you, India aren't brilliant at football neither ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
How many of those 1.1B are native english speakers? I understand that India is technically bilingual, but I was under the understanding that large portions of the population spoke Hindi only. However, even if all 1.1B speak the Queen's English, there's no excuse for making a sentence confusing to 300+ Million people, and nearly unintelligible to a large portion of that 300+ Million. APL (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Before someone corrects me, I know I said scores of pages of discussion, then a half million pages. In estimating the pages of actual discussion, naturally I have excluded from the half million the totally unreasonable arguments of those based in the United States (which no one else agrees with, of course). However, to save space I also omitted all the utterly fair and reasonable comments abusing them viciously for being unreasonable. :-) Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The point is clarity. "Football" on its own is ambiguous and confuses people in USA. "Soccer" on its own is unambiguous but virtually unused by non-USA readers. (Does it confuse them? Or just offend them? I'm not sure. Either way not good.)
"Association Football" is clear to everyone involved, just as "American Football" is clear to everyone involved even though no one in America ever spells it out like that. APL (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ya i dont mind association football either since it is proper term anyways. And for my indian argument - India may not be 100% english speaking being developing country and all but they do use football to refer to the sport (and i know they suck too lol). And even if u were to exclude non-english speaking population (ones who do not understand english at all). Even then the number would be a lot higher than 300 million. So making a 300 mil argument is useless comparatively. Ashishg55 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As has been every single time this sport has appeared on the Main Page, "soccer" is not just restricted to the USA; Canada and Australia also use the term to distinguish it from other sports called "football". howcheng {chat} 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Wiktionary says : "Colloquial abbreviation for Association football." That's a rather unsatisfying answer, though. A commenter on the talk page claims the abbreviation was started by students at Oxford. There isn't a cite for either. APL (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
See Football (word). howcheng {chat} 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Neat. Wikipedia does have an article on everything! APL (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at everything Modest Genius talk 23:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page"
Personal tools