Talk:Main Page

Sections of this page older than three days are automatically archived

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 17:59 on 2 June 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed, determined not to be an error, or the item has rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA

• The Donner Party - At "some resorted to cannibalism to survive" the link should be piped to Human cannibalism (per article)

I think the name in the image caption "Margaret" should be spelled 'Margret' per the article and in James F. Reed and the book from which the image was sourced and which is a major source in the article (Rarick, Ethan (2008). Desperate Passage: The Donner Party's Perilous Journey West). The spelling appears to be incorrect on Commons and in file name. JennyOz (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, thx much Jenny. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

"6:16 in LA"

The final clause really should read a song that Drake's uncle played guitar on? Remsense诉 07:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort (1724): not an exact anniversary, should be moved to June 11. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Bach didn't compose it for 11 June, but for the first Sunday after Trinity which in 2024 is 2 June, related to that Sunday's liturgy. Not some Tuesday. We talk about the 300th anniversary of the beginning of his chorale cantata cycle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

   Not done Not an error; thanks for explaining, Gerda. Schwede66 17:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just to clarify what happened: I saw Ravenpuff's report earlier today, and investigated the article. The article states that this was first performed on June 11, not June 2. Since OTD follows the Gregorian calendar and not the Liturgical year, I moved the blurb to June 11. Z1720 (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Then remove it altogether please. The calendar date really didn't matter at all for Bach, Z1720, Schwede66. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are we doing this for Bach, or for readers? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Should we mislead readers telling them that Bach composed his cantata for a Tuesday? We have a chance to inform them about Bach. Listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I must be looking at a different Main Page to you—mine says "On this day June 1", but yours seems to say "On this day the first Saturday after Trinity". This is a very intriguing bug—has anyone else seen it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps you will listen to reliable external references, organisations who perform/broadcast Bach cantatas. They perform today to start a series. Don't mention it on 11 June if you don't want Wikipedia to look ignorant.

  • SWR: Kantate vom 2 Juni 2024: O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20
  • Delft: 2 juni 2024: O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20

  The main source, Bach Digital, has "First Sunday after Trinnity" in the subheader, and 11 June in the small print. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's no doubt true, Gerda, and I sympathise with your point here; but unfortunately the OTD format isn't geared-up for such situations. The top part of the template, which hosts feast days and commemorations, can have movable feasts such as Easter etc. but the main part of OTD has a bulleted list of things that happened in various years, under the heading "June 2". The formulation:

  June 2: Festa della Repubblica in Italy (1946)

  • 1724 – Johann Sebastian Bach directed his cantata O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort on the first Sunday after Trinity, beginning his chorale cantata cycle.

  is simply inaccurate and misleading, so can't remain in that format. It wasn't on June 2, 1724, by any definition. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Main Page: "The Royal Air Force suffered its worst peacetime disaster when a Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland, killing all 29 people on board." Article: "The accident is the RAF's fourth-worst peacetime disaster." Anonymous 01:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  The target article was updated some years ago, but none of the other incidents have links that allow online verification. Whatever it is, I have replaced "its worst" with "a significant"; that will always be right. Schwede66 02:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @An anonymous username, not my real name @Schwede66: I boldly changed it to "its then-worst" to reflect its standing at the time. Feel free to revert.—Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I’ll revert that, Bagumba. It’s what the army rep did say, but the other three instances that are cited occurred earlier. Schwede66 03:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Schwede66: LOL. I had thought I did due dilligence with BBC saying that "It was the worst peacetime accident in the history of the RAF."[1] I'll leave it to the experts now. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Air Chief Marshall Sir William Wratten noted that it was "the largest peacetime tragedy the RAF had suffered". Bagumba, if Anonymous is right, you can blame Sir Bill for this error; the BBC was just quoting him. Schwede66 04:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

• 3 June 1781 – American Revolutionary War: Jack Jouett (pictured) rode 40 miles (64 km) to warn Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia legislature of British cavalry who had been sent to capture them.

Virginia was an independent commonwealth from 1776 so link should be to Virginia not Colony of Virginia (per lede of Jack Jouett)? JennyOz (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 7)

Monday's FL

(June 3, tomorrow)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Tomorrow's POTD

• "The larvae are ..., later developing yellow diagonal stripes on its sides ...". This is an ungrammatical change from plural "larvae" to singular "its". Please change to "the sides". JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• "late instar stage". This only makes sense if one hyphenates: "late-instar stage". "Instar stage" on its own makes no sense since all stages of development after hatching count as instars; there are early and late instars. One could also say more simply, "shows a late instar of L. populi." JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Powderfinger

How many times have powderfinger figured on the front page in the last few weeks? WHo are they?--Kitchen Knife 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. --74.13.128.59 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an cannot see why they should be on the front page so often. The seem like a rather no mark band.--Kitchen Knife 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article then. They are a very well known band. DPCU 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Main page appearances aren't dictated by the topic of the article -anything that meets Wikipedia's notability requirements can be featured on the main page. -Elmer Clark 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They are back again after 5 days. Sounds like PR to me.--Kitchen Knife 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Or a WikiProject doing what it's supposed to do... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"supposed to do" according to their own lights or those of Wikipedia?--Kitchen Knife 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Both. The problem is we don't have enough contributers in other areas. More different people with different expertise and knowledge bases contributing will mean more different DYK candidates to choose from. If Kitchen Knife wants, we can have many DYKs about knives. Get working on articles on your favorite topics, everyone. --74.13.131.144 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"[A] rather no mark band"? WTF, Powderfinger are one of the best and most well-known Australian bands. Kitchen Knife, just because you obviously don't know much about recent music doesn't mean that it doesn't belong the Main Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let's be civil. Powderfinger are one of the most popular bands in Australia, but their success has been confined to the continent. Teemu08 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but even if the person hadn't heard of them, the Wikipedia article should have tipped you off to the promince of the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

They appear more often than the beatles, rolling stones, Elvis or the Sex Pistols. There promince is very limit by comparison.--Kitchen Knife 12:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this means that we need to get some articles about the beatles, rolling stones, Elvis or the Sex Pistols.... up to FA status. Please also note that we already have quite a few existing articles about the beatles, rolling stones, Elvis or the Sex Pistols .... that do not qualify for DYK unless someone makes a substantial expansion in the past 5 days. Get working on articles on your favorite topics, everyone, or they won't get on the main page. --74.13.128.113 05:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Active cursor in search box

A WP donor earlier today suggested the implementation of an active cursor in the search box on main page. Seems like a good idea, doesn't it? --Camptown 09:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Giving focus to the search box prevents the user from using the arrow keys or other shortcut keys to navigate. We long ago decided that being able to scroll down at the push of a button was the more important function. Dragons flight 09:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the FAQ btw Nil Einne 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, the good old argument of 'but we've always done it like this...'. Can I ask how long ago this was decided? In this era of scroll wheeled mice as pretty much standard, I would have thought that most people navigate a page using that, or if not by dragging the scrollbar. Not being able to type directly into the search box I feel is more important. Whilst frequent visitors to WP, may spend time browsing the main page, most casual folk just want to use WP as an encyclopedia - by searching it. Is it possible that this can be looked at again? Thoughts? My two cents courtesy of Dutpar 08:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

From my experience, most non-editors go straight to the search box. Only the contributors themselves (these are generalisations) browse through the main page. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But how many readers actually search from the main page as opposed to www.wikipedia.org, Google, IE/FireFox search tab etc? Mind you, this question is almost impossible to answer as are most claims about the majority of users. By definition, people who only come to the main page to use the search box are not likely to be checking out the talk page and even if we were to put a big banner ad on the main page for a survey they might not notice (I guess we could put it throughout wikipedia but anyway...) Nil Einne 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, search box focus doesn't really prevent arrow key scrolling. All the user has to do is TAB out of it first. The result is scrolling at the touch of two buttons. --Siradia 18:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I use a laptop, with a touchpad, and I have always found scrolling with the arrow key more comfortable than dragging the scrollbar. However, maybe it is time to revisit this topic, and confirm consensus. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I use a laptop with touchpad too, but I have scrolling enabled on the touchpad (as well as back/forward) so I just have to run my finger along the edge to scroll. It's very nice. And this is coming from a person who does a lot of shortcut keys to get around. I understand not killing functionality for keyboarding types, but I don't think it's really that disruptive to focus. Especially if keyboarders want to type in the search box. That's a lot of tabbing. --Siradia 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you've set up your system to work well for you, that's good, but this doesn't answer the question of what the majority of people with touchpads are going to do. I suspect it's probably with keys (arrows or page up/down, neither of which will work with focus). Nil Einne 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hate it if when i typed it went straight to the search box because i have a heavy hand and it tends to press the odd key on my laptop. the way it is perfect. Philbuck222 11:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This idea gets mentioned every once in a while. I actually think it's one of the most often given suggestions. The reason why it isn't done is because it (a) immediately breaks some important shortcut keys (giving focus to the search box means you can't use space bar to scroll down, for example), which is a major pain when visiting a long article, (b) it doesn't even matter too much as most people come to an article either via the www.wikipedia.org homepage (which does steal focus) or via a wikilink. I myself find it hugely annoying that when I view a Flickr results page, I first need to click the page to be able to use space bar (I can't even use tab, because it just jumps to various other input boxes). Anyway, I'm against this! —msikma (user, talk) 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Whenever I think of this as a possibility, I think of it happening only on the main page, not on the other article pages. Is that not technically feasible? I hadn't considered that before.--Siradia 15:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can see there is a weight to continuing as is, (Thanks Mskima, I don't think I ever realised space bar could be used for scrolling!) but perhaps as a compromise the tab order could be amended so a single tab takes you first to the search box, as opposed to the 270th as on today's Main Page. Dutpar 19:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If like Siradia said the it only occured on the main page, would it be a problem because that's where most people go immediately upon arriving at the main page? freenaulij 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freenaulij (talk • contribs)

I think I should I add in my not-so-sought after opinion - like many others have suggested before me, a mouse is the more preffered version of navigating a page. Using a keyboard to navigate a page in my opinion is too conservative (not politically) but in terms of technology and not to most user's liking. The idea of pressing tab once to get their sounds good but to be honest how maany people know of that? Having said all of this, I don't think that either way makes a hell of a difference Tourskin 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What if you don't have a mouse? Or are unable to use one? Pressing a space bar to scroll down (or PageDown and PageUp) is about as simple as it gets. Bazza 13:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

if u dont have a mouse, it'll take u ages to get to wikipedia in the first place using tabs and alt!!! invest in a wheeled mouse!!!Tourskin 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone can use a mouse. Blind people, for example.81.174.226.229 13:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Or people with limited movement. I don't know where Tourskin lives, but in the UK (and most of EU), it's a legal requirement to keep these things in mind. And apart from that, on discussion pages, the first thing I often do is press "End" to go down the bottom of the page.Bazza 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For me it's not that much about the space bar, but more about the arrow keys. Sure, it only takes one click to focus out of the search box but it's still annoying.
I also think that today, many of Wikipedia's readers use a laptop. Of course some of these simply attach a mouse or use the "hot spots" on their touch pad (run their finger along the edge). However, there is still a substantial number of users that cannot do that.
Since Wikipedia is hosted on servers in Florida, the laws of UK and EU are legally irrelevant. However, since Wikipedia is "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit", I think we should consider the blind users for moral reasons. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Donation banner

The banner at the top has changed!!!!! The Placebo Effect 04:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Hiding the fundraiser box how to hide it. --NE2 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the new design is having problems on IE. See the bottom discussions on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't have that 'Wiki feel' to it. The previous one was better, I'd say. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I'd forgotten just how well-hidden I had it. To see what had changed, I had to disable my custom stylesheet, NoScript and Adblock :) – Gurch 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely true that the new fund raising banner is way too much like a big, flashing banner ad, and definitely doesn't fit in well with the Wiki style. What about the first fund raiser graphic? I recall it being eye friendly. 24.7.71.43 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes me want to donate less.

--Henry W. Schmitt 04:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree-- the previous donation banner was much more appealing... :( Lusanaherandraton 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is almost as bad as an ad, and one step away from an animated GIF banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.1.125 (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the last one was bad, until this one showed up. No offense to whoever created this banner, but the people in a line showing how many people have donated doesn't do it for me. A graph is much more helpful compared to a bunch of people in a row. I understand it is trying to convey the message of a world-wide effort, but it sounds preachy. The red button helps in the long run, I think, but the whole left portion of the banner does not. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this current banner, which is very close to an ad, is not apealing to anbody at all. I liked the old one much better. Juliancolton 18:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see whats the problem here

Scroll down if u don't want to contribute, or just scroll down enough to have it out of your way. Its not like its jumping out of the screen. Tourskin 07:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This banner really looks much like an aggressive ad... the previous one was much better. 11:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.178.220 (talk)

Huh? What banner? I can see it on other computers but not this one. In fact, logged on or off, it is invisible on this computer. How is this possible? Can someone tell me what it looks like? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably have JavaScript turned off. I recommend you leave it that way – Gurch 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I also thought the new banner was an improvement on the first one. Although, I'm using firefox, and the text and some lines look a little squished compared to the old one. Perhaps that can be fixed, but otherwise the new design is nice. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I hate both banners, the second one is better. Having the banner on the top seems a bit "pushy". I am not a fan of asking people for donations. If they want to donate, they will donate. Also, this could have a counter-effect and make people not want to donate.--SJP 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yeah, because not reminding people to donate will make them more likely to donate.</sarcasm> Seriously, they're both fine, and there's a nice little button there that says "hide this message". Use it. Grandmasterka 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the second one is better, the first one drove me nuts because I have a serious pet peeve with animations on web pages, movement on the screen is distracting especially if trying to read an encylopedia. The current one is far less distracting then the previous one. The hide button works well on both and the little meter that is left when hidden isnt too bad (though I think by default something this size would be better). I do support the foundations effort to solicit donations, running this stuff isnt free and many people wont donate if they dont realize there is a current need. As an american I liken it to PBS and NPR fund drives, which while they annoyed the hell out of me, I saw as a unfortunate nessesity to allow me to get commercial free unbaised and quality programming the rest of the year(and I did donate every year). Think about this reguarding wikipedia, suffer the banners for a breif period, the alternative is something like google ads all day everyday, personally, I will take the banner. Russeasby 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean:) Will they be pernament, or are they temporary? I hope they are the second!--SJP 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're aware that the "people bar" is currently squished; hopefully this issue will get sorted out tomorrow.

I think no matter what we put at the top of the page, we'll probably get 20 comments telling us that it's horrible, unprofessional, too professional, too preachy, not preachy enough, too irritating, not irritating enough, too colorful, too gray, too banner-like, not sufficiently banner-like, too familiar, too unfamiliar, ... I'll stop now.

Since we put up the new banner, the number of donations per day has more than doubled. [2] Whether this is due to its newness or the new design -- it's clear that we have to make modifications like this to meet our fundraising goals. We need $4.6M for the FY 2007-2008, and so far we've raised $368K. We expect that we'll need another fundraiser in 2008 and we also have some major donors interested in contributing for this fundraiser; this one will run into late December. During that time we'll experiment further with the notice, the landing page, etc. Helpful comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. ---Eloquence* 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is great that we have gotten that much money! It is excellent. I am happy with that. I hope that it will be taken down when the goal is met though.--SJP 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you've got a lot of corporate donors in reserve, we might miss that $4.6M by >70% in this drive, which could easily put us in the position of needing 2 more long fundraisers just to pay for 2008. At which point, much of the year is a "fundraiser". This leads me to wonder about the origin of that $4.6M number. Traffic only grew ~40% in the last year, but if I understand correctly the projected budget is ~3 times larger than this year's budget. Any chance you guys are grossly overestimating the costs for the coming year? A number more like $2.5M would seem much more obtainable and in line with growth in Wikimedia's core activity. Dragons flight 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two paths the Foundation could take in its organizational development: 1) Focus, 100%, on hosting Wikipedia and generating enough funding to do so -- rely almost exclusively on ad hoc volunteerism for everything beyond hosting. 2) Build WMF into a mission-driven non-profit that is not merely hosting a website, but distributing knowledge to people world-wide, and reaching out to the global community for participation and content creation. These paths are extremely different. For example, in scenario 1), it would not be necessary to relocate the Foundation from St. Petersburg, Florida to San Francisco, as we've decided to do -- we would surely be able to support basic server hosting without it. On the other hand, becoming a successful and global charity requires access to a different talent pool, the ability to execute program directives, etc.

As Jimmy's video should make clear, the Foundation (through its majority-elected Board of Trustees) has chosen path 2) -- we're not merely a webhost; we want to be a new kind of charity: a charity of free knowledge. And this necessitates that we prepare & plan our growth accordingly.--Eloquence* 06:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In the end, it all comes down to numbers, and they aren't big enough. Obviously I can't say "you should have gone with 1)" without being accused of trolling, but... you get my drift – Gurch 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Theres no Hide button :{ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.227.194 (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy

Seriously, has nobody noticed that when the donation banner is opened, it shows a different number of contributors than when the donation banner is closed? Right now there's a discrepancy of between 8 and 14 contributors. Which is the real "updated" number? Is there some sort of lag? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The same things happens with the number of articles: nothing can be dead on, dude. Stuff changes moment to moment, they can only be exact to within a second or two. Ben 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Besides, what is the difference between 14,900 and 14,908? Does 8 people really matter? I know every donor counts, but statistically, not so.

The discrepancy is much bigger on my screen. When the banner is open, it says "0 have donated". When closed, the number is over 14,000. It has been a while since I took statistics, but I think this is statistically significant. :-) I am running Firefox, if that makes a difference. Johntex\^talk 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mine is showing a discrepancy of about 1000 now...Ben 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...mines off by 1. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mine's off by 11, but consIdering the gaps listed above, this IS somewhat serious. Yadaman 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Every time i check the number of doners it is different evry time, by a few thousand or so. I checked an hour ago and the number was over 24,000. Now, the number is just over 19,000. Juliancolton 19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Webley Revolver as the featured article the day after Jokela school shooting

It seems an odd coincidence that an article about a gun should be featured the day after a prominent school shooting. Any thoughts?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was chosen to go on the front page on the 27th October. [3] AlexJ 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a coincidence. Truthiness was the main page article the same day Stephen Colbert announced he would run for President of the United States (in South Carolina). SashaCall 22:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Spooky. D'ya think if I asked him nicely, Raul would pick some lottery numbers for me? -- Vary | Talk 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More apophenia in action. Raul654 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, for my next trick: Bobcat is going to be the FA on the 11th. I predict that somebody, somewhere, will have some experience involving a bobcat, and that searching on google news for "Bobcat" will reveal at least one story for that day. Raul654 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh man - Google news has not one, not two, not three, but thirty eight bobcat related articles for today. Clearly the article's selection for the main page for this date was indicative of some sort of bias towards the subject of one of these articles (The fact that the Bobcat article was scheduled for this date more than two weeks ago is totally irrelevant). Raul654 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha :) AmiDaniel (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Charlotte Bobcats will win a basketball game that day... Houston may have a problem with that.  :-) --199.71.174.100 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad the Rockets were spoilers... --Howard the Duck 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bobcats were actually leading at the half! Then midnight UTC came, with a new TFA on the main page, and the Rockets came from behind to win the game. --74.13.128.113 06:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad there's no Rocket-related stuff on today's FA. --Howard the Duck 13:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's why the better team won by merely 3 points. --74.14.17.245 13:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bobcats should win now :D --Howard the Duck 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad the Bobcats' next game won't start till midnight UTC tonight, i.e. when MJ leaves the MP. But then, the Miami Heat sucks... --74.13.127.238 06:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why no one is complaining of Charlotte Bobcats-centrism yet... --Howard the Duck 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Raul, it would be a greater coincidence if that incident made its way onto WP:ITN SashaCall 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it would only be a strange and eerie coincidence if the shooter used the Webley in the shooting, which he didn't. hbdragon88 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Podcast

I think we should add this wikipedia podcast to the main page, if not now, than someday at least. Wrad 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's on the Community Portal. And it isn't that enyclopedic and only of intrest to wikipedians. The Placebo Effect 01:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's not the right sort of thing quite yet, but some sort of discussion or vocal news report about what's new, what's featured, and so on. Wrad 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Georgia confusion

The current event notice about riots in Georgia is a little confusing because it's not clear that the subject is the country of Georgia rather than the state of Georgia (in the US). Neither the listing nor the article itself clarifies this (although reading the article, it becomes obvious that it couldn't be referring to the state). And no, the world doesn't revolve around the US. Wikipedia is a global thing. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to identify _which_ entity is being referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.134.67 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The main page notice and the article both link to Georgia (country). The notice also refers to Tbilisi, which I'm reasonably sure shares it's name with no other place in the world. Is this insufficiently clear? The original suggestions at WP:ITN/C explicitly mentioned that Tbilisi is Georgia's capital. Would that make it more obvious? Algebraist 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm Canadian and knew it was about the country. Most likely just Americans will think it's Georgia, even though Tbilisi is mentioned. Sorry if I sound rude.--Billyboy0 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, with would be somewhat degrading to have to append (the country) to the end... why would we talk about the name of a state without mentioning in country anyway? We don't and wouldn't.--Dacium 02:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this really what the world thinks about Americans? Do you guys really think that we are that self-centered, stupid, and egotistical? I was very much aware that it was the country, as I'm sure most people were...I'm rather insulted, though. Benjamin 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. I did say that the world doesn't revolve around the US. But I must say I'm pretty unimpressed with the pro anything-but-US stance. All I was asking for is clarity about which entity was being referred to. I'm sure I'm far from the only one who was initially confused by it. I don't see how writing clearly is somehow 'degrading'. And even as a 'stupid american', it didn't take me long at all to figure out that it was referring to the country of Georgia. My only point is that I shouldn't have had to deduce it or already know about it. Isn't the whole idea of an encyclopedia to educate the uneducated? It just seems prudent to write in such a way as to avoid confusing a large portion of the audience. But I suppose americans should specifically not be considered since we're stupid, and we'll be confused regardless. 98.207.134.67 08:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Using the parenthetical would not actually be necessary. If you needed more clarity you could simply write more clearly. ("The nation of Georgia") I'm not sure why more clarity was really needed though, since a city was also mentioned. 69.95.50.15 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious link

on the did you know... section there is a reference to Susan Hadden's death to bandits, the link to bandit goes to a "Welsh language music television show on S4C,". as bad as welsh television might be, i don't think they killed her.--neolandes 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone's fixed it, thanks for the report. In future, please use WP:ERRORS at the top of this page for little reports like that- there are quicker replies. J Milburn 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sulfur and oil spills?

Hey, I really think that the recent sulfur and oil spills, in San Fran and the Black Sea, should really be in ITN. It's all over the news, so why is wikipedia not putting it on the front page? Benjamin 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for ITN should be posted on this page , not here. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"All over the news"? It hasn't been mentioned once, actually. Rather depends where you live. violet/riga (t) 07:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"hasn't been mentioned once"? You get a 1,000 hits on google news, rather independently of where you live. This is a major ecological disaster. You may perhaps have missed it if your only news outlet is slashdot. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to television news, and it hasn't appeared on there once. Oddly enough I know the net provides alternative news sources. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Language alphabetization question

Why is Russian listed before Romanian both in the sidebar and in the Wikipedia languages section? I read the FAQ section on this, but according to that, the languages should be sorted by domain name, and ru (Russian) should come after ro (Romanian). In fact, any sorting method (local language name, name in English) would seem to require Romanian before Russian. Lesgles (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to bring this up at Template talk:Wikipedialang. --199.71.174.100 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We've been alphabetizing the list by the languages' native names for quite some time, and it appears that the Russian Wikipedia was placed before the Romanian Wikipedia based upon the mistaken belief that the Cyrillic "Р" in "Русский" was equivalent to the Latin "P." (In fact, it corresponds to the Latin letter "R.") I've corrected the order. —David Levy 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I suspected that was the reason. Lesgles (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: it's still backwards on the sidebar. I don't know who's in charge of that.Lesgles (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about that. I've corrected it now. Thanks again! —David Levy 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)