Talk:Main Page

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 00:03 on 4 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)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 7)

Monday's FL

(June 10)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

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

Today's POTD

• I have made some minor improvements to the blurb (mainly nbsps) and trimmed the credit line slightly – these need to be copied over to the protected version. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

   Done Schwede66 00:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Raul 654

How did he get the job of scheduling TFAs? When is the next election?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk)

My understanding is that Raul first became the defacto featured articles director when the whole FA system essentially started four years ago in 2004. Of course, Wikipedia did not have as much activity, publicity, and users back then – and the only one who was willing to work on it regularly was Raul. Several months later, a discussion now archived here, led to him being ratified as the official director. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need any more information, I suggest carrying this discussion on at WT:TFA, which would be the correct talk page for the topic at hand. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to "carry this discussion on." I want his job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Request denied.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

...especially when you are editing as an anonymous IP address without the benefits you get when you create an account. ::::::Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My IP address isn't anonymous. You know exactly what it is. And it's your sort of snide comments that get this farce of a website a bad name. Powerless in the real world, so you get your kicks from being churlish to anybody with less than 6 million edits. And please excuse the expression , but WTF does it matter where this discussion is held? NOBODY'S GONNA DIE IF I ASK THE QUESTION HERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple, this page is here to discuss the main page as a whole, the page I recommended is to discuss the topic you want to discuss, I'm sorry if that seems complicated to you, but I don't see how you can expect to become TFA Director without understanding one of the more basic concepts of Wikipedia... well, that and the other very obvious reasons why you wouldn't qualify for the job. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 09:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But the post will rotate to someone else at some stage? right? --Fredrick day (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Raul has had the job for a long time, I'd say the only way someone else will take the post is if he gives it up, which will require either (god forbid) Raul leaving us, or community support for the idea of a weekly/monthly/yearly/whatever rotation of the job, which hasn't really come up because he's doing such a good job. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is going to dies if you ask the question here, but it has the following disadvantages:

1. Threads here get archived rather quickly, it's not a good place to do a long term discussion.
2. The people who frequently visit this page might not be interested in things unrelated to it.
3. People interested in TFA aren't notified of this.
   I think Raul is doing an excellent job, and should stay the director. There are few people who have time, energy, and skills to do this job. Further discussion should be held at WT:TFA. A non-administrator can't get the post, because the templates are fully protected. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But the post will rotate to someone else at some stage? right? --Fredrick day

Alas, the position will never rotate as long as this cabal remains in control of things.

There are few people who have time, energy, and skills to do this job.

What sort of nonsense is that? You should lay off the hyperbole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - thousands of people work on this project. Claiming that only a few have the time and/or are qualified to do something as simple as choose the FA for the main page is a load of bollocks. John Smith 06:54, 30 January 2008 (GMT+9) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.95.144.10 (talk)

Some of the qualifications include being extremely trustworthy, impartial (and seen to be impartial) and very familiar with the way wikipedia works. For whatever reason, as people approach these qualifications they tend to also spend less time and energy on Wikipedia. Finding someone with a long, respectable history on here who can be trusted with the job, and who spends enough time and energy, is not that easy. Most of the thousand of people who work on this project are not sufficiently known to be trustworthy. I'm certainly not. 130.88.140.13 (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Extremely trustworthy as opposed to just trustworthy? Again, you're talking up something that really amounts to very little.
2. Nobody on the sodding planet is impartial about everything.
3. Very familiar with the way wikipedia works? What does that even mean? You sound so unconvinced by your own statements that you have to add superfluous words like extremely, very, etc. I suppose he has to be a super guy, too?
4. People who are nice don't spend much time on wikipedia? Well, finally something I agree with. The regulars here are nothing more than a bunch of infants who love to jump on things in the collective. There is rarely any real debate. You all relish the opportunity of jumping down the throat of any newbie who turns up with ideas for improvement. Rather reminds one of Plato's cave.
5. Your final point about most people not being known to be trustworthy is, I have to say, shit. I do apologise, but there simply isn't a better word to describe that comment. It is shit. And repetitive shit at that. So,

a.) How much damage can the TFA director actually do? Very little. Abuse his power once and he'd be voted away anyway. (Yes, yes, I know wikipedia is not a democracy. But, let's face it, IT IS!)

b.) Nobody can be seen to be trustworthy until they are put in a position of responsibility and fail to abuse it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk)

130.88.140.13 said nothing about being impartial about everything, they were clearly implying that TFA Director would have to not be biased towards certain category's appearing on the main page on a regular basis, which Raul654 has proved he is not. Considering the systemic bias that exists in Wikipedia, Raul654 has really done an outstanding job in that regard.

Considering the span of Wikipedia's operations, there is a very clear difference between being familiar with them, and being very familiar with them, don't be so naive.

So we're infants? This from a user who can't seem to make a single post without the use of profanity.

We don't want a TFA D who abuses his power once and then gets caught, we want one who doesn't abuse his power full stop. Your apparent lack of understanding about the value of trustworthiness proves your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia.

I'm going to put this here, second to last, because I don't want to diminish the importance of my final point; you know you can sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of your posts? If you want to acquire an important post such as TFA D sometime in the future, I suggest you make yourself familiar with the more basic aspects of Wikipedia, such as making yourself identifiable without the need for users to look back over a pages history.

Now, to my final point, and please, if you can only make one cogent response to my points, please let it be this. Something I've been hoping you might like to explain, but haven't paid enough attention to this discussion to ask until now, is why you seem to think that an unregistered, inexperianced, brash, and quite frankly rude anonymous user who hasn't made a single provable edit outside of this conversation would make a better Today's Featured Article Director then a knowledgeable, experienced, trustworthy, friendly, long-standing user such as Raul654? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So we're infants? This from a user who can't seem to make a single post without the use of profanity. In my experience, it's adults who use profanity more than infants. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I never called you an infant for the use of profanity; I was basically saying that you shouldn't insult when there is a very easy rebuttal available. Care to respond to my other points? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 03:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but as you're gagging for it: in your second to last point, you use the indefinite article before a plural noun. You really shouldn't. (Did you miss out an apostrophe, or something? You really shouldn't do that either.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Before scheduling TFAs, you should try copyediting other articles first, you're quite good at it. Then after doing that then perhaps you will be considered for the position. --Howard the Duck 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, well as you have no answer to 3 fairly important questions, particularly point number 4, then I think we'll consider this interview over. Job application denied. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say I'm overly impressed with the discussion here - it seems to boil down to "he's the boss so there!" - If he abuses the position or not is not actually relevant (and to my knowledge he hasn't), it a question of should the position exist in it's current form - I'd say no - it either needs to be rotated, subjects to terms of office or some other oversight process. The concept that everything gets filtered through a single person's worldview seems to me to an anomaly in the project. Again, let me repeat, I am not saying that Raul has performed a bad job or anything of those sort - I arguing against the position not the person. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The position works absolutely fine. If Raul was showing even the slightest provable bias the vultures who look out for that on a daily basis would have his head. Considering the severely unbalanced category's in FA the system is working out perfectly. His world view doesn't come into it. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Norgy (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC) His world view doesn't come into it. - what? I don't understand how anyone can make a statement like that? of course his weltanschauung 'comes into it', it's impossible for it not to, since he is human not a robot. You miss my point, it's not that he had a world view that is an issue (and if it was the project would have to close), it's that by not rotating the post or making it the responsiblity of a number of trusted editors that I do not think we are fulfiling our duty to combat systematic bias. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand where your coming from Fredrick, and if the system that we currently use was showing cracks then I'd be completely on your side of the line, but I just don't see anything other then a well balanced spread of FA's from day to day, so I can't be part of uprooting it, and turning it into a daily bickering match, which is what it would become, and of that you can be absolutely assured, the archives of this very page are proof of that. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that there'd actually be more of a problem if you had the post rotating. With just Raul doing it, he can get a good long view of the TFA's. Constantly switching may prevent one sort of bias from forming, but I think that you'd get a lot more little biases all over the place; each editor trying to balance perceived imbalances of the one before. 99.248.214.86 (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspicuous silence from the boy himself on this matter. Does he fear for his position of power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, its quite the opposite I guarantee it. If he feared for what you refer to as a position of power, he'd be here arguing his case. Raul has many responsibility's here at Wikipedia, and he doesn't want to get in the way of the community deciding if its working or not. I could ask him here to comment if you'd like, but he frequents this page regularly and I guarantee he's aware of this conversation. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the conspicuous silence comes from the fact that lately I've been busy (changed jobs this week), tired, and not editing as much lately. Raul654 (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So, it is conspicuous, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. According to Wiktionary conspicuous means:

1. obvious or easy to notice
   • He was conspicuous by his absence
2. noticeable or attracting attention, especially if unattractive
   • He had a conspicuous lump on his forehead.

I believe Raul meant the first definition, easy to notice. Wikipedia is transparent, things are easy to notice. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't believe it was meant in the other sense, his silence is not "unattractive".
Oh, and please do sign your posts. Either type four tildes (~~~~) or press the signature button () in the tool bar above the edit box.Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I must say, this "job interview" is bizarre, with the person being interviewed that one who is bossing around. --Howard the Duck 06:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also taking abnormally long. I don't know what's the standard in North America, but over here, interviews are finished within thirty minutes. Can't we just shake hands with this guy, smile, and tell him to wait for an official decision in the mail? Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, he's gone from wanting Rauls job to wanting to smash the system, little bit Punk Rock really... ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to reply - I was busy pissing myself with laughter. You guys are too funny. But, nobody has addressed the real point: Why is it that there are regular elections for all sorts of positions on wikipedia, but Raul has a permanent position? I may not be suitable, but others should be given the opportunity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple, if it ain't broken, don't fix it, or to put it another way, a way you may have read earlier:

I think that there'd actually be more of a problem if you had the post rotating. With just Raul doing it, he can get a good long view of the TFA's. Constantly switching may prevent one sort of bias from forming, but I think that you'd get a lot more little biases all over the place; each editor trying to balance perceived imbalances of the one before. 99.248.214.86 (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please do sign your posts. Either type four tildes (~~~~) or press the signature button () in the tool bar above the edit box. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 07:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all posts are rotating and elected. The arbcom is, but most aren't. I wouldn't really be against a rotating position but I'd support a long term (5+ years) and I just don't see the need for it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of the year...

To complain about US-centrism. :) --Howard the Duck 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it Howard, you just love a good argument. So here goes... the USA assumes that the whole of creation spins around it. Why, only today it started beaming "Across the Universe" out into the cosmos (ok ok the track is a Beatles song, but let's not get stuck on detail) ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.115.57 (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Howard, as you can see by the information box at the top of the page, the best place to discuss this would be the Village Pump. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, couldn't resist. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew someone would to do that >:p --Howard the Duck 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Main Page turned out to be very not US-centric today. The FA is History of American football, which is derived from rugby (a UK sport). There isn't a single US item in ITN. DYK only has two US hooks (US Navy ship and George Schlatter). OTD has one US item (The Day the Music Died). The FP is of concentration camp victims, though they were liberated by US troops this is more of a German/Austrian topic. It's quite a non-US main page today, except for the FA. We still might get some complaints though. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The real fun will revolve around ITN after the game, I'm sure.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, it's not going to be on there, is it? J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if the Patriots win :) Antimatter--talk-- 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be, because the Super Bowl is the most important American football event of the year. Then again, I first heard of it last week in English class. Still, it probably deserves a place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see internation significance. It isn't going to change the world, nobody cares. There is no way this should be on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

International importance? No. International interest? Maybe. --Howard the Duck 13:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Very few things change the world, if we restricted the ITN to that, we'd have a "news" item every century or so. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, maybe it was a bad phrase to use, but it isn't in the same class as the other news items. (With the possible exception of the item about Internet connections, but we do, as an encyclopedia, lean towards Internet related items.) Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't belong there? J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling the Super Bowl an American only interest is really quite naive. The game was broadcast in 223 countries and territories around the world, in 30 different languages. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I realise it is broadcast widely- I even watched about a minute before dying of boredom. I didn't actually use the "OMG US-CENTRICISMZ" argument, I just think it's pathetic in terms of newsworthyness. People may care, and people may know about it, but, in the grand scheme of things, it matters not, unlike the others (again, with the possible exception of the Internet thing). J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• News, by definition doesn't have to be important to be "new" information, news is simply a chronicle of recent events. The Super Bowl is a recent event, whether or not you personally think it is important is irrelevant. The gate keepers in the media have determined that it is "important" enough to be chronicled, thus making it news. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works- there is a shitstorm of press about pathetic pop-culture events, but they don't find themselves on the main page, and rightly so. This page outlines our guidelines on the matter, and I just don't think that this is of international importance. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, international importance, no. International interest, maybe. Also, all sporting events don't affect the grand scheme of things, either. --Howard the Duck 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why I support their removal, almost entirely. I can see the need to mention the world championship results in top sports (tennis, basketball, soccer, golf) as well as the start/end of huge competitions (Olympics, Commonwealth Games) but the internal result of one country, in a comparatively small sport? What about the results of the Eritrea 200m butterfly championships? Obviously, this is a purely scholarly argument, as I can't see it getting changed, which is a shame. J Milburn (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, as long as you can prove that the Eritrea 200m butterfly championships "was broadcast in 223 countries and territories around the world, in 30 different languages" live, perhaps the admins can be convinced.

(See, ultimately the "one country argument" would come into fore, I was waiting for it). --Howard the Duck 11:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the world championship in Tennis and Golf aren't really that notable enough for ITN standards. And you may want to talk about changes in the ITN criteria (especially on sports stories) to avoid the Super Bowl vs. Eritrea 200m butterfly championships debate. --Howard the Duck 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, as I say, I don't see it changing in a hurry. If I moan a little every time it comes up, maybe people's opinions will start to change... J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A complaint like this comes up every February, June and October every year I've started here on Wiki, so no sense of complaining every year. --Howard the Duck 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Super Bowl was front page news across Canada ("MIEUX QUE PARFAIT" read Le Soleil) and Mexico ("SORPRESA GIGANTE" said El Universal), as shown on the "Today's Front Pages" of the Newseum website. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it was you who started it off this time around Howard so there's no way to prove it was definatly going to happen this time around :), infact, I'm pretty sure I've read the words US-Centralism in your posts more then any other person, or perhaps more then all others put together. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey at least I kept off some US-related topics from the ITN and supported UK-related items some months ago... --Howard the Duck 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone in a thread above this was complaining about DYK's apparent bias towards nautical topics... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 16:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias against United States topics is bias too! A couple days ago there was a topic about a game in India. How is that relavant. I really would like to see people treat the United States like other countries, and not be hypocritical.

RJRocket53 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, we've been told we're Indian centric in the past (see: Talk:Main Page/Archive 116#is mainpage all about india). Wikipedia and its Main Page has been declared to biased in every way imaginable, and I disagree with most of these accusations (including the US-centric one). Puchiko (Talk-email) 00:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well with exception of our god damned, running to the core, wikicentralism and encyclopediacentralism I disagree with all of them. I mean come on, the site name contains BOTH of them :L. On core belief I do have is that anyone who accusing us of a bias (in a serious sence) is bigotted against that thing. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are 'us'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.46.32 (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

.......the Wikipedia community, quite clearly.... I mean, here we are in Wikipedia... I'm sorry but I really don't see how that was in any way confusing.... ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 20:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So anyone who suggests in particular instances that there is bias is a bigot and is not one of 'us'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.195.237 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, if they can provide more then just "I think I might have seen this topic at sometime in the past but I can't provide anything more then that" and actually show that the topic is turning up more often then others then I'll listen to what they have to say, but 10 times out of 10 thats all they do, and only say it because they don't like the topic. Also, bias claims come from within as often as without, stop trying to make an issue out of nothing. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the super bowl is widely broadcast outside the US is a myth. It is watched by less than 100 million people, almost all of whom are in the US. As for it being broadcast in 223 countries, that seems to be strange considering there are only 192 countries out there... --Theshadow89 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

194 actually, 192 is a common mistake because thats how many members there are in the U.N. [1]. Thats just a fact I'm sticking out there, I'm not arguing for or against what your saying... Howard the Duck would kill me, lol. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For the 220+ number, see list of countries. --Howard the Duck 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan as FA on Super Tuesday

This is just my personal opinion (which I know has no place on wikipedia...) but I find it both ironic and extremely POV that the FA is Ronald Reagan, the god-send of the American conservative movement, on one of the biggest election days in the United States... Hmmm.... FluxFuser (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reagan's birthday was February 6, 1911, just FYI. I wouldn't assume evil intent here. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, hadn't realized that. Seems reasonable and innocent enough. Still ironic none-the-less, but thanks for the quick response. FluxFuser (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that innocent, ironic, or whatever, it really should be changed. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, because some poor soul is going to read it and suddenly find himself a red-blooded conservative by the grace of God. Quick, censor Wikipedia! Think of the politically-neutral children! Zeality (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way: the polls are by and large closed by now. Zeality (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The polls being closed is a reasonable point. Meh. I guess I really don't care much then. It was still a questionable judgment call though. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly? Wikipedia endorsing someone? Wikipedia influencing voters? I'm sorry but anyone whose vote depends on Wikipedia is probably not voting anyway. 128.227.7.73 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget Ronald Reagan is actually featured on February 6, his birthday, and not February 5, Super Tuesday. It just so happens that February 6, 2008 starts 5 hours earlier UTC than it does EST (ie New York City). - auburnpilot talk 01:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The polls were still open when the FA went up. They still are in some states. Screw UTC. Screw his birthday. This is highly inappropriate. Given Wikipedia's visibility, I wouldn't be surprised if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigates. —Nricardo (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha yes because it is illegal for private websites to (very subtly, if at all) advocate candidates. I guess ronpaul2008.com better watch out too! -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's commemerating Ronald Reagan's Birthday. If someone is infuencled by Ronald Regan being on the front of wikipedia, then that is not our fault. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ya know what? Never mind. It's just the primaries. I'll save my my ire for when John McCain is featured on election day. —Nricardo (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Won't happen. John McCain isn't featured. And even if it becomes an FA this year it won't make it through the waiting period. --Howard the Duck 06:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As usual Raul with his subtle Neo-con propoganda --Pensil (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:Forgive me my ignorance, as I know nothing about the US election system, but the US presidential election is to take place on 4 November 2008. I think it would be unreasonable to restrict all political FAs until then. It's just the primaries, and I don't think they're that important. The first round of the Czech presidential election is to take place on Friday, now that's exciting.
Pensil, I don't think Raul intended to influence anyone with this FA. It's a common habit feature people on their birthdays or death anniversaries.
However, this raises the issue-Raul's been getting a lot of criticism lately. While I personally trust him, perhaps this implies that not everybody agrees with him having the current position, and a discussion should take place. Combined with a section above-I think this implies it's time for a community discussion. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (struck per Raul's explanation-I'm not good at interpreting humour Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Puchiko - Pensil's comment was intended as a joke. I'm most certainly not a neo-con. Raul654 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm as liberal as they get, but I've got no problem with Reagan being on the main page on Super Tuesday. I would have no problem with Grover Cleveland, Franklin D. Roosevelt, or any other U.S. President either. It might be inappropriate to include any current candidates on the main page, though, at least until after the election. Lovelac7 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, people, today, Reagon's B-day, is Wednesday. Super Tuesday was yesterday! --74.13.129.31 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. There's no grand Wikipedia conspiracy to make people vote for conservative candidates. Indeed, we are more often accused of the exact opposite. I can see more plausibly how having an FA of a current candidate during election time might look problematic but even then I'm not convinced there's any real issue. If the article meets FA then we should be good. I may be cynical but I have trouble believing we could have an article about any politician reach FA status and not have a lot of criticism in the article. If the article reads like it is a campaign piece then we have other issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

<G>... I think it might be safe to sleep this one off.. I don't think R. Reagan is running this time around... (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) CaribDigita (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Politicians Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[7] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

From Wikipedia rules for notability. Ronald Reagan fits. Many people are mad at the USA bias on wikipedia, but I find it hypocritical that some have a anti-USA bias. And Ronald Reagan is not running! RJRocket53 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be scared if Ronald Reagan runs this year... 122.2.90.75 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What, what, what? Where did notability come into this from? This started of as a complaint about featuring RR on Super Tuesday. From there it go side tracked into bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and a bunch of other discussions but no one has argued that RR isn't noteable or brought US bias into this other then you. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate craziness

Ah! A Mormon article and John Edwards on the same page! Think of the impressionable voters. With further primaries in two days, I personally can see no other situation than every voter choosing to waste their votes and vote for two candidates who are no longer running. Wikipedia, how easily you corrupt voters with your unofficial endorsements. 128.227.78.233 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know when the last time was that we went, say, three days without either an accusation of bias or a joke accusation of bias? ;) -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, demonstrating your anti-joke accusation of bias bias. Joe 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Domo-kun.jpg We're coming!

Every time you talk about bias on the main page, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. Raul654 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Domo-kun.jpg What the other domo-kun said... --Howard the Duck 06:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Kawaii! Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And that just shows Wikipedia's abhorrent pro-kitten bias. Think of the puppies! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a pro-cuteness bias! Think of the slugs and naked mole rats! JoshuaZ (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about the Domo-kuns? Remember the domo-kuns... --Howard the Duck 06:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little curious

How are the featured articles chosen?Д narchistPig (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The featured articles are chosen based on the criteria in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Nakon 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone thinks the article meets the criteria, he nominates it at WP:FAC. If the community agrees that the criteria is met, the article is made a features article. Then it waits (this can take years) before it becomes a TFA, meaning it's featured on the Main Page. User:Raul654 chooses TFAs from the pool of FAs, always trying to keep the main page topically balanced (not having six articles about albums in one week) and prioritising articles that have a date connection (people might be featured on their birthdays, universities on anniversaries of their founding). Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

but why does Raul chose? did he start the featured article thing?Д narchistPig (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, read the second post of the first discussion :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article, AnarcistPig. --PFHLai (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Can i choose one? 59.92.128.177 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's got a strong date connection you can make a suggestion at WP:TFA/R. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

user:Bmills started the Brilliant Prose process, which later became stricter and was renamed featured articles. It was my idea to put them on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag

Okay, I found two pictures in the Peru which would look much better than the flag one. Image:Peru Machu Picchu Sunrise 2.jpg and Image:Casadepizarrolima.jpg both look better. And the flag in the infobox for the Peru article isn't the same one used on the main page. Slightly confusing (and I realize I could be bold and change the flag there, but I don't feel like disrupting consensus on an article I've never edited).Charles Stewart (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously no disrespect to Peru, but in terms of those striking images in comparison with the rather bland looking flag, I would also agree that one of those images would be far more appealing. WilliamH (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For FAs on countries, we use the nation's flag for the image. Raul654 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that I think of it I don't recall ever seeing another country here before. Is there a reason why you chose this flag instead of the one in Peru's infobox? Never mind, that issues been adressed. Charles Stewart (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We have had several countries featured on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fill in please

Can somebody with permission complement the news with the article in red:

• President José Ramos Horta (pictured) of East Timor is wounded in an attack that leaves rebel leader Alfredo Reinhado dead.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't an article at that link. If you find one, please let me know. Nakon 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add a hyphen to the nameof José Ramos Horta

José Ramos-Horta is spelled with a hyphen. Please add the hyphen.--89.12.22.120 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixing. Nakon 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So why not use it?

Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks! Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Error

In the Peru featured article box, why is "home" highlighted? _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot answer your question, but I believe this question belongs in the error reports near the top. Earthbendingmaster 00:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it was my own problem. (just pressed the highlighter button on the google toolbar) _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 00:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Soccer / Football

Please could the word 'soccer' from the news item about the African Cup of Nations be changed to 'football'. Many thanks

Intergr8 (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is changed to 'football', it could be mistaken for any number of games- Soccer, American Football, Gaelic Football, Rugby Football, Australian Rules Football... And that's without even looking at the dab page. Soccer means people actually know what the story is. And, for what it's worth, I'm British, so "football"= soccer for me too. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It was 'Association Football', which also avoided the ambiguity. I'm not sure why it was changed. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Becuase there was a discussion, and because that phrase is not in everyday use anywhere in the English speaking world. Kevin McE (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I can vouch for with my comment below... J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a sports fan, but 'Association Football' doesn't mean anything to me- soccer does. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I liked the previous title of football (soccer) the association football article had before. --Howard the Duck 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

not only does the article read soccer instead of football, when it is an organisation run by the Confederation of African Football, it also makes a concession to American style by stating that "Egypt wins the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations" wheras in any other English speaking country, including Ghana, where the tournament took place, one would say: "Egypt win the 2008..." To me it reads terribly. Why would anyone that Egypt were playing Cameroon in a notable Gaelic/American/Aussie Rules final? Petepetepetepete (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The best way to resolve this is to use "football (soccer)" as the displayed link. --Howard the Duck 13:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This discussion has come up many times before. I'm British-English, and I would certainly say 'Egypt wins the 2008...' in this case. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Howard the Duck, and have changed it on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see its changed to that, will read better now. I would have thought it was: Liverpool F.C. win the 2005 Champions League after a dramatic comeback in Istanbul... Liverpool wins the bid to be named 2008 Capital of Culture. Petepetepetepete (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I think that football or association football should be used instead of soccer, even if just for the fact that the organising confederation is the Confederation of African Football, not the Confederation of African Soccer. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote for the usage of football instead of soccer. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the millionth time I've been engaged in this argument, but... "Football" is ambiguous. "Soccer" isn't. Soccer wins. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Reformatting

Has anyone ever considered that it might be easier or just look nicer to put the main page sections in templates? Something like

{{MainPageWelcomeBanner}}
{{WP:TodaysFeaturedArticle/{{CURRENTMONTH}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
{{DidYouKnow/{{CURRENTMONTH}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}} 
(and continue on like that)

Has this already been suggested or done or are there problems with that idea? Or is that a good idea? ^F*^L*^RAP 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that pretty much how it's done now? Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. :). Prodego ^talk 13:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK is not in a dated template because it is updated about 3 times a day and at no set intervals (it's supposed to be after 8? hours but it depends on when admins get around to it) Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jake Simmons, Jr. on DYK

"Did You Know" currently reads:

• ...that Jake Simmons, Jr. was the most successful African-American entrepreneur in the history of the petroleum industry?

This sentence sounds very POV to me. Even though it is cited in the article, it is too subjective for the main page. The article is good and the subject interesting, so I would suggest changing the DYK blurb to a more objective fact, such as:

• ...that Jake Simmons, Jr. was the first African-American to be appointed to the National Petroleum Council?

Any thoughts on the issue? — Lovelac7 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)