Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 8

message: (Please indicate below if you feel that "In the news" is a suitable title as-is.)
* Oppose any change. It has been called In The News as long as I can remember. It clearly covers the content of the section, and no compelling reason to change this has ever been presented. Rebecca 10:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rebecca the compelling reason is the regular complaints from people on Talk:Main page when they misunderstand what ITN's purpose is. There's been constant requests for news to be posted in there, rather than actual updated articles. Just having the word "news" in the heading leads many to believe it is a news service. --Monotonehell 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No change

message: ====Wikipedia is not Wikinews====
I support a name change like this. Many believe ITN is a listing of news headlines, and any change that can help free them from this misconception is a change for the better. On a slightly related note: I even think we should consider not linking to newly created articles on specific news events like plane crashes, hurricanes, sports results, etc; articles that, while they are this new, seldom are very well written and which basically are just news reports that are (or should be) better covered in wikinews or in other news media. So when there's a plane crash we could link to the good old article on the airline and the area/city where it crashed and not the actual accident article. Articles on important news event should of course still be written, but we don't need to promote them this much by linking to them from the main page. I think we are further spreading the misconception of Wikipedia being somewhat of a news site by doing this. But I'm digressing here. Sorry. But, yes, a name change is a good start. Shanes 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was way too much of a digression and I shouldn't have written it here. I hope people won't start debating my (probably silly) idea instead of The Tom's suggestion. Feel free to move it out of your section, Tom. Shanes 01:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *cough* I am sure it was not your intent, but many editors do try to keep those articles in good shape (at least speaking from a "hurricanes" point of view), so belittling the contributions of other editors may not have the effect you desired. Also, Wikinews is too limited, as it is purely a news site; it does not allow for a more thorough, encyclopedic treatment of a subject. In a way, Wikinews articles are just snapshots in time, not a fluid story, per the definition of pure journalism. Titoxd(?!?) 02:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The perceived attack on editors aside, I was going to bring this up myself. I don't believe that an encyclopedia should be reporting the news. Rather we should wait until all the dust is settled, the accounting done and verified before we embark on documenting an event. This of course negates the energy a topical event creates, possibly losing potential edits while things are grabing people's attention. Having a new item linked in ITN does create interest and focus energies. But I'm still of the opinion that we should not document dateline events. Like Shanes said this is probably best left for another topic. But we've opened this can now I think I'll move it out to it's own heading for neatness. --Monotonehell 03:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It still shouldn't be an either-or proposition. Wikinews is too limited, and it is a snapshot, as I said; Wikipedia has the advantage that it can give much deeper background information, which dedicated news sites, as well as other encyclopedias, can't provide. That's actually why Wikipedia is famous: we have the ability to explain current events quickly and thoroughly. Prohibiting new articles from being on the Main Page, it makes that unique ability less visible, and we shouldn't be trying to hide our competitive advantages. Additionally, placing "old" articles, such as an airline's main article, on the Main Page without a "new" article to accompany it will just cause the old article to be overrun with "new" information that may simply not belong there. Titoxd(?!?) 05:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I'm more concerned with verified information, initial reports are often sketchy at best. I'm putting forward the opinion that until something is 'known' it should not be included. Speculation has no part in an encyclopedia. Take the K. Lay issue just recently as an example. If the editors had waited until the breaking news had become verified news then those in the traditional media, scared that WP will put them out of business even though they are not in the same business, would not have any salvos to fire. We don't have to be RIGHT on the dateline, we can sit back and wait a little for verified info. It goes back to the ITN is not the news point being discussed above; the less we try to act like a news service the less those who misunderstand what WP is will slander the project in the press. --Monotonehell 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the news media wants to find a story to beat up about Wikipedia, they'll find one whatever we do. I do not see the recent (and rather minor) beatup over one misreporting as a reason to stop covering current events. In any case, it is going to take a lot more than two or three editors on this page to override the long-standing consensus that we do cover these issues - something which has also won us much praise in the past - most notably on the 2005 London bombings. Rebecca 10:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is interesting. I found the Reuters article on the Kenneth Lay's death reporting issues here. That is one of the bad things about Wikipedia, that people searching for the latest news will find rank speculation and poor quality editing in some places. No doubt about that. I'd be interested to know whether Wikinews did any better (I'd have assumed they would). Carcharoth 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Our ability to immediately update in the event of a new development has also for a very long time been a subject of praise. This was evident to anyone who was around at the time of the London bombings, where Wikipedia had the most comprehensive and accurate online coverage in the days following the attacks - something which earned us innumerable good press. One very minor utter beat-up from Reuters and five worried users is not enough to throw these achievements away and turn a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia on its head. Rebecca 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I first started editing here on the London bombings article. It's just something to remind us to keep on our toes and be organised about having enough eyeballs to spot this sort of thing. In some cases there really does need to be an inquest. People who add such speculation that makes Wikipedia look bad should be noted in some way, and persistent offending should be taken further. Blocking and/or remedial action, or banning from updating articles that includes breaking news. Carcharoth 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If an editor add uncited speculation, it is a matter of reminding that editor about WP:V, not about removing articles of interest from the Main Page. If the 2005 Indian Ocean earthquake and Hurricane Katrina events did not give us good press due to our deep encyclopedic background coverage, then I don't know what did. Titoxd(?!?) 01:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it's not a huge problem as things will be corrected in a matter of minutes usually. It's just that any initial wild speculation is often taken as read by so many readers without the skill of critical thought. Either way; the fact that traditional media types are up in arms over WP makes WP a facsinating experiment to watch. --Monotonehell 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Digression from ITN name change discussion

message: I support a name change like this. Many believe ITN is a listing of news headlines, and any change that can help free them from this misconception is a change for the better. On a slightly related note: I even think we should consider not linking to newly created articles on specific news events like plane crashes, hurricanes, sports results, etc; articles that, while they are this new, seldom are very well written and which basically are just news reports that are (or should be) better covered in wikinews or in other news media. So when there's a plane crash we could link to the good old article on the airline and the area/city where it crashed and not the actual accident article. Articles on important news event should of course still be written, but we don't need to promote them this much by linking to them from the main page. I think we are further spreading the misconception of Wikipedia being somewhat of a news site by doing this. But I'm digressing here. Sorry. But, yes, a name change is a good start. Shanes 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was way too much of a digression and I shouldn't have written it here. I hope people won't start debating my (probably silly) idea instead of The Tom's suggestion. Feel free to move it out of your section, Tom. Shanes 01:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *cough* I am sure it was not your intent, but many editors do try to keep those articles in good shape (at least speaking from a "hurricanes" point of view), so belittling the contributions of other editors may not have the effect you desired. Also, Wikinews is too limited, as it is purely a news site; it does not allow for a more thorough, encyclopedic treatment of a subject. In a way, Wikinews articles are just snapshots in time, not a fluid story, per the definition of pure journalism. Titoxd(?!?) 02:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The perceived attack on editors aside, I was going to bring this up myself. I don't believe that an encyclopedia should be reporting the news. Rather we should wait until all the dust is settled, the accounting done and verified before we embark on documenting an event. This of course negates the energy a topical event creates, possibly losing potential edits while things are grabing people's attention. Having a new item linked in ITN does create interest and focus energies. But I'm still of the opinion that we should not document dateline events. Like Shanes said this is probably best left for another topic. But we've opened this can now I think I'll move it out to it's own heading for neatness. --Monotonehell 03:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It still shouldn't be an either-or proposition. Wikinews is too limited, and it is a snapshot, as I said; Wikipedia has the advantage that it can give much deeper background information, which dedicated news sites, as well as other encyclopedias, can't provide. That's actually why Wikipedia is famous: we have the ability to explain current events quickly and thoroughly. Prohibiting new articles from being on the Main Page, it makes that unique ability less visible, and we shouldn't be trying to hide our competitive advantages. Additionally, placing "old" articles, such as an airline's main article, on the Main Page without a "new" article to accompany it will just cause the old article to be overrun with "new" information that may simply not belong there. Titoxd(?!?) 05:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I'm more concerned with verified information, initial reports are often sketchy at best. I'm putting forward the opinion that until something is 'known' it should not be included. Speculation has no part in an encyclopedia. Take the K. Lay issue just recently as an example. If the editors had waited until the breaking news had become verified news then those in the traditional media, scared that WP will put them out of business even though they are not in the same business, would not have any salvos to fire. We don't have to be RIGHT on the dateline, we can sit back and wait a little for verified info. It goes back to the ITN is not the news point being discussed above; the less we try to act like a news service the less those who misunderstand what WP is will slander the project in the press. --Monotonehell 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the news media wants to find a story to beat up about Wikipedia, they'll find one whatever we do. I do not see the recent (and rather minor) beatup over one misreporting as a reason to stop covering current events. In any case, it is going to take a lot more than two or three editors on this page to override the long-standing consensus that we do cover these issues - something which has also won us much praise in the past - most notably on the 2005 London bombings. Rebecca 10:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is interesting. I found the Reuters article on the Kenneth Lay's death reporting issues here. That is one of the bad things about Wikipedia, that people searching for the latest news will find rank speculation and poor quality editing in some places. No doubt about that. I'd be interested to know whether Wikinews did any better (I'd have assumed they would). Carcharoth 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Our ability to immediately update in the event of a new development has also for a very long time been a subject of praise. This was evident to anyone who was around at the time of the London bombings, where Wikipedia had the most comprehensive and accurate online coverage in the days following the attacks - something which earned us innumerable good press. One very minor utter beat-up from Reuters and five worried users is not enough to throw these achievements away and turn a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia on its head. Rebecca 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I first started editing here on the London bombings article. It's just something to remind us to keep on our toes and be organised about having enough eyeballs to spot this sort of thing. In some cases there really does need to be an inquest. People who add such speculation that makes Wikipedia look bad should be noted in some way, and persistent offending should be taken further. Blocking and/or remedial action, or banning from updating articles that includes breaking news. Carcharoth 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If an editor add uncited speculation, it is a matter of reminding that editor about WP:V, not about removing articles of interest from the Main Page. If the 2005 Indian Ocean earthquake and Hurricane Katrina events did not give us good press due to our deep encyclopedic background coverage, then I don't know what did. Titoxd(?!?) 01:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it's not a huge problem as things will be corrected in a matter of minutes usually. It's just that any initial wild speculation is often taken as read by so many readers without the skill of critical thought. Either way; the fact that traditional media types are up in arms over WP makes WP a facsinating experiment to watch. --Monotonehell 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not Wikinews

message: The word 'tennis', being a regular noun, shouldn't be capitalised. Primary school stuff. Skinnyweed 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wimbledon

message: The finals of the World Cup happened later than the finals of Wimbleton. The WC should still be on the ITN, while Wimbleton should be off. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WC vs. Wimbleton 

message: I think "Israeli troops enter Lebanon in response to Hezbollah kidnapping two Israeli soldiers" should be "Israeli troops enter Lebanon in reposnse to Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers."  Just had to mention it, as it was bugging me.  MJSkia1 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it now. Is that better? Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect! MJSkia1 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear for any future situations, I feel I should note that both versions are grammatically correct, but they carry slightly different meanings.  See Strunk and White for more explanation, but in the first construction ("Hezbollah kidnapping") the response is more to Hezbollah, and in the second ("Hezbollah's kidnapping") the response is more to the kidnapping.  It's a subtle enough distinction that it's probably rarely worth nitpicking. LWizard @ 08:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. --Oldak Quill 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitpicking grammar 

message: "Mounting casualties on both sides" is inappropriate when the score is 300+ to 16. It would be more neutral to call it an "all out massacre" with some light Israeli casualties. -i2q2
:The casualties *are* mounting on both sides; one side is simply mounting far faster than the other. Wikipedia's front page is not an editorial, we should report the facts in a neutral and unbiased way. I know you may not have made the second suggestionn in too much seriousness (simply venting your frustration at what you see as bias?), but the phrase "all out massacre" is biased and unusable. --Oldak Quill 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mounting casualties on both sides" 

message: Is this noteworthy enough to be covered on the main page?  Please.  Acegikmo1 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. Please remove the entry about Miss Universe on the main page. Errabee 12:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about to. --Oldak Quill 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks :) Errabee 13:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miss Universe

message: That image of Floyd Landis is released under the wrong license. It's actually released under this license, meaning the image is not free for Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. I notice the other pic on Landis' page is under the wrong CC license too, could you sort these out (either fair use rationale or nom for deletion). Also possible that if you contact the authors on their Flickr pages, they may change the license for us. --Oldak Quill 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll contact them. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The creator of the image changed the licensing for us. Perhaps it can go back on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Oldak Quill 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of [[Floyd Landis]] 

message: Change 'aircraft carrier, Graf Zeppelin" to "aircraft carrier, the carrier Graf Zeppelin" because a Zeppelin is a balloon, an airship.--Chuck Marean 20:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a Graf Zeppelin is an aircraft carrier. There's no reason to repeat the word 'carrier'. --Golbez 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not done. —Ruud 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a Zeppelin is an airship 

message: "DRC (Congo)" or "DR Congo"? Sgt Pinback 14:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest "DR Congo" or "Congo-Kinasha" also, we should use this image instead of the current flag. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congo

message: Castro has relinquished his duties not power to Raul as per Cuban constitution. Please Change asap.--Zleitzen 15:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro

message: To claim that Qana deaths were caused by Israeli airstrike - is a blatant pov! -- tasc wordsdeeds 07:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's working with the facts available. If Israel comes out with proof that their bomb didn't do it, then we will update accordingly. --Golbez 07:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact available? so where is the fact that building collapsed due to Israeli attack? -- tasc wordsdeeds 11:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qana 

message: He's not failed a second drug test. Rather, his B sample have now returned positive after testing. -- KTC 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They had to perform a second drug test on him and used the B sample, surely?  violet/riga (t) 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A second test using the B sample instead of the A one, where both were submitted after Stage 17, yes. But the wording as it stands could easily suggest that Landis have return another positive dope test from samples given at a different time. For example, if samples from Stage 18 comes back postive as well. -- KTC 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landis 

message: The link (to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict) doesn't work (is red). Please fix. —Daniel (‽) 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

message: It's nice to see en.Wiki thinks such incidents are noteworthy. Funny thing though, I'm having difficulty finding mentioning to the Hizbullah strike on resting soldiers today on Kfar Giladi which killed 12, or for the fact that Haifa is burning... even though it's CNN's featured story. or for any other incident of mass-murder by Hizballah rockets on Israeli victims. Is there like an official minimum of victims per incident above which they get a mention on the front page? Volland 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. Its clearly POV to only report one side of the story. -ReuvenkT C E 02:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bias was not intentional. I was just updating a stale item on ITN with something new found on the candidates' page. Whoops.... --PFHLai 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qaa airstrike? 

message: The protests have dragged on for more than a month. Why is this news now ? Maybe we should focus on the recount (to begin later today.) Maybe we should keep this off ITN till we have the results of the recount. BTW, I don't think the electoral irregularities all took place in Mexico City. --PFHLai 02:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The recount has started. I've rewritten the blurb to focus on the recount. --PFHLai 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably ambiguous wording -- I think they meant that the protests continue in Mexico City, not that the protested alleged irregularities were only there. Mdotley 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "Supporters of Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador continue to protest over alleged electoral irregularities in Mexico City."  

message: Rather than a stock photo of a plane, how about the article photo from one of the actual police raids? (Disclaimer: I took the pic.) - David Gerard 22:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pic is great, but when it's really small on the main page I don't think it will look like anything at all. —Mets501 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Airplane pic

message: The close elections article is a bit of a mess, an incomplete and poorly organized list trying to be a full article, and I wonder whether it should continue to be linked to from the main page via this ITN article. Ddye 02:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the recent edit makes this moot, so never mind. Ddye 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Edit conflict) I was just about to leave a note to you here saying that I've removed it. -- PFHLai 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: link in the mexican recount story 

message: Is there a reason why All Blacks is in quotation marks?  It's how the team is known, probably more often than they're called New Zealand; I don't know if it's their "official" name, but it's close enough to being official that the article on the NZ rugby union team is entitled All Blacks.  It's not like we talk about the Pittsburgh "Steelers" or the Bradford "Bulls".  Binabik80 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tri-Nations Rugby 

message: Please be more accurate on our front page. 50% is not a majority. It is a plurality. A plurality is where a candidate has the largest number of votes. A majority is where one candidate has sufficient number to ensure that there are not enough votes left for someone to overtake or match your numbers. 2 candidates can get 50%, so that is not a majority. But 50.01 is a majority, because that means that the rival candidate can only get 49.99 so can't get even with you, much less overtake you. In the election in our ITN page the winning candidate needs 50%+, not just 50%. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "gains an outright majority" - it avoids the problem and reads much better to me.  "50%+" looks a little ugly.  violet/riga (t) 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fifty percent majority seemed like a perfectly fine phrase to decribe that process. But whatever, if it remains so unclear, 50%+ it is. As for "ugly," I'm more concrened about utility (people not knowing what "outright majority is in numeric terms) than aesthetics. El_C 00:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But El C, 50 is not a majority. It is a plurality. The media calls it a majority but we are an encyclopaedia so we have to be accurate. A majority means more than 50%, not just 50%. I agree with V's change. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, I felt it was a bit overly pedantic, but I have no strong objection to either formula. El_C 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being accurate in an encyclopaedia is not being pedantic. It is being professional. Japan Times can afford to loose and inaccurate with its headlines. An encyclopaedia cannot afford to be. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was careless; at my defense, I've written most of Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 2006. El_C 03:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. As a political scientist who writes about elections I have a thing about accurate use of terminology. I think we have to be 100% accurate. Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand the terminology and so mix up things like 'majority' and 'plurality'. It isn't helped when two of the biggest democracies, the US and the UK, in using dubiously democratic FFTP electoral systems, get both terms mixed up all the time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Majorities

message: Should this image be added to ITN? I won't add it myself, but I did set it up so that if there is interest, it can be instantly added. Thank you. El_C 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Drcongo-2006election-results.png|DRC election photo]]

message: Should we add the just announced Fields medal winners?   ? JoshuaZ 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, JoshuaZ. -- 199.71.174.100 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fields medalists? 

message: Hello,
reading current events on Wikipedia doesn't give me the impression that the sister project WikiNews is highly regarded. On the main page the stories aren't linked to wikinews, and even on Portal:Current events there are links to BBC etc. but not to the related stories on WikiNews.
Is there a reason for this? I think WikiNews should be a priviliged partner of Wikipedia, and links to full stories should be preferentially to WikiNews. Maybe that's provided they are good quality, but even then, this will allow more people to edit over there.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 14:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of ITN is not necessarily to have news stories, but to include newsworthy additions to the encyclopedia. Wikinews is a separate project from Wikipedia; the links on the Wikipedia front page will go to Wikipedia, just as the links on the Wikinews front page will go to Wikinews. Some of the articles will contain links to news stories on Wikinews, and Current Events (when I last looked at it a long time ago) tended to include Wikinews links. So yes, we do link to Wikinews - just not on the front page. We aren't their portal, we are our portal. --Golbez 00:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews 

message: "killed by a stingray" is not quite the same as the more accurate "dies after being pierced by a stringray". pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Irwin 

message: Are you adding this? Babub→Talk 15:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, are you adding it to the candidates page? I don't mean to be mean, but that's where most people look for additions, the talk page isn't the best place for it. Looking at it, it's a stub - we prefer to have a better article before putting it on ITN. Remember, it's not a news page, it's about newsworthy changes to the pedia. --Golbez 17:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blasts at Malegaon, India 

message: Can we change the insignia image to one of the actual launch, such as :Image:STS-115 Launch.jpg. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  —David Levy 18:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The resolution is unimportant for thumbnail purposes, and that photograph's angle doesn't lend itself to a 100x100 crop.  —David Levy 09:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: STS-115 image

message: I expected that the death of Peter Brock (especially considering it was the second loss of an internationally acclaimed Australian in less than a week) would have been put on ITN asap after it was reported, yet it is still lying in the queue, whilst other snippets of news have been added since this happened.  This is the first experience I've had nominating a candidate for ITN (well, suggesting an alternative for a candidate) and am fairly suprised by this... what exactly are the priorities here? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the death of Peter Brock was added last week, but a great amount of opposition on Talk:Main Page led to its removal three hours later. -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I think it clearly meets 5b and as I noted above was even more newsworthy because of the untimely death of Steve Irwin only days before, but the people have spoken!  It would have been good if someone had taken it off the candidates page though because I missed the discussion and didn't see it on the main page at all... but again I'm not too certain of the procedure for this. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason you changed those links into links for an ezproxy server in New Zealand? --Golbez 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was confused about that too... it would have made sense had they come from links I had posted but not from links from Tariqabjotu (who appears to live in the US, from reading his profile).  My university (University of Auckland) gives us free access to Wikipedia through the ezproxy server so I use that when I'm out of internet credit at uni. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priorities 

message: I believe that the discovery of the 44th Mersenne prime (232,582,657 − 1) is notable enough to be mentioned on the main page. Any objections? --Ixfd64 22:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Today a hurricane is headed for Bermuda, the world remembers 9/11, and a unity government is formed in Palestine.  Why should preference be given to a mathematical factoid of no practical value?  Are we just too lazy to update articles related to real news?  Dragons flight 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point. Would it be more appropriate for the "did you know" section, then? --Ixfd64 23:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid I don't understand the point. We have sports news all the time. This doesn't strike me as substantially different. And in fact the discovery of additional Mersenne primes is related in a fundamental way to the oldest unsolved problem in mathematics. That's pretty notable. JoshuaZ 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discovery of the 44th Mersenne prime 

message: Why does the reference to the Japanese royal birth read "may become third in line"? Surely he is third in line? Or does there have to be some kind of constitutional formality/ceremony before the child officially becomes a part of the line of succession? Badgerpatrol 23:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is third in line, but he is only heir presumptive, as if Akihito has a male child then he will be third in line. However, I still think that for now, the child IS third in line, but then again, he remains unnamed, so perhaps this is a Japanese custom? --Golbez 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: japan

message: Two famous figures announce their plans to retire yes, but is this newsworthy given that it takes up the space to put other items, such as the 2006 Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group? (just suggested) ... I mean, wouldn't it be more newsworthy if they actually retire, and not just announce plans? Schumacher doesn't even have a current tag on it. John Riemann Soong 20:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plans to retire 

message: Dawson College shooting - should this be included in the news? --HappyCamper 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawson College shooting 

message: The dwarf planet 2003 UB313 ("Xena") is now known as 136199 Eris, sayeth the IAU today. Not sure if people want to add it or not, but the article's now updated. Shimgray | talk | 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make suggestion on the candidates page.--Peta 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet name announcement 

message: I'm very disappointed to find such a misinformed/POV passage on the front page. The passage at which some Muslims took offence was actually a quotation rather than direct speech, as the corresponding WP article correctly states. To refer to them as his "statements" is misrepresenting reality and exacerbating the conflict. Can this be fixed, please? Many thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope "statements" 

message: I made Thailand political crisis 2005-2006 the emphasised article on the Thailand situation, but that article has not been updated to reflect the recent developments. Is there an article that covers the more recent events? I haven't found one. jaco♫plane 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we know if those tanks in Bangkok are part of the coup or deployed to prevent a coup ?  Whose tanks are those ?  Can we keep this item off MainPage till the relevant wikiarticles are updated with more information ? Right now, even Reuters and BBC are only giving sketchy details. -- PFHLai 17:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Local media reports there might be two different groups of tanks from the same army that might clash.    There doesn't really seem to firm information yet.  It may be better to let this brew elsewhere until we know more info.  --Interiot 17:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our main article, 2006 Thailand coup d'état, is looking good, but I'm not so sure about our 'In the news' summary. It says that Thaksin declared a state of emergency. This is true, but it is unlikely that Thailand took any notice. Thaksin made the declaration after being ousted, so it would have had no effect. Our summary might give the false impression that Thaksin is still somehow the PM, which I don't think even he would claim. Can I suggest that we change the summary to something like, 'Members of the Royal Thai Army (pictured) stage a coup d'état, ousting the Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and dissolving Parliament'? --Heron 19:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks as if PFHLai fixed it. Thanks, PFH. --Heron 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are welcome, Heron. -- PFHLai 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situation in Thailand 

message: Toomas Hendrik Ilves was elected President of Estonia today. See candidates page. Rain74 17:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a free/PD pic of Ilves in Wikipedia, please post it on the candidate's page. Thanks. -- PFHLai 22:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New President of Estonia 

message: 2006 United States E. coli outbreak - 1 death, placed on front page of Wikipedia. 2006 Lathen maglev train accident - 23 dead, not on main page. Is it normal for American news to get priority?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.93.70.118 (talk • contribs) .
: Train crash now posted. Should have alerted admins YESTERDAY on the ITN Candidates' page. -- PFHLai 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What US Bias ? Shall I also post the item about the US Navy suggested on the candidates' page ? -- PFHLai 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, apologies for that, I think that came of a bit rude. Thanks for adding it. Next time I'll use the candidates page. 82.93.70.118 22:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't worry about it. I wasn't that polite, either. Frankly, I was just looking for something decent to update ITN. All three new items are not that big news stories, IMO. But it's better than having the same old news items for so many days. -- PFHLai 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Bias 

message: Having three election news items, back to back, is a bit of a mess. Is there any way to shift the focus on some of these items so that at least the articles remain but it's just not about the elections? John Riemann Soong 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a coincidence?! Three election results were released on the same day. What can I say? ... I like 2006 Ryder Cup but I'm sure I'll get yelled at if I post that on the MainPage. -- PFHLai 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I also like Japan's launching of Hinode, but it's a stub. -- PFHLai 20:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  election items 

message: Can anyone please replace "Shinzo Abe" with "Shinzō Abe"? Thanks. Michaelas10 13:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace name 

message: Better to say that the Archbishop "faces excommunication" rather than "is excommunicated from". It's not clear whether the excommunication has already taken place or not.
Five years ago, similar announcements were made in the media, which proved untrue at that time. --Uncle Ed 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that this press release from the Vatican says that they have definitely been excommunicated under Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will change it based on the debate on Talk:Emmanuel Milingo. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Emmanuel Milingo]]