Talk:Main Page/Archive 118

message: there is pr0n on the main page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11--Terminalerr1 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're turned on by dromedaries? Eeeugh.. --Kaizer13 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be hatin'. Albus Dumbledore's brother was into goats... Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh, good one. But to clarify this matter to onlookers...TITS Use of mammary glands on main pageIt is a bit odd, but the image has some artistic merit and is unfortunately no worse than today's shampoo commercials. This is erotica, not porn. (To mangle Pratchett, the difference is like the one between using a feather and using a chicken.) --Kizor 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You would say that...jk, jk.  Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we must be vigilant. Having that elongated travesty poking in people's eyes as they come to Wikipedia wouldn't be a good thing. Zeality (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pr0n 

message: Featuring a blatantly commercial piece in Did You Know (Pandora's Jewelry) is not appropriate, is it?  C'mon, that really reads like an ad. I hope they at least made a nice donation to Wikipedia.Amity150 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So nothing commercial is ever allowed on the Main page ever? 128.227.7.73 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it is! Articles about commercial products are still articles (I remember when Maraba Coffee was TFA - someone asked how much they paid to be featured), blatant advertisement however is not allowed. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's not too bad- could use work, but worthy of being kept. Not certain it is quite main page material though. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article has problems I don't know if they necessary disqualify it from DYK. I think the bigger issue is the hook choosen sounds too much like an advert even if the words are empty. This is I think one of the problems with DYK items when it comes to commercial items, by trying to make the hook sound interesting we risk making them sound too much like an advertisement.  The Maruba coffee et al TFA aren't anywhere nearly as much as a problem since we don't need a catchy single phrase Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I uploaded it to the Main Page diff, there was no advert tag (that was added 4 hours later) and it had been "fact checked" on the Suggestions page (for length and the ref for the hook). The Main Page was a few hours overdue at the time, so I was in a hurry and, while I also scanned the article, I did not catch this. It is my fault (I put it on the Main Page). I agree that clearer guidelines on what is allowed and what is not would be helpful. Sorry, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I know this is off the beaten track to some degree, but I too am having a problem with the advertisment issue when it comes to some of the articles I edit for male porno stars. It seems strange to me that these people are even notable, but then when they have web sites that are posted to the page and are able to put within the page that they offer escort services, I think sommething is wrong with that! I also think it's wrong to use sources that promote their escort services as well as pages that display explicit photos of them engaging in sexual acts. I understand that these things are sources, but I do not feel they should be displayed as we have children who come to this encyclopedia for references. I think the advertisments need to be addressed within the rules! I am done ranting now! LOL Canyouhearmenow 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored, but remember that we do not count primary sources as awfully reliable- they certainly do nothing to assert notability. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However is a porn star is noteable (and we have specific mention in Wikipedia:Notability (people) to help people establish that) then there would definitely be nothing wrong with linking to their official website in the external links section anymore then there's something wrong with linking to Microsoft's website in Microsoft Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really tacky 

message: A featured article about not only a British book, but a feminist one!?!?
I feel this is positive discrimination against both men and the US! I demand the FA be changed to something manly and American, I don't know, possibly a football match ... or something homosexually erotic at least! --LookingYourBest (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How blatantly biased! Don't worry, she wasn't really a feminist, she believed that women should be wives and teachers, she didn't support women working outside the pedagogic sphere. And tomorrow's FA is Golden plates, an American male topic. That's followed by Boeing 747, so you shouldn't worry. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whaaaaat? 

message: Why is there a headline for the Superbowl results but no mention of the results of the Democratic and Republican primaries? No world news organization (e.g., BBC World) is including the Superbowl results in its headlines, but every single one has a headline on the presidential primaries. -- WGee (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ITN/C if you wish to suggest an item, but trust me, it won't get in. We'll report the result of the election, and possibly the result of the party nominations (though I doubt it), but nothing yet. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I should also point out that the Superbowl results getting posted is a matter of great debate, so using that as a comparison doesn't lend much weight to an argument. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 02:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think me kicking up a light hearted 'fuss' constitutes "great debate". ;-) Or is someone else with me on some page I don't visit enough? Down with sports! J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Frankly, the results were rather boring (POV). Hopefully when someone wins a nomination, ITN will cover it. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No News on Super Tuesday? 

message: Today is Chinese New Year, but I don't see anything about it on the main page. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You just missed it.  Wikipedia, an international web site, uses UTC (aka Greenwich Mean Time, aka London time).  Today is tomorrow. —Nricardo (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about Chinese new year? 

message: I went to the Commons but I couldn't undo the vandalism. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 03:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; the commons image should never have been linked in the first place, precisely to avoid this problem. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so there is opposition yet to the main page penis presence. Zeality (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. There goes another kitten.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.40.9 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A vagina on the main page... 

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

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

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

message: How are the featured articles chosen?Д narchistPig (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The featured articles are chosen based on the criteria in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Nakon 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: but why does Raul chose? did he start the featured article thing?Д narchistPig (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, read the second post of the first discussion :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article, AnarcistPig. --PFHLai (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can i choose one? 59.92.128.177 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  I'm a little curious 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: <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)
replies: text: 
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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ronald Reagan as FA on Super Tuesday 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: For FAs on countries, we use the nation's flag for the image. Raul654 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We have had several countries featured on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

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

message: José Ramos-Horta is spelled with a hyphen. Please add the hyphen.--89.12.22.120 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixing. Nakon 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add a hyphen to the nameof José Ramos Horta 

message: Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks! Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So why not use it? 

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

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

message: "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)
replies: text: My thought is that it stands on the source. It is open to challenge from another source, if such there be. Just because something sounds like a point of view that is not neutral, is no reason to change it if sources back it up. That would be a sort of NPOV paranioa, surely? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, success has a very easy measure: $$$$$. —Nricardo (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jake Simmons, Jr. on DYK 

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

 
(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)
replies: text: Isn't that pretty much how it's done now?  Sbrools (talk . contribs) 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. . Prodego talk 13:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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). Similar ITN is not a dated template because it is updated when new ITN items are added only Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: ... that's exactly how we do it at the moment. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page Reformatting 

message: There's no need for a debate about geeks vs. nerds, or any further discussion on the subject. Question asked and answered. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're volunteers. There are very few people who actually work for Wikipedia/the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, see Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering 

message: '...that a poster in the 2003 Estonian European Union membership referendum called on Estonians to vote yes "for access to millions of sexier men"?'
I don't see this anywhere in the actual article. Source? Borisblue (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Estonia expects EU yes vote and Estonia endorses 'sexy men' of EU. It was incorrectly changed by  but has now been fixed by . - auburnpilot talk 16:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonia DYK blurb 

message: We need to mention the North Illinois University shooting on the main page. Breaking news coming through on BBC at the moment www.niu.edu --Capitana (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ITN/C --Ouro (blah blah) 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you want news, then read the news. 81.79.179.154 (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or here :Wikinews:Main Page Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIU shooting 

message: Impending Kosovan independence not worthy enough for the 'in the news' section eh? Who took it off?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatWalkingMan (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ITN/C, as the header states. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 11:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: See WP:ITN/C, as the header states. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Kosovo has NOT declared independence. They've just hinted that they're going to at 1400 UTC. People really should get their facts straight before making a fuss in the wrong place Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kosovo#Independence Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They have now, but not when that message was posted (as is obvious from the time stamp) Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know, I checked the dates. I was saying that they have now. Sorry, I should probably be more descriptive than just a single link next time I respond to a message. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo? 

message: Yeah. Kosovo declared independence a few short hours ago.
That's kinda important. yes it is very important :]
Might merit being on the "in the news" section.
Just throwing that out. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ITN/C, as the header states. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Kosovo has NOT declared independence. They've just hinted that they're going to at 1400 UTC. People really should get their facts straight before making a fuss in the wrong place Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kosovo#Independence Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They have now, but not when that message was posted (as is obvious from the time stamp) Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know, I checked the dates. I was saying that they have now. Sorry, I should probably be more descriptive than just a single link next time I respond to a message. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm

message: Moved to Wikipedia:Village Pump. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 08:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbar Suggestion 

message: Is there any info on the preliminaries for the presidental race?Foamy's Girl (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: United States presidential election, 2008. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preliminaries 

message: [b]I'm not sure this is at all notable news in the same vein as the stories that are usually posted on the main page (i.e. a country declaring its independence). Charles 04:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go to WP:ITN/C. --Howard the Duck 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find censorship mandated by a U.S. court notable.  See also http://news.google.com/news?q=wikileaks  —Nricardo (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely non-notable. --Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikileaks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Did someone say mistaken???ThisMunkey (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: I liked the previous title of football (soccer) the association football article had before. --Howard the Duck 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The best way to resolve this is to use "football (soccer)" as the displayed link. --Howard the Duck 13:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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. AecisBrievenbus 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vote for the usage of football instead of soccer. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The millionth time? Wow that's obsessive. Maybe it's time for you to take a break.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.135.202 (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Football may be ambiguous, but Association football isn't, and it is the name we use for the article about the sport. AecisBrievenbus 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Association football" is ambiguous in the U.S., where most people have never heard of the term. I suggest we say "association football (soccer)". Lovelac7 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Associtation football (soccer)" would be bizaare!  This is not a question of what to name the actual articles, that discussion has been had.  It is a question of how to refer to the sports on the In The News section.  My suggestion would be that we side with the usage in the country where that sport has taken place and is most relevant to.  Therefore: "In football, Manchester United are defeated 2-1 in the Manchester derby…" or "In soccer, the USA reach the last 16 of the World Cup".  Although I'm English and a huge football fan, I wouldn't be at all confused if an article in the news regarding American Football read: "In football, the New York Patriots win the SuperBowl".  In the case currently on the main page, it doesn’t really need (soccer) in there as its surely easy to work out that Egypy didn’t play Cameroon in American football.  If they had, it wouldn't have notable enough to make the In the news section. It generally pretty clear which sport is being spoken about. While we compromise on snappy article titles to clear ambiguity (hence the Assocation_Football title), with the in the news section it should be rather more concise.  Does anyone support this idea? Petepetepetepete (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: YES, SIR ... in fact, I really couldn't agree more. The exact meaning of "football" almost always instantly explains itself in the context. Don't make the whole stuff too complicated and cumbersome. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As I've pointed out elsewhere, in the United States, the word "football" always means the pointy-ball variety, and most Americans are unaware the word can ever mean anything else. Therefore, an American who sees that "Egypt beat Cameroon in football" would think, "I didn't realize they played football in Egypt." That's why we should always use an unambiguous term, at least on first reference. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think he was going more towards the point that the team is called the New England Patriots, not the New York Patriots. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  deliberate mistake - well spotted ;-) If most Americans dont know that the worlds most popular sport is called football in almost every country, including non-english speaking countries, other than their own, then they should!  To be honest, I doubt very much that they dont. Petepetepetepete (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As they say in (U.S.) journalism, never overestimate the knowledge of the reader. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The relevant Wikipedia guideline is WP:OBVIOUS. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This seems to be a perennial debate on wikipedia. How far do we have to go to ensure the reader is not confused? Hopefully most people will agree we have to draw the line somewhere, the question is where? Note that the main page is, in any case, primarily intended to direct readers to our articles/content, not be a stand alone section, so there is always going to be the assumption that if a reader is confused they will check out the articles and learn something. But this doesn't mean we should expect a reader to need to have the knowledge of a very experience librarian (couldn't think of anyone else who should have a very good level of general knowledge) to understand the main page or else need to check out every single link to understand what the heck is being talked about on the main page. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Most of the world refer to it as Football, not Soccer. So what if the Americans think it's referring to their pointy ball game? It's the world that counts, not just them. It should be referred as either Football or Football (soccer). --Jammy (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: but shouldn't this discussion be moved off this page...it's not a Main Page error, never was...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.0.47 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh... what? Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm only drying the dishes? What about washing them first would that not be better otherwise it could be messy? :) On the topic in discussion I agree with the comment above with regard to content on the main page that if it is discussing say Houston Dynamo vs LA Galaxy then surely soccer should be used and the same for Australia and any other countries where the sport is known first and foremost as soccer. But equally where the sport is not known as soccer first and also where as in the case mentioned above that the Federation contains the word football, then football should be used.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soccer / Football 

message: Shouldn't we wait a little bit longer before adding this to the Main Page? I'd like to be more certain than only 'early returns'. 69.129.145.210 (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That issue is best raised at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#Pakistani elections. Thanks. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan 

message: Castro resigns! Please add that. abelson (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The In the news section's purpose is to direct readers to articles that have been written or significantly expanded due to news.  The Fidel Castro article does not yet contain a substantial amount of information about this event, though I suspect that it soon will.  —David Levy 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But its a very important news. He is relic of the Cold war era and one of the world's longest serving ruler. Maybe such news will divert energy towards improving the article. 13:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ITN is intended to be for the reader, not the editor, and it doesn't matter how important the news is since ITN is not about the news, despite the problematic name Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very, very important in the world, please add it.
-Vulcan, Romulan, and Trill, not HUMAN! (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please visit Wikinews for a wiki news source. Borisblue (talk)`  —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Is there any reason we're still discussing this? It was there at the time of my response and has not been removed since then... His picture wasn't there all the time, but that's a seperate issue... Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Isn't it time we changed "In the news"? Something that shows that it's about highlighting the *articles* on Wikipedia that have content pertaining to recent events. zoney  ♣ talk 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Somebody fixed it. I can't find it in the page history, so it was probably a transcluded template. Try purging your cache if you still see penises all over the place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In this instance, the affected template appears to have been , although the edit was the same as referenced below. Joe 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I see now. Somebody vandalised Template:Cleanup-rewrite, which is transcluded in Fidel Castro. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Sisterlinkqsc and Template:YouTube were also vandalized. --Agüeybaná 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place to report vandalism ladies and gents. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 12:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castro 

message: HOLY FREAKING BALLS!! 
Fidel Castro's Page has some major vandalism, so much that you can't reach the edit tab...
Fix?
Wish I were an admin, or at least knew what to do in that kind of event.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fultron89 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody fixed it. I can't find it in the page history, so it was probably a transcluded template. Try purging your cache if you still see penises all over the place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In this instance, the affected template appears to have been , although the edit was the same as referenced below. Joe 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I see now. Somebody vandalised Template:Cleanup-rewrite, which is transcluded in Fidel Castro. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Sisterlinkqsc and Template:YouTube were also vandalized. --Agüeybaná 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place to report vandalism ladies and gents. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 12:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castro Page Vadnalism 2/19/08 

message: _ no way it got hacked !!!!!!
China article is hacked. There are some very offensive content on the page. --Abuk78 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. This talk page isn't really the best place to report this-it's supposed to be a place to discuss the Main Page itself.  Anyways, I checked the China article, and it has been fully protected (only editable by administrators) since Friday. I (very quickly) skimmed through the article, and didn't see any blatant problems. I think it would be best if you stated the exact problem on Talk:China. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the OP is referring to vandalism of  at 21:36 UTC (reverted 21:37). Algebraist 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I foolishly forgot to check the transcluded stuff. Thanks, Algebraist. I understand the OP now, it must have been quite a shocking view. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  China article is hacked!!!