Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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 23:57 on 16 November 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 or determined not to be an error, or the item has been 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)

Today's FA

Atrociraptor dates from around 72.2 to 71.5 million years ago; it survived for more than 2 million years is worded a bit confusingly, as that range is evidently way less than 2 million years.

The article's lead states The holotype specimen is known from the Horsethief Member of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, which [...] ranges from around 72.2 – 71.5 million years ago. Assigned teeth from other parts of the formation indicate it survived for over 2 million years. It could be better to clarify that the "72.2 to 71.5 million years ago" figure is only for the part of the formation where the holotype was found, and doesn't represent the full range of the genus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"72.2 to 71.5 million years ago" refers to the age of the rock formation, not the genus. I am not sure that the blurb is actually wrong, but it would be clearer if the last sentence were "Atrociraptor dates from around 72 million years ago; it survived for more than 2 million years and across a wide geographic area." Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

It's not easy being green

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether green is real?

This statement does not seem to appear in the article. If the reader looks for it, as I did, they won't find it. It seems to have been invented in the nomination and subsequent discussion rather than being derived from a particular passage in the article. The discussion took place recently but no significant updates were made to the article following it.

Note that WP:DYKHOOK requires that "The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information". As we don't have clarity about the relevant wording of the article, this is not satisfied. It's also not clear who is supposed to be providing this information as "ontologists" is used in a vague, hand-waving way contrary to WP:WEASEL.

Note also that we have an article green, which is not linked but which tells us lots of things about the concept. To suggest that none of this real seems to make a mockery of our work – crude nihilism. And so this doesn't seem to be a definite fact. As it seems that philosophers can't agree on anything, then they are not reliable sources – just airy opinions.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be no discussion about whether green, or even color, is "real" in the article. That is problematic, and a new hook probably needs to be found, though finding one for a topic as complex as this could be difficult. Gatoclass (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Universals are general, repeatable entities, like the color green. […] Ontologists disagree about which entities exist on the most basic level. Platonic realism asserts that universals have objective existence. Conceptualism says that universals only exist in the mind while nominalism denies their existence. This looks pretty straightforward to me: ontologists disagree on whether universals are real, and the color green is a universal. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Those quotes are from the lead, which is unsourced. But neither are they adjacent, so the connection between "color" as a universal and universal as a conceptual is anything but obvious. I think the reader is entitled to a plainer discussion than that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The nomination page includes the following alt hook:

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether numbers are real?

- the hook was ultimately rejected on the basis that "real" has multiple meanings, but that could be remedied by tweaking it as follows:

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether numbers objectively exist?

There appears to be plenty of discussion in the article about whether or not numbers exist, so it should be fine as a hook (IMO it's a more interesting hook anyhow), so I would suggest substituting it. Thoughts? Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Replaced with a hook from last year, as this fairly unambiguously doesn't comply with the rules and the statement about green being real isn't in the article or sourced.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Morning @Gatoclass:, just wondering where in the article we can verify the definite fact that ontologists disagree on whether numbers objectively exist? There's quite a bit of discussion on that matter, but no definite assertion of a disagreement that I can see. Also, who are these ontologists? Does it mean modern professional ontologists (as would be implied by such a statement in yhe present tense) or does it mean ancient philosophers, who are not necessarily known as *ontologists" per se... I think we'd need some clarity on that and what exactly the hook references in the article before swapping back in your alt... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It was a suggestion made on the fly, which is why I asked for further input. But I agree the article probably doesn't restate the hook with absolute clarity, and I do not have the time right now to come up with another solution. In any case, another stint at the drawing board for this article wouldn't do any harm ... Gatoclass (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Per WP:DYKG, articles that ran last year aren't eligible for DYK? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

But that rule was intended to allow users to resubmit old DYKS that had been substantially improved, it wasn't intended to limit where hooks could be taken from to replace a pulled hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, AFAIK this is standard practice when there's a pull in the middle of the day, I've done it a few times and I think someone else told me about it back in the mists of time! The rationale is that we don't want to slot a new hook in which then misses out on its full time slot, and it's also best not to leave it blank and then have to rearrange the rest of the main page to retain WP:MPBALANCE. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the ideas behind going to nine-hook sets was that if we ended up having to pull one for some reason, the remaining eight were enough to stand on their own. I would have just left that slot empty. It's not like a newspaper where if you pull something you're left with a hole in the page. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m with Amakuru – it’s best to maintain main page balance (which I had tweaked at the beginning of the UTC day by shortening ITN). Schwede66 16:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also the option to shorten "On this day". I know it varies by screen size, but mine anyways currently shows the left (w/ DYK) being slightly longer. —Bagumba (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm viewing on the standard width on Vector 2022 (which I assume is what the majority of readers see) and DYK is currently longer than OTD, even with the extra hook that I swapped in earlier. So I think for balance we definitely, in this case at least, need to retain that extra hook. I'm not sure if OTD has grown longer in recent years - they seem to have four births/deaths rather than the previous three at least, and the blurbs look quite wordy... cropping that might be an option, but I'm not sure if there are regulars there who would get upset about that. Recycling an old hook doesn't seem like a terrible thing to me, given that it's a rare event and it's not like we're rewarding anyone excessively it's just pot luck.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC) (PS - I've just noticed that Vector 2022 doesn't' have a "standard width" for the main page, it grows and shrinks as you make the window wider; so scratch my initial point; it does seem that OTD and DYK are broadly aligned on average though)  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• For the record, note that we had a similar hook for the article metaphysics back in June. After some discussion, that ended up being posted at DYK with the hook:

... that a nihilist school of metaphysics contends that tables and chairs do not exist?

That worked better because the attribution was more specific. And the claim appeared in the article.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Same mosaic, different color profile.

I was confused as to why Justinian appeared to have a mustache – it turns out the picture of the famous mosaic used for OTD doesn't have the same color profile as the one used in his article. Is there a reason for the different choices? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This kind of thing has bothered me for a long time. Often I'll see a bad image of some piece of art and want to "improve" it. The problem is, I'm never sure what it's supposed to look like. Often by playing with the exposure, I can bring out detail which wasn't visible in the original image. But was it just badly photographed? Badly lit? Was the original faded after many years (or centuries)? Did the original artist intentionally make it dark for aesthetic reasons? Good technical photography will often include calibrated color chips in the frame so you can correct for all those things. But for somebody grabbing a snap in a museum, not so much. RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby and RoySmith: according to this the mosaics were restored between 1989 and 2018, and the photos here seem to be before and after. TSventon (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Also @HotMess: for information, who added the image here. TSventon (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1944 – Operation Queen: ... commenced with one of the heaviest Allied tactical bombings of the war, attacking German targets in the Rur valley. — "Rur" redirects to the Roer Valley. Seems to be some confusion about these toponyms. (Also, not to be confused with the Ruhr Valley. And Ger. Wiki also directs to Roer.) – Sca (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  What do you want to change here? Secretlondon (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• According to the first sentence of the Roer article, "Roer" is the Dutch name and "Rur" is the German name, The Ruhr (river) is nearby, but it's north and east of Düsseldorf, and the Roer/Rur is south and west of Düsseldorf. Art LaPella (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 22)

Monday's FL

(November 18)

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

Please sync the unprotected page to the protected page to incorporate copyedits by User:jlwoodwa, User:Cowboygilbert, and User:Art LaPella.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. Oops, how'd I let that happen? Nobody really likes the duplicate POTD system because this keeps happening, but nobody who knows how ever fixes it. Art LaPella (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I’d love to get rid of that archaic system, Art LaPella. Schwede66 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

On this day...

On August the 27th it's Laylat al-Qadr, a very important Muslim day. So it must be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.208.136 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Laylat al-Qadr is well defined, and even if you take it as the 27th night of Ramadan, it would be more relevant for August 26, which has already passed. -- tariqabjotu 02:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we missed that, it wasn't included in previous years, so I had no way of knowing it was coming up. Actually, checking the article now, I have to say it wouldn't qualify because it needs more footnotes. howcheng {chat} 08:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"... signed the Treaty of Nerchinsk, establishing the Russian–Chinese border almost as it stands today." Almost? After that treaty Russia expanded its territory in hitherto Chinese basins of Amur and Ussuri Rivers. Quite an "almost" indeed, some 350,000 sq.mi of it! Apcbg (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I had verified that against the source, but that page is no longer available for viewing in Google Books. Will change. howcheng {chat} 08:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Skin

Who was it again who was responsible for the Vector skin change? Perhaps somebody could recommend a Design your own wikipedia skin option as most of the options suck. There ought to be a graphic option to design your own wikipedia design and main page. I am aware you can change the main page design in monobook but I want the option to make the frame much darker and make the articles stand out more. There is only so much you can do with changing your Internet options colors and fonts. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You may find something to your liking at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives.

APL (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have you looked at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives? I personally love Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (misty breeze). It omits OTD (which I don't care for much), makes the POTD actually visible, and highlights our portals, directing the readers to our content. You can bookmark one of the alternatives if you prefer, or create your own alternative. It's a shame a user can't set one of the alternatives to appear in place of the main page itself (for that specific account), but I imagine it would be technologically complex. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

i've been using my own Blofeld designed main page for years. I mean skin actually wikipedia page design when you visit every page, to radically change the graphic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Update:Just found out it is possible to replace your main page with one of the alternatives. See the code at WP:Main page alternatives. Awesome! Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Except that completely eliminates any opportunity for panoramic POTDs (a section which, even in that layout, I have to scroll to access) as well as the fact that the Portal: namespace is the most (and arguably for good reason) underdeveloped area of Wikipedia. That and that layout is nowhere near technically sound; at least on my computer, the search boox looks like something taken direct from 1998. — Joseph Fox 21:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

But, but... I like it :D No really, this isn't about the merits of a specific alternative. It's that a user can choose or design an alternative main page and view it instead of the regular version. Both of our above comments would probably belong more on Wikipedia talk:Main Page alternative (misty breeze) Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks the label "Current events" from Wikipedia:Main_Page_alternative_(simple_layout) is preferable to the label "In the news" that we currently use on the Main Page? --Khajidha (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. "In the news" is kinda misleading to new editors, it isn't really meant to function in place of Wikinews, it's to highlight content about current events. Perhaps it's why we get a lot of complaints on this page about X event not being mentioned. Puchiko (Talk-email) 07:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Current events" has a very long history on the Main Page - 16 December 2001. As hard as it may be believe now, this seems to be how "current events" was dropped and "in the news" became the default option in October 2002. Ah, the simple days of early Wikipedia... Note that "in the news" still directed to current events, esp as the template system hadn't been invented yet. - BanyanTree 06:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about anyone else, but to me "in the news" carries the connotation of today while "current events" seems more like "in the past week or so". --Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, well ITN usually covers the span of about one week, as it isn't updated that often. Perhaps it'd be a good time to discuss that 10-year-old edit.

I think "In the news" is misleading. For example, my favourite radio station has a "ITN" every morning, but it really goes like: X newspaper said Y, M newspaper published study Z". The Wikipedia ITN doesn't rely directly on newspapers (though it cites them) and has, as for all Wikipedia articles, very different inclusion guidelines from a typical newspaper (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which explains that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be "journalism" or "newsreports"). But when a reader sees "In the news", he expects things that are in newspapers. Most of those news reports do not belong on Wikipedia. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty neat, I didn't know those existed. Unfortunately using one as your default via script will still plant that big ugly "alternative" banner across the top, and the discussion link leads not here but to that alternative's discussion, so it doesn't really act as a skin. Stylish is a good alternative, though frequently skins there don't get updated very often and end up buggy. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 14:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

On this day....(Again)

Today it's Eid ul-Fitr, an important Muslim holiday. It is one of the two Muslim holidays they have. Thus this is again forgotton to add? Why cant you add something straight to the 'On this day...' section? Is it too late to add that information? Runehelmet (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles on the main page are chosen because they are good, not because they are important (see the Main Page FAQ #7. The Eid ul-Fitr article has an orange problem tag about needing references-we don't link to articles with problems.

As for adding holidays to the template, please see Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries (anyone can add an anniversary ahead of time)... but: it must adhere to the guidelines. #8 says: The selected article (bolded item) must not be a stub and preferably it should be a relatively complete and well-formatted article, free from 'yellow'-level or more severe article issue tags. In other words, it should be a good example of Wikipedia content (see also Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#I think that the articles listed on the Main Page are awful. Isn't the Main Page biased towards certain topics? What can be done about it?).

Hope this helps, Puchiko (Talk-email) 08:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

At any rate there are two Islam-related DYKs today. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm calling IAR on excluding mention of Eid on the Main Page today. I removed the ref tag on the article -- it was added by an IP with 2 whole edits to his credit. Can someone please add Eid ul-Fitr to On This Day, please? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that this item has been on the Main Page every year on the appropriate day (or days) since 2004. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think IAR is justified here. The article isn't well referenced, but it's pretty complete and this is THE major festival for Muslims. Omitting Eid would be equivalent to omitting Christmas just because someone slaps a NPOV tag on the article. Modest Genius ^talk 12:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MG. The article definitely needs work; no argument there. It just seemed insulting to not even mention the major Islamic festival on that basis; and, as I note below said, the article has been mentioned every year since 2004. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Normally, when I'm listing the upcoming moveable holidays and I spot one that requires maintenance, I leave messages on the article talk and/or the relevant WikiProject, but Eid was tagged with refimprove after I got there, so I didn't notice it until only a couple of days prior. I did inform WP Islam, but nobody was able to do anything in time. howcheng {chat} 07:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK: community consensus disregarded

Sorry to be a bore, but I'm rather a old-fashioned about RfCs and consensus. The prominent RfC proposal: a proper reviewing checklist at DYK talk just one month ago resoundingly decided that:

“ No DYK article should receive main-page exposure unless the article has been checked and explicitly passed for:

1. adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy;
2. neutral point of view;
3. plagiarism and close paraphrasing;
4. other copyright violations, in files and text; and
5. obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting."

These checks are in addition to the existing requirements concerning hook length, hook source, article length, and time since article creation/expansion.

”

All but the last item 5 are part of DYK rules and/or are enshrined in WP policies. The results of 37 !votes (give or take a subsequent !vote or two) were:

• Support: 28 (76%)
• Support (qualified): 2
• Oppose (qualified): 3
• Oppose: 4

Fewer than one in five participants expressed an oppose or qualified oppose. This result was discussed subsequently and displayed graphically at DYK talk:

The RfC came after a period of scandal during which a pattern of plagiarism and close paraphrasing in poorly checked nominations was revealed by SandyGeorgia at DYK talk. This is why it was so disappointing when I returned to spot-check one DYK that was on the main page a week ago and found plagiarism issues.

Although there has been a passing attempt to develop a checklist that is somehow different from the bulleted list in the RfC text (quoted above), nothing seems to have come of it: the consensus established in the "Checklist" RfC appears to have been politely—and in my view improperly—swept under the carpet, hands washed, and let's not mention it. But if DYK editors want to return to the business-as-usual model in which there's no systematic checking and ticking off of the aspects that are still plaguing DYK's exclusive domain in the bottom-left corner of the main page, they need to launch another RfC to countermand the community's current decision.

A second RfC held at the same time established consensus by an even greater margin (81%) for a "seven-day rule", that "a nomination that has not met the [DYK] requirements seven days after it is first edited by a reviewer should be declined and archived, unless an administrator involved in DYK queuing grants an application for an extension of a specified number of days". Unlike the "Checklist" RfC, this text had some flexibility built into it in terms of design details; but the seven-day rule nevertheless gained clear consensus. It has not been implemented.

The issue has come to MP talk because I believe the legitimacy of exposing DYK hooks and articles on the main page is in question, given the forum's failure to abide by the RfC results. I note that there's also some resistance at DYK to the notion, proposed by User:Casliber and others, that DYK be opened up at least partially to showcase recently improved articles that aren't necessarily newly created, such as GAs and even FAs and FLs. This is looking increasingly like the way to go, given DYK's lack of due process for ensuring the proper reviewing of policy and quality compliance for WP's showcase page. Tony (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Another front for the never ending war on hijacking DYK's prime Main Page real estate, eh? LOL at FAs on DYK, though. It's like there are not enough articles to improve (expand) on, which is the whole gist of DYK. GA might get their spot, but should not be at DYK's expense. Look at FL, they made it to the Main Page w/o screwing other sections up. –HTD 11:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you accept DYK has its problems, perhaps you do not. However, you seem to disingenuously couch this as an attempt to grab the DYK real estate. Isn't that a bit cynical? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ever since I started contributing to DYK, there had already been moves to remove it, and 99% of the time, they want it replaced with GAs. It's not that DYK is not the only faulty section, but with 7-8 articles on 3 daily shifts (that's 21-24 articles), there's bound to be one bad egg everyday (1/24), just like there's one bad TFA in a month (1/30), or one bad OTD every 6 days (1/36) no one cares about OTD anyway. unless there are 5 US blurbs). When people want GAs to be featured in the Main Page, they want to get DYK's space. Like I don't really care about GAs anymore (I had two), but I'd rather do an FA, which is not worth it (only 24 hours? I'd rather write a crappy ITN update). DYKs are more prone to be crappy, since they're supposed to be new. Expanded articles should not quite be bad, though. –HTD 11:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh how I wish it were as simple as "one bad egg a day" and one every six days for OTDs. I fail to see how you can apply a 'law of averages' to what goes wrong. The tolerance threshold for errors is inherently very different for the three categories; there's just no real vetting for OTD. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's a big deal if there's a crappy FA. It shouldn't be on DYKs. People who insist on making it a big deal either just don't get or don't agree with what DYKs are supposed to be -- facts from new or expanded articles. What is GA all about? FA-lite? Like I said, I'd rather write an FA, or even replace DYK with another FA. There's already space on the Main Page for good articles: FAs. People (and I mean the general public, not those who spend a day snooping around for crappy DYKs) barely notice crappy DYKs; when they do so, it really is crappy (unfactual/misleading hook, they can't find the hook in the article, etc.). They'd rather notice US bias. –HTD 12:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, aren't RFC supposed to be non-binding? –HTD 11:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Howard, at 75% and 81%, respectively, those RfCs are strong statements of consensus by the community. It sounds as though you regard proper reviewing of noms for policy compliance as a nuisance DYK can't be bothered with. I rest my case. Tony (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How can an RFC !voted upon by 37(!) people warrant such wholesale changes immediately? Even RFAs have more !votes. –HTD 12:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Show me a better way than DYK to motivate people to create new articles. violet/riga _^[talk] 11:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• The form of checklist is under discussion; it will be added by Rjanag but it has not been added yet. One of the other recent improvements to DYK was also coded by Rjanag, an AfD-style transclusion of DYK discussions so that past reviews are visible. That coding project took months to implement but it was based on consensus and now it is in place. I feel confident that the review template will also be in place shortly. The reviews at DYK are already of much higher quality than they were a month ago when an RfC about Main Page content was launched. Apparently, !voting there is still ongoing. Previous relevant discussions at WT:DYK would be Tony's complaint about removal of a checklist he personally created and "Is anyone checking for close paraphrasing?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharktopus (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't mind what form the checklist takes, as long as it reflects the RfC text that the community !voted on. When will it be ready, then? Rjanag went on a campaign of removing the checklist based on the RfC bullet points from nomination pages on about 7 and 8 August. Violetriga, no one is against motivating people to create new articles, but we have nearly 4 million, and the emphasis is slowly shifting towards article improvement. Just why DYK should be restricted to newly created articles and not newly improved articles is a mystery to many main-page editors, especially when it doesn't always show itself able to keep up with managing itself to the standard befitting the showcase of WP. Why, many people are asking, is GA shut out of main-page exposure, when GA articles—recently improved—are typically a much better example of what the project can do than a hurriedly and inadequately checked post-stub article? Tony (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There should be two reviews: one from a QPR one, and one from a mainstay (probably the directorate). If a mainstay did the 1st review, the 2nd review isn't needed. This, including whatever checklist is developed should be included: this will be an improvement over GANs where only one reviewer does the dirty work. –HTD 12:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because we have nearly 4 million articles doesn't mean that we don't have loads of other important/interesting articles that need creating. We are far from the point of slowing down as a quick look at Special:NewPages proves. DYK has lots of good new articles out of that selection. It is important to improve articles but DYK also covers that with its 5x rule. Yes there needs to be some sort of review checklist in place but your comments are coming across as critical rather than constructive. violet/riga _^[talk] 12:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The RfC also came across as critical rather than constructive. It showed an overwhelming majority favors more work as long as someone else does it. Not surprising, and not Wikipedia's finest hour. Did You Know appears to be surviving for now by paying lip service to the RfC, but lately they are running out of administrators willing to keep the queue going under those conditions. A more useful discussion would emphasize what the best use of that section of the Main Page is, while recognizing that mistakes occur in every section – rather than demanding that extra reviewers and a "directorate" must materialize so that someone somewhere somehow (just don't look at me!) will fix everything. User:Art LaPella/Is this criticism constructive? Art LaPella (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The more "requirements" the "reformers" want, the slower the discussion becomes, then less hooks are approved, which ultimately ends in the death of DYK as we've known it. What after next after that is anybody's guess. (hint: GA invasion!!!!!111111 Wait for more than a month, instead of at most 10 days (before the reform) until someone reviews your hook; who knows when it'll reach the Main Page.) –HTD 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And frankly, the death of DYK is, I suspect, the actual goal of some of the most vocal "reformers". They are getting their wish, as everything to do with that section is now a ridiculous burden that is not worth bothering with anymore. I've got 60+ DYKs to my credit but the only reason I would ever approach DYK now is for the 5 points in the WikiCup competition, and even then, it really isn't worth it. And the comment above about people agreeing that more work should be done within DYK as long as they don't have to do it is apt. Of note, while Tony1 has been all over WT:DYK proposing changes and making demands, I can't find him anywhere at T:TDYK reviewing any nominations. It is far too easy to make demands on other people's time. Resolute 15:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried WikiCup but I got bored, so the main motivation for me in creating DYKs is to let articles from my neck of the woods get Main Page exposure -- it is easier to write a 1,500 character-article (or how many the new standard will be) than writing an FA (like I said GA is essentially worthless unless it replaces DYK/gets to the main page), updating an article for ITN (with all of the Anglosphere bias there, specially on cultural items) or even OTD (it's a lot easier to write an article that is currently in the news, but won't make it to ITN, than something historical since online archives on newspapers dating before 2000, specially on my area, don't exist). I do have a couple of FLs but they're in crappy state (sssshhhh don't tell them lol) it'll take some work to make them Main Page-worthy, and one was even FLRCed just this year. –HTD 15:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

but the only reason I would ever approach DYK now is for the 5 points in the WikiCup competition, and even then, it really isn't worth it. So what are we all doing here then? Most of the time there are no clear rewards on Wikipedia other than the pleasure of seeing your own words on screen; occasionally someone appreciative might give out a barnstar, but that's about it. There are no rewards for making these talk page posts, yet wind is not in short supply. Discussion is bloating because we keep going around in circles. Personal attacks to boot. Please stop the flow of mud. It just damages DYKs cause and alienates its supporters and would-be supporters. Does anyone here recall Tony doing a DYK review? Well I do. You might have to go back 3 or 4 weeks, but I'm certain you will find some. If you don't you haven't tried hard enough. And the comment above about people agreeing that more work should be done within DYK as long as they don't have to do it is apt. It's all dandy because people at DYK didn't have to do much work before, now they are wailing because they have to do some. Is it really that painful to do a review, using the template? I just did one today. I think of someone has spent three hours of their life creating an article, it warrants a reviewer to spend half an hour on it. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Cost benefit ratio. The time I waste trying to navigate the mess of subpages, templates and ever-changing rules just to create a DYK submission could be spent creating or improving another article. And frankly, if I am going to do a GAN-esque review, I'll just go to GAN or complete a peer review for someoone who requests it. That is better for me, better for a serious editor, and better for the project. Interesting you talk about all of the "bloat" in this debate, since Tony1 especially seems to think that he'll win his battle by talking us to death. But the facts don't lie. DYK has gone from four updates daily to three, and by the looks of it, is barely generating enough entries now for two updates on some days. I agree that greater quality control is necessary, but you aren't going to save DYK by killing it. Resolute 04:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is are they saving DYK, killing DYK or saving DYK to kill it, to be replaced by something else? –HTD 04:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Resolute: Everybody's 'cost benefit analysis' in our wikicontext is going to be highly subjective depending on where we get our kicks, and how efficient we are in finding and using the tools available, so I can't argue with you there. You just keep doing what you do, and I'll do likewise. Sorry for augmenting your 'cost' and diminishing your 'benefit'. Thanks for your time. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• With the greatest respect to Tony et al., the new system is utterly ridiculous—reviewers are expected to put almost as much work into DYK reviewing than GA reviews and all for much harsher criticism if they don't notice that a few words have been lifted verbatim from the source and no carrot if they get it right. You can't realistically expect that to continue, because it's just not sustainable for the time frame DYK operates on and the number of articles it has to process in that time frame. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not my checklist: it's the community's, since the community has !voted for it knowing full well what the RfC would bring. And as I said, another RfC is essential if the first one is going to be ignored; the current situation is untenable.

    Harry, then you're saying that plagiarism and close paraphrasing are fine on the main page? I'm not being moralistic, but if that is the implication, we should come out and say it. I see that Howard (HTD) says in his edit-summary "DYK = easy". Well, if that's the raison d'etre of DYK, the hooks should be displayed on a subpage and linked to from the main page. The main page is not there for "easy peasy" stuff; it's there to showcase WP's best work, and that means hard, not easy. That's what the featured-content forums do, and easy stubby doesn't sit well next-door to them. I've had my go at trying to support DYK under its old model, but that has failed. I say that it's high time DYK became wider in scope and the grip of the easy-peasy crowd was loosened. That's why the recent call to have one GA per shift received more supports than opposes. It should be adopted as a one-month trial. Tony (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

    • • If you want Wikipedia's best work, go to WP:FC, and as Cmadler says below, the Main Page is not just for Wikipedia's best work. You might as well target ITN and OTD... wait why aren't you targeting those? ITN and OTD are a lot easier than a DYK. All you need is three sentences and some references; for OTD, just keep off the tags.
      • Take this for an example: 2011 Copa del Rey Final was posted in the ITN section. If that is nominated in DYK, it would not even pass since it is too short! (LOL!!!!!!!11111). One of my DYKs, UAAP Season 71 men's basketball tournament, would never, ever make it to ITN but is arguably the better article.
      • Also, in the Main Page RFC (the whole sale one), I think replacing DYK with GA or even giving GA one shift of DYK's prime real estate got no consensus, so clearly, this DYK RFC still has to see more eyes. –HTD 16:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Tony1, you say that "The main page is not there for "easy peasy" stuff; it's there to showcase WP's best work". I know that a number of vocal Wikipedians (including you) feel this way, but there is no consensus for that statement. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features#What are the aims of the main page?, "To showcase Wikipedia's best content" is currently third, behind "Entice readers to become editors" and "Showcase timely and newsworthy content". Ideally the Main Page does some of each, but your suggestion that only Wikipedia's best work should appear on the Main Page is clearly not supported by consensus. cmadler (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • @Tony: I'm saying that to properly read and scrutinise an article, to copy-edit it or comment on relatively obvious prose flaws and to check every source for verifiability and plagiarism is going to take longer than it did to write the article, and for 1500 characters that aren't destined to be a GA or FA, is a waste of time. I will happily spend a whole afternoon reviewing an FAC, because that's something into which the nominator has put a lot of effort, for which they clearly have a passion, and because FA actually matters. DYK is nice, but it's not worth the kind of effort this checklist requires. If no checklist = no DYK, my only thought on that is "meh". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tony1 says, "The issue has come to MP talk because I believe the legitimacy of exposing DYK hooks and articles on the main page is in question." It would be great if the regard for "community consensus" heading this article included regard for consensus against his so-often-repeated proposal to get DYK off the Main Page unless it implements every suggestion offered by Tony1 – e.g. the ongoing RfC about Main Page content, where many previous arguments by Tony1 against DYK have been presented. Sharktopus ^talk 16:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest that some admin hat this and direct those interested to read, comment, and vote at the RfC instead? Sharktopus ^talk 16:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Tony's RFC is archived? –HTD 16:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The Main page RfC where Tony presents all the above arguments and many more for getting rid of DYK is ongoing, not archived.[1] The RfC Tony created and cites here is archived,[2] as is yet another RfC filed the same day by Tony about getting rid of older nominations.[3] The proposal by Casliber to replace some or all of DYK with GA items, apparently after chatting "with Tony1 about this over beers on Friday night", can be seen here; it is not officially archived afaik. Sharktopus ^talk 17:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• The thread seems to be dominated by DYK regulars who employ tactics such as ascribing all things anti-DYK to me. Sorry guys, you know that's a distortion of the truth. I had nothing to do with launching the main-page RfC, and I didn't design the critical theme expressed about DYK there. Nor did I myself insist on the checklist: the community did.

  This statement above is a problem: "the main motivation for me in creating DYKs is to let articles from my neck of the woods get Main Page exposure". There's currently an issue before ArbCom in which DYK has been implicated as the vehicle for POV pushing and promotion. The lack of careful reviewing guarantees that editors will use DYK to push their pet topic; and sometimes that can be precariously close to breaking WP's policies. A related outcome is pumping one thematic "neck of the woods" through the main page to the extent that it sticks out: this becomes a problem of balance, and belies the mantra that DYK's mission is partly to encourage newish editors. Another unfortunate spin-off from this is that DYK doesn't see its role in encouraging article improvement after main-page exposure—does it end up being just a stub factory?

  Harry, you say, "If no checklist = no DYK, my only thought on that is "meh". On the contrary, the RfC decided that quality and policy-compliance processes should be systemic and explicitly checked off, not that DYK should end; and the RfC text spelled out that a reduced flow of DYKs might well result. This is what people !voted for; if DYK wants to stop breaching what the community has decided, it cannot maintain the dizzying rate of more than 20 hooks a day. But instead, the default of the dizzying pace is being used, implicitly, to justify breaching community consensus, because it would require an impossible workload of preparing and checking the articles and hooks properly. No, it should be the other way around: you prepare and check to main-page standards only as many as you can. You bin this imperative of the waterfall, and along with it the traditional assumption that once nominated, main-page exposure is virtually assured by default as long as the word count and "time since creation" tallied (or perhaps occasionally glaring errors are picked up in the rush). The other forums operate on a once-a-day turnaround; they, too, would become untenable if trying to flush through 20+ items a day in multiple shifts. They adjust their throughput so that they can take care.

  Until DYK accepts that the throughput needs to be adjusted to a proper checking and preparation system, the forum is in danger of losing all credibility. Disregarding the community's decision is untenable: people were perfectly aware at the RfC what the implications were for the pace, and DYK seems to be in denial about it. Tony (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• "the RfC text spelled out that a reduced flow of DYKs might well result" I don't understand. That text is spelled out in the display quote at the top of this section, and it doesn't mention flow at all. Art LaPella (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Art, it's in Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_69#RfC:_DYK_quality_assurance_and_archivingthe lead to the RfC, just above the heading:

“ Implicit in the proposals is the likelihood that the maximum four six-hour shifts per day of five to eight hooks (≥ 32 DYKs) will more often than now be altered by the queing admins to longer exposures and fewer shifts per day, and be treated as normal practice. This would not be necessary if there is a sudden influx of reviewers and more nominators who can manage the time to respond to the issues they raise. However, please note that the primary consideration of the two proposals is effective quality assurance and compliance with site-wide policies, not reduced flow. ”

Tony (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• OK. Art LaPella (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I never ever imagined that by contributing to DYK on articles about college basketball in the Philippines and its players, buildings in Manila, and special (by-)elections in the Philippines will I be accused of POV-pushing. WTF! Well, that's not the first time the "reformers" employed such tactics. They even accused DYK regulars of being mindless idiots (close paraphrase). Ah, what else is new? –HTD 02:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Now Howard, mind that you don't imply it was I who said "mindless idiots", which is a breach of wp:civil. Your post appears to be a response to mine, so the implication is there. Tony (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I apologize for making you appear it was you who said such (maybe) words. The point still stands, though. Like seriously, creating about buildings in Manila is POV-pushing? How about the flood of Eurovision articles some years ago? –HTD 02:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the one true source for everything that should be right with Wikipedia (just ask her), said that the checklist was overkill, and I think after that people began to drop it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for your kind words; I'll try harder to live up to your expectations. In the meantime, since I've been too busy to follow up at DYK to see if the (inevitable) plagiarism and failure to use adequate reliable sources continues (it's still curious to me how a five-fold expansion or minimum character count can be built upon non-reliable sources or with irrelevant padded text, but apparently more than one DYK regular thinks violation of core Wiki policies should be showcased on our main page), I would appreciate it if you would stop acting like a twelve-year-old and stop personalizing issues lest you would prefer a meeting elsewhere to discuss your disruptive behaviors. While I disagree with Tony1 that a reviewing template will be sufficient to resolve the significant problems at DYK (since many regular reviewers will just check the boxes without knowing anything about Wikipedia policies), I agree with his good faith efforts to at least do something, anything to get Plagiarism Central under control. Behave now-- I'll be back after the holiday to see if the personalization has stopped and efforts to resolve the significant issues at DYK have begun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You'd like to think so. The community, unfortunately, has determined that a checklist is to be used. You seem to be in denial about this. Hold another RfC if you don't like the decision. Resolute, you say proper reviewing is a "ridiculous burden", but it's only so if you insist on churning through 20+ DYKs a day on the main page, given that a lot of potential reviewers have come and gone when they see the lack of commitment to quality and policy-compliance. And you say that you "agree that greater quality control is necessary, but you aren't going to save DYK by killing it". Again, the same smokescreen: = proper reviewing and checking will kill DYK. Well, it might be a strong reason to slow it down and take a sharp turn from quantity towards quality and policy-safety. That's not killing it: it's setting it up to survive in the medium term. Tony (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I was in a rush to get back to actual editing. Let me elaborate: I have no objection to using a review checklist personally, and I don't dispute the consensus in its favor. But the problem has been that two checklists were offered up, neither of which has achieved consensus as the ideal one to use.

Frankly, we should just force the issue by making the checklist autoinclude in the nomination pages. You won't be able to count on people to actually use it in every review. Daniel Case (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

We've been at 18 per day for the past 3 weeks, Tony. I know how you feel, but quoting untrue statistics is not a firm standing ground. Regarding the checklist (which, BTW, I think should be discussed at WT:DYK), most reviewers are using their own version of a checklist. The actual form the checklist should take has not been decided on yet, be it during the RFC or afterwards. Many of the qualified supports you mention above disapproved of your suggested checklist, with some of the full-fledged supporters disagreeing with it too. As the RFC was simply regarding the use of a checklist, many reviewers are following it. The form of the checklist was already discussed, as noted above, but to no agreements. Perhaps another discussion should be started at DYK's talk page? Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

most reviewers are using their own version of a checklist. The review process completely lacks formality; many of these 'individual checklists' appear to be scratched on the back of an envelope. It's a wonder the DYK admins know that everything that needs checking has indeed been checked. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I would be interested to hear your response to the worth of articles in other sections, specifically ITN and OTD. Do you believe that this template (or something like it) should apply to those too? violet/riga _^[talk] 07:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Gosh - no self-indulgent items about American football and baseball in DYK for once! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.254.168 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The checklist misses one important point, the quality of the hook. It should be surprising or remarkable - it should also not be misleadng. It should also be (to use a for letter word) true, or at least more than merely verifiable by usually RS - I would rather see less DYKs of better quality, as I think that would reflect better on the project, or even relaxing the "new or recently expanded" rules. DYK's are in danger of being seem to be for the benefit of writers rather readers. Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Responses:

• Rich F, the hook criteria were indeed added to the bullets endorsed by the community RfC in the list that Rjanag unilaterally decided to remove from nom pages in early August.
• Violetriga, deflection by casting aspersions on other main-page forums (and FAC) is a regular tactic; please focus on DYK for the moment. The other tactics are to shoot the messenger (especially aimed at SandyGeorgia and me—Gatoclass is a repeat offender), to deny, and to stall indefinitely (Gatoclass: "the reason no checklist is currently being used is because I suggested we delay its implementation for a week or two, in this thread"—that was two weeks ago: time's up). All of these tactics are evident in this thread.
• Daniel Case, it's interesting you've chosen to deify SandyGeorgia: "the one true source for everything that should be right with Wikipedia", and seek to turn her view of the checklist into an endorsement of DYK's disregard for the community's demand that a checklist is required before main-page exposure. In fact, SG—with whom you have a recent history of brawling—has clearly expressed the view that DYK should be wound up. Is this what caused you to say to her, "At this point, she would probably serve her cause best by bailing and letting Tony handle things"? Now please don't distort the truth.
• So what is happening about the seven-day rule for archiving, the other roundly endorsed RfC? Tony (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather bad faith to dismiss my question as a "deflection" and a "tactic". It's a shame that no progress will be made while you approach discussions like that. violet/riga _^[talk] 12:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Images

Do we no longer copy to en: (and protect) commons images for use on the main page? Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Some administrators might have decided to rely on the Commons bot that automatically cascade-protects images used on the English Wikipedia's main page. I disagree with this approach, as it doesn't account for the slight delay or the possibility of the bot malfunctioning.

My understanding is that the Commons bot's task was set up to serve as a fallback (for images accidentally left unprotected), not as a primary protection method. —David Levy 18:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I know DYK has a few Commons admins who handle image protections there, and ITN images should be uploaded locally but there's no need to protect them because ITN has its own cascading protection. I don't know what happens elsewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I should note that I'm not referring to instances in which images are manually protected at Commons (as I sometimes do).

Regarding images temporarily uploaded locally, I do think that manually protecting them is a worthwhile precaution (for a reason that I'm reluctant to mention publicly, lest I give any vandals a new idea). —David Levy 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC) I've e-mailed you an explanation of what I have in mind. —David Levy 19:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, cascading protection is a nice fallback, but manual protection should be the primary protection method. cmadler (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Eid ul-fitr on Aug 30 and 31

I removed the ref tag from the article. Now can someone add the article to On This Day? Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm calling IAR on excluding mention of Eid on the Main Page today. I removed the ref tag on the article -- it was added by an IP with 2 whole edits to his credit. Can someone please add Eid ul-Fitr to On This Day, please? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that this item has been on the Main Page every year on the appropriate day (or days) since 2004. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored now, but your second argument is irrelevant. Articles that previously were acceptable for Main Page inclusion may no longer be eligible, as article quality has become much more important over the last year. howcheng {chat} 08:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, howcheng! May your tribe increase! --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Eid ul Fitr was on 30 August. But the Muslims in South-East Asia are celebrating a day later.Runehelmet (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No it was celebrated on the 30 August in Malaysia [4] Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know where it's being celebrated today? (I didn't even know how it was pronounced until a few days ago and my next door neighbors are Muslims!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a rather comprehensive listing at the bottom of this page. I've removed the listing. First, a lot of people consider Eid ul-Fitr to be a three-day holiday, which would mean it does not end tonight regardless of when it started. Second, more countries began celebrating yesterday (although, yes, I understand Indonesia and South Asia's choice of today means more Muslims celebrated the holiday today). We should post the first day of Eid for the first reasonably large batch of celebrants [August 30] and/or the evening start of Eid for that first batch [August 29]. But, putting it on August 31 seems forced. -- tariqabjotu 18:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, Tariq. Next year we'll have to be more alert near the end of Ramadan! --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Asia-Centric Bias on In the News

The "In the News" stories are all about Asia, with one each on Japan, India, and Singapore, and even the space story is about work from the Japanese space agency. Why is this so Asia-centric? Surely, there's some news from Africa, Australia, Europe, North America, or South America. 75.62.145.145 (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly Asia is the world's biggest continent, secondly stories are never going to be equally distributed around the world at any one time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be stories from Asia (or even multiple stories) nor am I saying that there should be a geographic quota, but isn't having all the stories from one continent a bit much? 75.62.145.145 (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting change from the usual US-centric complaints Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Now when will we have an all-Asian ITN that doesn't include items about politics, disasters or science? :P –HTD 10:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A US-based IP address complaining about pro-Asian bias? Almost a mirror image of the usual complaints! I suppose if we reach the point where we get equal amounts of both complaints then we'll be doing well. Modest Genius ^talk 12:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I came to this discussion page thinking it would be a hilarious "take that" to see someone mention the "Asia-centric bias" on the front page. I was not disappointed. Well played, sir. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Any centrism that occurs generally is a result of fear or preempting potential accusations of bias by refusing to post stories of certain types or from certain locations. To be frank, I'm very confused as to what constitutes "newsworthiness" on WP:ITN nowadays. I'd almost say get a mediation committee on it.--WaltCip (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Meteors from Asteroids

"Samples of asteroid 25143 Itokawa retrieved by the Hayabusa probe confirm that most meteorites originate from S-type asteroids." Would it not be more correct to say that some meteors have originated from this asteroid? or something along these lines. The study of one asteroid could not possibly confirm the origin of all meteors.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be best to say that the samples "provide supporting evidence for the hypothesis that most meteorites originate from S-type asteroids". --Khajidha (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any meteorite has originated from that one particular asteroid. Instead, this S-type asteroid has been found to have the same composition as the most common type (~87% of all falls) of meteorites. The interpretation is that this type of meteorites originates from this kind of asteroid. This has long been hypothesised, but no direct evidence existed until Hayabusa. Modest Genius ^talk 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There still isn't any direct evidence only equivocation.--108.16.25.222 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That was my point, this isn't confirmation it is supporting evidence. --Khajidha (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish, the inference should be that meteors and asteriods may have the same source, based on their similar compositions, rather than one spawning the other. There is no confirmation justa leap in logic.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)