Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 5

Why was this removed? Something about a "no obits" rule. If this is because we don't list people's death on the main page, then I gotta say this is probably one of the more dopey rules I've heard of. In case anyone doesn't realise it, Kerry Packer was actually the most powerful man in Australia (yes, that's right, more powerful than the Prime Minister). His death is an extremely significant event in Australia. I can't see why it was removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"A death should only be placed on ITN if it meets one of two criteria: (1) the funeral ceremony merits its own article or (2) the death has a major impact on current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets Criteria 2" - a rule, if memory serves, put there so we hopefully wouldn't bicker about cases like this :-). I understand he was heavily influential, but is his death causing a significant impact on day-to-day politics in Australia? Shimgray | talk | 03:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. He was the owner of the biggest media organisation in Australia, and has had significant impact in Australian politics. Perhaps you should read the article? He's the only man I know of that can basically dictate to the PM that tax rates were too high, and be listened to. Which he did. His death is going to make politics in Australia very interesting indeed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I know who Kerry Packer is; I did read the obituary in the media on the other side of the planet... As I say, I understand he had a major influence in Australian politics. But is the lack of that influence having a major impact on current events to the same degree that, eg, someone murdering one of the members of the cabinet would?

I wouldn't have considered a seriously ill Rupert Murdoch dying at home, for what it's worth, to be covered. Personally, I interpret the spirit of that as "no deaths, period", with a get-out clause for "high-profile assassination" or "death and funeral effectively shut the country down". But I am aware this is a relatively hardline interpretation of it... Shimgray | talk | 03:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been the 2nd person to revert me. Do you people even know who Packer was?! I really must say that there is a spot of systemic bias going on here. If an American media mogul (for instance Murdoch or Ted Turner) died, then it would most likely be listed here. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I do. And he's still not notable enough to get into ITN until theres a seperate article on his funeral. Which theres not. --Kiand 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Nice to see at least someone is using the talk page. Incidently, it's possibly one of the more stupid rules I've read. We can't in fact read an article about a funeral that has not happened yet. Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have asked on the talk page to extend the rule for obits.--Gbleem 03:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that the funeral thing is only the first half of the rule, and Ta bu shi da yu asserts that this death has a major impact on current events. Unless anyone can dispute that with any knowledge of the subject, I see no reason that Packer's death doesn't belong on ITN. —Cleared as filed. 03:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He died almost expectedly, which means its not an extraordinary death, and he's not a world leader, media mogul or not. So it should not be on the front page. --Kiand 03:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I have removed this. I have to say, for the record, that this rule has got to be the most stupid rule I've ever heard of on Wikipedia. When Murdoch dies expectedly, I'll make sure that we apply the rules equally. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free, Murdoch is equally as unimportant - owns a few tabloid TV stations and papers. Oh well. --Kiand

I commend you for withdrawing but I really thought I learned something new when I read the article. We USA folks need to learn more about the rest of the world. Can we put it back up under "spirit of the rules" and then discuss changing the rules? --Gbleem 03:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A quick look through the history confirms that when Peter Jennings died on 7 August, his ITN obit lasted almost 36 hours. So is this systemic bias? What makes an American anchor more notable than an Australian media mogul? Jennings was dying of cancer, hardly an unexpected event. —Cleared as filed. 03:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

When did the no obits rule come in? More recently than that I think. --03:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jennings certainly shouldn't have been there per the current rules. If those were in place at the time, then I'd still label that a bad decision, and not a valid precedent. The Tom 03:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All right. So what do you say about the fact that he was arguably more or as powerful than any Australian prime minister? He is highly significant in Australian life and politics. He was an immensley powerful man. PBL shares went down by about 5-10% when he died, you know. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He still was just a television station owner. I don't expect John Malone's obit to end up in ITN and he owns more than half the cable companies in northern europe and north america, and is arguably more powerful than Packer and Murdoch combined. He's just not local to you so you don't think he is. --Kiand 03:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I would expect to see him on ITN. As for him not being local: please don't use that argument on me. Do we ever take into account the relative importance of individuals in the society they lived in? No. So what we get is systemic bias, and hence the reason you make statements like "he was just a T.V. station owner", which many, many Australians would argue is pretty wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

(Dropping back some indents) No obits rule came in this August; [1]. The "Obituaries" section here has the discussion that spawned this change. Note also there seemed to be a consensus unwritten rule In The Dim Past, but that's not very well documented. Shimgray | talk | 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Packer's notability is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, though. Edward Heath died in the summer, and I mean, he once had nuclear weapons under his thumb. Doesn't change the fact he was an old man who just got too old. The Tom 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And so the whole argument behind the rule not to list notable deaths is pretty stupid. Notable people that die, IMO, should be listed. When Reagan died, he was listed. That didn't change the fact that he was "an old man who just got too old" - he hardly had any impact on anyone just before he died. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ta Bu. And, regarding Packer, he was more than just a newspaper man - he revolutionised the #2 sport in the world (by paying cricketers a decent salary). Guettarda 04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So, how do I propose to change existing policy? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping obits off the main page for anyone other than world leaders. Including the deaths of rich white men muddies the waters for who is and isn't notable enough to get an obituary on ITN. One of the rationales for keeping obits out of ITN is so its not cluttered with not universally notable dead people.--nixie 05:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you define "universally notable" though? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Individuals that a broad cross section of people from different cultures might recognize like former Nobel Peace Prize recipients and current heads of state.--nixie 06:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Like, for instance, Rafic Hariri? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, or Mandela, Kissinger, Thatcher, the Dali Lama and so on.--nixie 07:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Simple - Mimic the "recent deaths" section on CE here. Have the latest one or two notable (CE-worthy, not "Deaths in 2005"-worthy) deaths just below ITN. This could be done in place of removing a DYK, or simply shortening ITN by one item. Two on one line, a single bullet, very tiny useage of space, or one on each line with a blurb as to whom they were. But just one or two. (I say two; having one can easily overshadow, i.e. John Ritter and Johnny Cash, Ray Charles and Ronald Reagan, though Reagan's death would probably belong on ITN). Comments? --Golbez 06:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• The main page is already cluttered. Really significant deaths are already on ITN, other less significant deaths are already recorded in current events. Adding two recent deaths to the main page- would actually be a significant addtion given the brevity of the sections already included on the main page. Also these would still have to be significant people with national if not global influence.--nixie 07:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I like this suggestion a fair bit, actually. There's already a lonely-looking link to Recent deaths at the bottom of the box, it might make more sense to come up with a compactish way of expounding on them. I imagine even deaths like Reagan's wouldn't necessarily get ITN lines should that option be there instead to get a prominent link out there on the main page. The Tom 17:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a sample layout. Looks like there're some weird spacing issues that need ironing out, but nothing that can't be dealt with.

So, no further feedback? The Tom 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page#Deaths. i'm afriad that the columns might become unbalanced in length (right side longer than left), but i prefer your proposal better to no deaths at all.

I swapped the sides that selected anniversaries and DYK are on, which is opening a whole separate can of worms, but seems to clear up this problem. (FWIW, it seems a more logical fit to to have TFA and DYK stacked together, and the other date-related stuff on the right) The Tom 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It still suffers from the same problem as obits in ITN, what make somone notable enough to appear in the section? I think it just adds more clutter to the page.--nixie 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the no-more-than-two limitation would lead to relatively straightforward enforcement. More importantly, it would draw off the Kerry Packer and Rosa Parks-type deaths from ITN, which are bound to lead to widespread debate anyway. Clutter is a fair point, though bear in mind there's a pretty substantial redo of the front page layout underway already. The Tom 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Death on the front page? That's a downer. If it's someone really major, it would be included in "In the news". I'm not a big fan of obituaries, and I don't know of any newspaper that puts them on the front page. Just my 2 cents. Good brainstorming though. Go for it! 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a section is needed. But some common sense is needed. Rosa Parks deserved to make ITN. Peter Jennings didn't; I doubt Kerry Packer would either. Only high profile deaths should be included (prominent politicians, and a few prominent figures like Parks) Ral315 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Too much clutter. At most I could see:

Recent deaths: Tony Banks · Lou Rawls

But even that may be two much, and I can still see future nonproductive disputes over which two recent deaths are the most important.--Pharos 04:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Lennart Meri is not notable enough to be mentioned. His death isn't even mentioned in Current Events... but wait! It is! With not one, but two links to news reports! And I wasn't even the one who added it there! But maybe Europeans are only notable enough to be mentioned if they're been accused of war crimes in an international court, which Meri has sadly failed to accomplish? JIP | Talk 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If it features prominently on two news sites based out of the country then it warrants inclusion. Problem with that is that it's a bit specific, but then the current choice of wording is down to personal opinion way too much. violet/riga (t) 09:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• The problem with this is that practically, it would qualify way too many people. I think we could find at least one obituary (maybe more) every day that meets this criteria.--Pharos 03:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Could the length be pruned? Right now, it is longer than the FA lead on the main page and this pushes DYK to the bottom. --Gurubrahma 14:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In the blurb about the shootings in India, can we provide a link to the scientist who died (M C Puri)? Maybe like this: ...kills one scientist and injures.... Dralwik 03:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Done. --Pamri • Talk 04:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not opposed to this being here, since it is news (sort of), but the determination itself was made months ago! Morwen - Talk 22:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The ITN section looks rather slim on the Main Page, with only four items. I suggest something be added, but I'm not sure what might be appropriate. Any thoughts? --King of All the Franks 19:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need to mention this link? Yes, 13 people are trapped, but it seems more like states news, or national news, even, but not international news. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't seem like international news to me either. Gamaliel 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, the current five stories have to together comprise one of the weakest ITNs we've seen in a good long while. The Tom 08:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This argument is getting really tired. It's not the only story of subnational interest up there, nor the only one that's been in ITN lately. Were there any complaints about the gunfire incident at the Indian university? What's the threshhold for number of countries a story has to impact before we can report on it? I put things on ITN based on the quality of the article, the newsworthiness, etc.

Anyway, yes, this story may not be "ITN worthy", but not because it's of regional importance, and it seems that only American stories get such scrutiny. Rather, it's just not that major a story, regardless of the area it effects. But ITN is slow anyway. --Golbez 08:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The German-language Wikipedia has the story about the ice skating rink disaster. This seems rather equivalent. And despite being American and outside Germany, I consider that story of "international interest" as well. I don't understand why we have to have these debates so frequently. If a large enough group of Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, British, Indians, Irish, or Americans feels that a story is substantial enough that it deserves ITN coverage, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. While the English Wikipedia is oriented more internationally than the others, it is not unreasonable to allow a slight focus on these countries. We will never develop a satisfactory system to determine what is internationally important, and our assessment of what the world "cares about" is inherently POV. Tfine80 18:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is a piffling security vulnerabilty in Windows really front-page material? --Sum0 14:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I've changed it for an important Ugandan politics story.--Pharos 05:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I whould suggest it does when it affects probably +89% of Windows versions and +99% of Windowses in use and can be exploited with no user interaction in multiple cases. It DEFINATELY deserves to be put back up when MS issues its offical patch for it. 68.39.174.238 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Window security flaw news at all? Why include the Sago Mine story but not the German ice rink story? Jombo 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nominate it at the proper place and link me an article. --Golbez 20:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Can the Abramoff buissiness' link be changed to "Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal", which is where the page resides now so it doesn't redirect? Thanx 68.39.174.238 07:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done.--Pharos 07:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This template should use the image Flag of Dubai.svg instead of Image:Uae-dubai.gif. —Guanaco 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant now. --Golbez 22:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not wed to the idea, but has anybody here considered semi-protecting this page instead of the current full protection? Does the admin-only model keep up without too much effort, or is more help by non-admins needed? Is a four day old account enough to deter vandalism? Again, I'm not wed to idea; I just want to spark some discussion about this. --mav 02:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This as mooted at WT:SEMI, but rejected. It's too high profile to have thousands of different versions a day, and the admins aren't at all overloaded with it: the actual headlines don't change all that often. -Splash^talk 02:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but a sleeper account could get through, and an offensive picture on ITN is far more damaging than one on George W. Bush. That was why we protected in the first place, way back when. --Golbez 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The source code of this template is missing a final </div> tag. Please an administrator fix this, since this is causing problems when I am trying to switch Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft to use a div-based layout instead of a table-based layout. There is a similar problem for {{Did you know}}. Infinity0 ^talk 20:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find the missing tag. I see one DIV with two DIVs nested inside it. Could you be more specific where the unpaired DIV tag and where its partner should go? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please wiki link the 2006 Hajj Stampede article to the word stampede? It is not currently linked in "In the news" section on the main page. - Ganeshk^T/_C\^@ 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It didn't land in the Great Salt Lake, but in the Great Salt Lake Desert; see the article for exact location. There is kind of a big difference; one is very, very wet, and the other is very, very dry.  :-) --Russ Blau (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The template reads "Many shares in stocks of the Internet company...". U.S. usage at least would be "Many shares of stock of the Internet..." "Of" rather than "in". Is this a common Japanese/English translation that I'm not aware of? Dismas|^(talk) 06:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody put sh: intewiki link on this template? The link is [[sh:Template:Događaji]] --M. Pokrajac 23:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done.--Pharos 21:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can the image on the main page be changed to [[Image:New_Horizons_Liftoff.jpg]]? The launch is the number one news article on the list. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

[[vi:Tiêu bản:Tin tức]]

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done.--Pharos 08:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you undid the link when you added in the item about the Iraqi election. [2] :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I think it had something to do with my preparing the Iraqi election item in advance on 'preview'– anyway, it's cleared up now, hopefully for the last time. :)--Pharos 09:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to replace the badly-photoshopped FU image of the Kosovar president. But we don't have a flag (presumably it's the Serbian one, but that way must lie politics and shtuff), and the map isn't very good either. So I'm inclined to think we should jiggle the story order, maybe replacing it with the Image:Husaybah vote.jpg, which is PD. That's a little out-of-date now though. -Splash^talk 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I've changed it for a badly-photoshopped PD image (no offense to the uploader of course; I certainly would have chosen to crop the low-quality U.S. govt. image in the same way). I still think it's an improvement, though.--Pharos 07:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an HTML error in this template: there are two opening div tags and three closing tags. This error was introduced by this change (the opening tag was removed while the closing tag was not). The error causes margin problems on the main page; see Talk:Main_Page#Margin_for_today.27s_featured_picture. RexNL 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way to solve this is to re-add the accidentally removed <div style="text-align: right;" class="noprint"> before the Wikinews link. RexNL 00:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Has been fixed. Thanks, RexNL 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday evening I had just got home from Tarja Halonen's election watch party. It was there that I and others definitely saw she had won. Halonen came there herself after the results were announced. At home I fired up Wikipedia and saw that there was nothing about the election in this template. So I thought that since I'm an admin, I can edit this. This is the first time in Wikipedia's life that Finland has held a presidential election, and the next one won't be until 2012. So this was my "big chance" to add new information about an important Finnish political topic. In my haste to be the first I didn't read all the rules on this page. JIP | Talk 06:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm very surprised at Zocky's justification for removing the Mohammad cartoons story: "that page is experiencing an edit war and directing readers or new editors to it is not helpful." As I recall, George W. Bush, John Kerry and U.S. presidential election, 2004 were undergoing massive vandalism after the election results were announced. Should we not have linked to any of those articles at the time on the grounds that they were experiencing an edit war? -- ChrisO 19:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No that is not the reason here. There are just more important stories. A roof collapse that killed 66 people and newly elected leaders is more important. What Zocky was trying to say that the story just causes offense and calls for vandalism when it really isn't as important as an election or a roof collapse. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Zocky was trying to say. I know what he did say, and it wasn't a valid reason for removing the story. -- ChrisO 19:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any of this as a justification for removing the Muhammad drawings story. Also, I don't see (as someone just posted in a recent edit summary) how replacing this story with a story about Poland is "Americentism". Really, this is getting out of hand. Let's have a little good faith here people. Gamaliel 19:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The story is old too. The drawings took place in September! The only thing that happened recently is that they were published in one of Denmarks christian magazines. I also don't understand the amerocentrism argument. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What's new (which as a North American you perhaps aren't aware of) is that the story is getting massive coverage over here in Europe; newspapers in at least three other countries are running the pictures today as part of a protest against perceived religious censorship. [3] It's also currently one of the biggest stories in the Middle East after the Palestinian election results. [4] -- ChrisO 19:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Word from the outside world does reach us occassionally, you know. Gamaliel 19:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but with the SOTU speech in the US and the election in Canada I'm sure this particular story isn't that high up the news agenda. A big issue over on one side of the Atlantic usually tends to get diluted by the time it gets to the other side. -- ChrisO 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Muhammed drawings is a significant story; it doesn't matter when they were published, it's the controversy that's new. It's true there's a conflict on that article of sorts, but neither of the two slightly different iterations is really embarrassing and overall the article is pretty good. But whatever we do, please don't put up the fair use cartoon on the Main Page.--Pharos 19:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair point - I'd forgotten that particular requirement. Thanks for fixing the image. -- ChrisO 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. The bottom line is of course that Muslim groups worldwide are protesting about the cartoons because of what they see as deep offensiveness. Aid workers from all Scandanavian counties have been warned by estremists to leave Muslim countries or risk attack. NGOs have had to withdraw to fortified areas. It is a story receiving coverage in the middle east and throughout Europe. Any story that is making waves in at least two continents of course has to be on the WP ITN. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 19:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Are the stories on the template in any particular order? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, seems I have some explaining to do: Semiprotection policy says not to protect pages linked from the main page, and that makes sense. That article was in a massive edit war and needed to be semiprotected. If we don't want semiprotected pages linked from the main page, then we should remove those that need to be semiprotected. Zocky | picture popups 04:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has been moved to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, can someone help to amend to the correct wikilink? Thanks. --Vsion (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How many times has this been renamed or changed? – I'm tired of trying to find it. The recently altered policy of suggesting Candidates for news stories in Current Events, instead of just writing them and editing the page as before, seems to result in legitimate stories of major international interest and worldwide importance being sidelined or deliberately ignored.

Do I get the feeling that Wikipedia editors/administrators are now reluctant to include this important story, for fear of upsetting some people? Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 01:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? All the redirects are still in place and the article is linked from the mainpage. -Splash^talk 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The blurb regarding the sinking of the Egyptian ferry misspells passengers. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 12:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

M/S Al-Salam Boccaccio 98 has been moved to M/V al-Salam Boccaccio 98 --24.26.178.224 01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please add the word "the" before "game show" in the sentence "A stampede at a football stadium in the Philippines kills 73 people who were there to watch game show Wowowee." — Ливай   21:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Kerry Packer's death is obviously not as important as the Super Bowl. Nice going. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the entry. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, looks like I've made myself look like an idiot. Apologies to all. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Danish representation in the capital of Lebanon be technically the embassy? Or do they have more than one representative delegation in the same city? DHN 08:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The address of the Danish embassy in Lebanon [5] seems to match the location of the building being torched described by the BBC (Christian neighborhood, etc). DHN 08:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, We've been abit back and forth on that one. Most news agencies, including the Danish media, is calling it a conulate, so I'm inclined to go with that. But then we have http://www.ambassade.dk/dklebanbeie.php3 calling it an embassy, so I'm not sure what to say. Though, that site is listing the ambassador as being the one with address Damaskus, Syria, making the office in Beirut look less like a "real" embassy to me. But I'm no expert on these subtle differences, so if anyone claims to know that it's indeed a real embassy and should be named as such, I'll not object. Shanes 08:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if those people themselves claim to be an embassy[6], who are we to object? DHN 08:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Every single Danish news-paper I've checked is calling it a consulate ([7], [8], [9] to name a few), the same is Norwegian media which are following this case closely as well. The Danish wikipedia is also calling it a consulate, and even made a new article on dk:konsulat the last days to accompony the one they have on the drawings. Maybe there's a press statement somewhere from the Danish Foreign minestry calling it one or the other, but I'm out of time now, and have to do other stuff. Shanes 09:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If the person who's officially ambassador to Lebanon lives in Damascus and there's only a small office in Beirut, then yeah, I think that's considered a consulate. Denmark is a relatively small country, and understandably I guess they just don't have the foreign ministry budget to open a full-fledged embasssy in every world capital.--Pharos 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this event that important that it was placed in the news section on the main page? For a non-US resident this really is irrelevant news. --81.240.205.62 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• First, the appropriate place to post your comment is on Template talk:In the news. Second, the game was televised live in 234 countries in 32 languages. [10]

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the english Wikipedia, and many people (a majority actually) who use it are Americans. There are few topics that are relevent to everyone who reads Wikipedia, this one is relevent to more people than many topics. But anyway, I believe the actual place to talk about stuff on "in the news" is Template talk:In the news, not here... this is just for discussion about the page Super Bowl XL. --W.marsh

So the americans may dictate what happens with the english wikipedia, which is by far the most complete version, nice to know. Shouldn't it be a bit more appropriate if the news section would feature global topics!!--194.78.199.56 09:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This shouldn't be on the main page. Don't get me wrong, I have a great love for all sports but this just seems too US-centric. How would everyone feel if the finals of the Australian Rules Football made the main page? You may argue that the Super Bowl receives far more viewers compared to Aussie Rules, but how can anyone dispute that when there are far more people in the US compared to Australia. Leftist 11:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

With the logic displayed in User:W.marsh's message, Eminem releasing a new single would be a more newsworthy item than Lennart Meri's death, because much more Americans have heard of Eminem than of Lennart Meri. JIP | Talk 12:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Stephen Harper is sworn in as the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada. Several of his cabinet selections prompt controversy." February 7 2006

Actually, there are only 2 selected ministers out of 27 that are considered as controversial in Canada : one because he is in the opposation (Liberal Party) and the other because he had not been elected (he was named senator by Harper). I don't think "several" is the appropriate word here.--142.169.132.165 01:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Throw in press coverage about the selection of Vic Toews as Minister of Justice, the lack of women (incl. the omission of Diane Ablonczy) and you get several. The Tom 06:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now for news, we have stuff at the articles for individual dates, we have the Current Events page, we have links from WikiNews, and we have the news section on the main page. There has to be a way to make a single place where all the news is added, and the most important ones can be flagged by an admin for adding to the main page. For now there's items that's at one location and isn't found at all at another. Elfguy 13:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Theoretically anyway, everything on In the news should be on Current Events first, which is supposed to be the great collecting-place by date (along of course with its monthly archives, July 2003 for example). Discussion of which items belong on the Main Page is here. Wikinews is a separate sister project from Wikipedia and coordination doesn't really take place at the level you're talking about.--Pharos 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would change Torino emblem with the official Olympic logo comment by User:Avala

• We have a general policy against unfree images on the Main Page if they can at all be avoided.--Pharos 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone interested in reusing Template:Olympic news in a temporary Olympics section to be placed between ITN and the second feature, as we did in 2004 (see [11])? — Dan | talk 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Sounds good, can't hurt, useful addition to the main page for the duration of the games. Hamster Sandwich 19:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion of this on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. I've been working on both the 2006 Winter Olympics article and the main page redesign project. I had mocked up something for ITN: User:Kmf164/In the news, and plugged it into a main page mock-up, User:Kmf164/Main page draft2. If we do this, I think it should be two highlights, maximum. Though, others on the talk page disliked the idea, I think it's worth doing. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of having dedicated space on ITN for the Olympics. But more admin attention is needed. (I can't do much, as I have to stay offline for many days in the next little while....) I'll post a line about the first medal for now. -- PFHLai 17:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Can another admin take over, please ? I have to stay away from the internet for the next few days and thus cannot do anymore Olympic updates on ITN. Thanks. -- PFHLai 21:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not big on it, but that's probably because I am a bit wary of spoilers on the main page! Will such spoilers be avoided? I am asking, since I do not want spoilers on the main page with no spoiler warning. I have no objection to any applicable non-spoiler stuff being used, however. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should not post any results news until after the olympics are broadcast (tape-delay) in North America (or other places?). Other olympics news like controveries, athletes dropping out (e.g Michelle Kwan), I'd say are okay. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what I mean, hold off on results until after the TV broadcasts, but other news can continue. Just wanted to make sure it was safe. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you think we can Wikilink that header to the main Olympics 2006 article? You know, instead of having it further in?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I think I have seen said wikilink of late... guess it was a good idea. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Spoilers ? I like the idea of dragging people away from their TV sets to become Wikipedians. :-) As long as information is verifiable at various other news outlets, it should be fine. -- PFHLai 07:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I must concur. There is hardly a website that is safe to view if you are an American that wants to watch the Olympics on TV spolier-free. Wikipedia shouldn't censor itself based on NBC scheduling. youngamerican (talk)     18:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Not even NBC's own Olympic site, alas... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this really world-wide-worthy news? Sure, it's funny, but I think there might be other news stories that deserve a spot on the front page. Eager to hear your comments. Bratsche^talk 04:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Which other stories? This is pretty big news, no matter what you think of Cheney or the humour value of the story. Type "Dick Cheney" Google News, and I got 752 stories directly related to the shooting. He might have accidentally shot the guy, but that probably doesn't mean the bullet went any slower into his face. Harro5 04:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It absolutely does not matter how outlets reported this as an "interesting" news story . This incident is wholly irrelevant to his conduct as Vice President, and would never merit more than one line in his encyclopedia entry. Hence, there is no reason for us to make it a big deal on the Main Page of this encyclopedia.--Pharos 06:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to think it says a thing or two about gun safety and gun control. News editors tend to agree with me. The Tom 06:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe it does say something about gun safety in the US, but In the news does not have an editorial purpose in highlighting general social problems as they affect prominent individuals; ie. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Pharos 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What, no mention of the video showing British soldiers beating up Iraqi teenagers? Angr/talk 15:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please help us help you. ... Show us the updated wikiarticle. -- PFHLai 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe down the bottom, have links to Science and technology, Sports near more current events. Like this:

• Lavaka Ata 'Ulukalala resigns as prime minister of Tonga. Feleti Sevele becomes the first non-noble appointed to the office.
• The first African case of the avian flu is reported in Nigeria in the continuing global spread of H5N1.
• An ancient tomb, the first found in the Valley of the Kings since that of Tutankhamun, is discovered in Luxor, Egypt.

• Biathlon: Sven Fischer of Germany wins the men's 10-km sprint.
• Figure skating: Tatiana Totmianina and Maxim Marinin of Russia take gold in the pairs event.
• Speed skating: Joey Cheek of the United States wins the 500m event, skating both runs in less than 35 seconds.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamedog (talk • contribs) 07:57, 2006 February 15 (UTC).

How is this story relevant outside of Kenya? youngamerican (talk)     18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a hard time finding sth to replace the Nigerian bird flu and the recently discovered tomb in Egypt, both were posted last week. This Kenyan item is as big a news item with updated wikiarticles as I can find. BBC calls it the "Kenyan Corruption Crisis". Now 3 ministers have resigned. The VP may be next. Sounds serious to me. Certainly more exciting than some American judge going thru' a tough job interview, etc. As I posted on the candidates page, "Fellow admins more familiar with the topic are invited to review this". Does anyone have better updated wikiarticles to feature on ITN ? I'm waiting for someone familiar with Haitian elections, 2006 to propose a headline. Anyone ? -- PFHLai 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly be more notable than the Alito hearings if it turns out to be more than a cabinet-level shakeup and the Veep does indeed resign; I was unaware of that possibility. By the way, I am pretty sure non-admins can offer suggestions and and what not, the only limitation is that they cannot edit the template itself (which is etirely logical, imagine all of the crap about Pokemon and Ashlee Simpson that would be up there otherwise). Also, I am catching up on the Haitian elections and should have a headline proposed later today that you can post or tweak to maximize its effectiveness. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a headline on the suggestions page about the Haitian election for your consideration. youngamerican (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the headline, Youngamerican. ... I guess I should've written "... invited to review and revise ...". Yes, comments are always welcome, either from admins or non-admins. Just that non-admins can't actually do anything with the ITN template. -- PFHLai 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In the statement about there being sexual abuse etc. on the sentence about the prison, it incorrectly uses the comma before the word "and". It should be "[...] and" not "[...], and". ^KILO-_LIMA 18:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the preferred format on Wikipedia IS to use a serial comma. --Golbez 20:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're both wrong. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Serial_commas. There is no preferred style on this. Mark^{your words} 20:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no preferred style here, but the serial comma is certainly best in most situations. violet/riga (t) 21:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentence on by the UK House of Commons stating that they have passed a bill stating that smoking is banned in all places is incorrect. It should state that "it has been made illegal in England and Wales [Unsure of Northern Ireland]" as it is already a law in Scotland. This news makes it seem as though it has been banned throughout the United Kingdom all at one; which is, however, not true. Thanks, Hillhead15 13:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It makes it law in England and gives the Welsh Assembly the option to introduce it in Wales if they want to. (They have already voted in favour of the principle twice.) -Splash^talk 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4723688.stm - is this big enough to get on the main page? — FireFox • T • 21:14, 18 February 2006

The Olympics highlights need updating, as the current items on the main page are from Saturday. I'm not sure who's handling this, while User:PFHLai is unavailable. I would suggest mentioning today's Canadian womens hockey gold medal win. A couple other suggestions are mentioned on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates and Current sports events, for consideration. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1715055,00.html -Ste|vertigo 03:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to shorten this asap as it is pushing DYK down and throwing it out of whack. May be you can remove the David Irving bit?? --Gurubrahma 17:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The David Irving bit has been removed as requested. -- PFHLai 17:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is currently recommended to avoid using fair use images on the main page. This should probably be made a rule, for the same reasons that they are not allowed in other namespaces or talk pages (see WP:FU, where this page is currently listed as an exception). I also feel it gives the message to new users that uploading copyrighted material is the norm. ed g2s • talk 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Technically, fair use images should not be allowed on the main page anyway because all of the content is generated by templates. Everybody who has been maintaining ITN has generally been good about immediately removing any unfree image on there. The only exception to the fair use images on the main page rule would possibly be the today's featured article template, only because it displays an adapted lead section of the article, and thus has enough content to comply with the fair use doctrine. But you may need to talk Raul654, the ratified director of the FA template, about that. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I in the right place to ask for this to be fixed? It wasn't a republican march which led to the Dublin riot; the rioters were republicans demonstrating against a planned loyalist march. Thanks. Hibbleton 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you're absolutely right. Fixed. -- ChrisO 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Whooops..... Thanks to Hibbleton for pointing this out, and ChrisO for fixing my mistake. Thank you. -- PFHLai 04:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Both are wrong. It wasn't a republican "demonstration". Those of us unfortunate to have been nearby at the time and to have to run for cover saw that it was no demonstration. It was a deliberately planned riot to stop a legally authorised march. It is only a couple of minutes walk from where I live and I was in town shopping at the time. The orchestrators of the riot could clearly be seen carrying bags of bottles to the location to stage a riot. (Some of them seem to have been hidden overnight in nearby bins!) Others were seen handing out snooker balls, molotov cocktails, and fireworks. I saw two arriving before the riot with wirecutters to cut through the protective mesh and get access to the building blocks etc that were on the street as part of its redesigning but were meshed in. It was no mere demonstration but an orchestrated planned riot. Having seen thugs thrown firebombs, hurl snooker balls at people's heads, throw a concrete slab at an elderly lady nearby, and beat two journalists (one of whose life was saved by the police) the miracle was that no-one was killed. It was clearly a pre-planned set up. What the idiots behind it seem to be dumb to realise is that they gave a tremendous propaganda coup to the original marchers. But then, one should never underestimate the sheer stupidity of the Continuity IRA and their supporters. They achieved the near impossible this time: made loyalist marchers the good guys. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 04:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the blurb on ITN need more fixing ? --PFHLai 04:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the media reports from all sources and all eye-witness accounts (included my own) I've rephrased it to say that a riot was staged to stop a Unionist march, which is the universal view of what happened. The earlier wording implied that a peaceful counter-demonstration had gone out of control. Neither the police, the media nor eye-witnesses saw anything like that. I've also changed the Irish Republican link to point to the organisation that is generally credited with being behind what happened, rather than sending the reader to a generic page in which republicans that had no links to it might end up being held responsible. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 05:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got to say, guys, by the way, that while sometimes WP can be a right pain in the bum (edit wars, vandalism, etc) there are moments where it is so impressive as a source. The work done on WP to cover this riot is really top class. It is for moments like this that I joined WP. I do know from a friend in a British station that they are using us to get a feel for what happened, as they didn't have anyone there and are just getting snippets of info from AP etc. They are reading our stuff to get background and were very impressed. We had better information than the news agencies. And when they double-checked the facts with their own reporter (who flew in later) he told them we were spot on. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Now, I really think it's pushing it a bit far to link to Republican Sinn Féin alone, considering the amount of yobs totally unconnected to RSF who joined in the mayhem. If RSF's to be linked to, then don't pipe the link; otherwise, change it back to Irish Republicanism. Also, the riots page has been moved to 2006 Dublin riots at any rate. --Kwekubo 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The word pictured is in the wrong place. The picture is of a banknote, not a Kenyan president. --Heron 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Either someone reacted very quickly, or the problem fixed itself. It looks right now. --Heron 19:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Whats this doing on the main page? I am hard pressed to think of something less newsworthy out of all the various recent events...

http://news.google.com

Sam Spade 21:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• According to Golbez's edit summary, "I am posting this because I am annoyed that no one else has interacted on the candidates page, or with this article. Is this WP:POINT? Maybe. Or maybe this will get the article cleaned up." Feel free to add another item to the Template, possibly replacing this one with something more important. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-2 21:34

I can't, I'm not an admin, but Bush's trip to India, or the Bird Flu concerns in Europe would be good candidates. Sam Spade 21:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You know where the Candidates page is. Use it. And I find it far more newsworthy than many other things we put on there (like the short-lived $10 bill thing, and the proposal to mention some nationless Liberal Democrats leadership thing). ITN is not just what is on CNN or BBC. --Golbez 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I really don't think changes to the leadership of a relatively minor UK political party actaully important enough to be on ITN--nixie 03:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, but it's my policy not to remove others' additions to ITN (unless really really bad). We're all admins here. --Golbez 05:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I posted the UK bit. To me, the LibDems are right on the threshold as the third party. I find it notable enough -- I wouldn't have posted if the party were smaller. I was quite happy with the good contents in the relevant pages. Furthermore, I can't stand having the police raid in Kenya as the top news item. -- PFHLai 22:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not, but I would have replaced Dushanbe synagogue if I were. Its clearly not even significant enough to result in a decent wikipedia article (not even a single image), much less the front page in the news box. I read the news several times aday, and yet had never heard of this until I saw it here. I went to read the wikipedia article, and was astounded that such athing made the main page. Hence my voicing these concerns here (the appropriate forum, I believe?)

I again request that amore significant news story replace this, something like Bush's historic trip to India, Pakistan and Afganistan, or the bird flu outbreak in europe. Sam Spade 12:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You know where the Candidates page is. Use it. --Golbez 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I also want to add that quite often very newsworthy items don't/won't get posted on the MainPage because Wikipedia does not have a decent article about it or the articles aren't adequately updated in time. ITN is a place on the MainPage to feature well updated wikipages, not to be used as a news service. If anyone wants anything posted on ITN, please make sure Wikipedia already has the updated news materials. Is there a wikiarticle about Bush's historic trip ? If we do, please post it at Current events first, along with external newslinks, then post it at the candidates page. Thanks. -- PFHLai 22:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No references - should not be on the main page. KI 00:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But what should we replace it with? --mav 00:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Replaced with the story that was deleted to put that one on (the Kenya one). --mav 00:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It came back. The second half appears to be local news to me. I'm considering its removal. -- PFHLai 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it local news? Cape Town is the legislative capital of South Africa, so there is probably some significance to being able to gain a majority there — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-4 16:52

Not really. DC went something like 70% for Kerry in the last US election and you didn't see that deemed a particularly significant aspect of the overall election story. The Tom 19:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add a couple of headlines and remove a couple of entries from {{Did you know}}? The latter is far too long, and this is throwing off the main page candidate's balance. I would do this myself, but I don't want to mess anything up. —David Levy 01:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know about "far too long", but it's not extremely important that the two halves be equal. Can you suggest any stories to add? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 01:17

I updated DYK but left some stale items there to fill up the blank space on MainPage while I search for good stuffs for ITN. For far, nothing. There isn't even a section for news headlines from Saturday on Current events to choose from. Anyway, whoever adds anything new to ITN, please also remove some from the DYK -- the bottom three are old. Thanks. -- PFHLai 01:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the main page candidate uses a different layout (with "Did you know..." on the left). As a result, while adding these extra items balanced the columns on the current main page, it had the opposite effect on the main page candidate. I would hate for people to vote against it because they believe that this was caused by a flaw in the new design.

The two versions have "In the news" on the right, so shifting some of the text over to this section would balance both. I noticed the scarcity of suggested headlines, and I have no experience editing this section. Would AT&T's announced buyout of BellSouth qualify? It's mentioned in both articles, but not extensively. —David Levy 01:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I might stick in the Oscars later tonight if I can't anything, provided that the relevant pages are updated. -- PFHLai 01:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Can the 78th Academy Awards be linked in the Main Page "In the news" template? -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C]   05:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it ... -- PFHLai 05:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Linked. -- PFHLai 05:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

right|100px

Can the main-page picture be changed to this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ganeshk (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2006 March 7(UTC).

Is this representative of Varanasi ? How about Image:Benares (Varanasi, India) - 1922.jpg (left) ? -- PFHLai 17:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

left|100px

Would someone change today's Dutch flag in the main page news section to the logo of the Dutch Labour Party Partij van de Arbeid. I think that image is more appropriate to the news fact? Ilse@ 09:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do it. There is a general policy against the use of fairuse or copyrighted images on MainPage. --PFHLai 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

While the NASA and UN stories were both released today, it is clear that the findings by Cassini were known well before today, since the current issue of Science already has a story about it (and the journal has a lengthy peer review process). On the other hand, the UN fund was specifically launched today; whereas the general media are just happening to get around to the NASA story today. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-9 21:52

Fair enough. The Science article, while written and peer-reviewed, was subject to a release embargo, so I suppose we could split hairs about the definition of "known". In any case, I'm fine with UN on top. The Tom 22:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

rv overshortening (while I understand it's bloating the new page draft, it's got to work firstly with the current page) [edit summary by The Tom 22:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)]

The guidelines page indicates that the template should contain "3–5" entries, so I reduced the number from seven to four. I originally intended to leave five, but that would have required the arbitrary removal of one March 7 entry (and not the other).

I realize that the "3–5" figure needn't be strictly adhered to, but both versions of the main page were lopsided at the time. —David Levy 01:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what resolution you're working at.. Right now the main page is lopsided at 1200x1024, and removing 3 more items would make it ridiculously skewed. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-10 02:01

This occurred yesterday (UTC). Today's featured article summary is much longer. —David Levy 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The MRO spacecraft is not in orbit, yet. The current wording is premature and/or slightly misleading. Awolf002 18:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please change the news item to,

NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (pictured) reaches the planet Mars and will soon start its orbital insertion maneuver.

- Ganeshk (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)