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 23:02 on 26 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

• No image? @Mattximus: It's quite unfortunate that no image exists on the worm. I see this was mentioned at the FAC by @Nikkimaria, and that it appears there may be none freely licensed available. Still, is it really possible to say that this is one of our best articles when it has no visual depiction of the animal it's about? This is made worse by the TFA, since the image is of an entirely different creature, which leads any reader to assume that the article will be about that other creature. Sdkb ^talk 04:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I went through the same thought process. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree that if there's no image of the organism concerned we shouldn't have an image. The current situation is very confusing IMHO. @TFA coordinators can we remove it and just have no image, as we sometimes do in other cases?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "is it really possible to say that this is one of our best articles when it has no visual depiction of the animal it's about": Yes, of course it is. We're constricted by our ridiculously constrictive rules on images which lack any common sense on the point, but that doesn't stop it being a top quality article.
  "can we remove it and just have no image: yes. I suspect it was added because we sometimes get complaints when there's no image at all, even if there are some of secondary importance in the article. If someone can remove it, please do so. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Done thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• It seems to me entirely appropriate to illustrate both article and blurb with the host species of this parasite. It has no other known host and one of the interesting aspects of the parasite is that it has this unusual host. The host will be unfamiliar to most readers and of interest to them. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Then you will have to get the policies and guidelines surrounding the use of non-free images changed, because at the moment it is not possible. Policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". The fact that the worm still exists and it is, therefore, technically possible to obtain an image, which means we cannot use a non free one. And no, JMCHutchinson, we could not include an image with the blurb with a non-free image; that falls under a different part of the policy, but it's still policy. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think you misread the above comment. --58.8.159.59 (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, indeed, you have completely misread what I wrote and accused me of advocating copyright violation. SchroCat, please could you strike your comment or change to whom you are addressing it. Thanks. JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  You are right: I did misread it, and apologies for that. I won't strike it, as there is no "accusation" of anything. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Featured articles sometimes simply don't have images. For instance, I've written a featured biographical article whose subject I could not find an image of for the life of me. In this case, barring the idea that Mary E. Spencer Jones happens to have photographs lying around which she didn't publish to the journal article and would wish to release under a Commons-compatible license; that Springer would be willing to waive their copyright to a free-for-commercial-usage license; or that someone wants to track down a South African mole, examine the rectum for worms, capture images via SEM, meticulously ensure the worm is actually Heptamegacanthus, and then provide it under a Commons-compatible license, there's nothing that can be done here. I think it still doesn't stop it from being a top-quality article. It totally sucks, but I think 'Featured' should denote professional-level quality, and I imagine even Britannica would have a rough time of this without greasing the wheels ($$$) to license the image. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  The lack of an image is usually not really an error, it's working with what we got. There are areas in which we do not have a luxury of images. If FAC passes them, unless there are exceptional circumstances dictating don't run the article, we look at them as eligible to run Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree here that the lack of an image doesn't automatically fail FAC 3. One thing I might do is reach out the author to hear her thoughts and see if she may have something, as in review of both featured article nominations, nobody explicitly mentions having done so (although this is suggested at two points by Esculenta. Update: I have since contacted the author and am awaiting a reply. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

• As Toadspike has pointed out, the current layout of ITN causes confusion. The positioning of the image of Yoav Gallant makes it seem like the portrait depicts the newly elected Lithuanian Prime Minister. It would be better if we had File:Gintautas Paluckas VRK.jpg or as a second alternative to that, a portrait of Netanyahu (who is more recognizable and less likely to be mistaken for the new Lithuanian PM by a casual observer). Flip^andFlopped ツ 01:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• That file lacks evidence of permission. Knowing which blurb the picture is linked to is what (pictured) is for, and there’s no evidence that anyone is confused. Stephen 01:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have occasionally thought the image pertains to the subject of the top hook at first glance, until I looked closer. And that's as someone who actually knows how ITN works.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose that's why WP:ITNPICT says the picture should be for the uppermost blurb, when possible, but I suspect that stems from a time when images did not have captions. FWIW, "On this day" often has a picture not associated with its top-most item. —Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  This juxtapositioning issue has been extant for decades. -- Sca (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's now a cropped image at File:Gintautas Paluckas by Augustas Didzgalvis (cropped).jpg. Could we use this one instead? Toadspike [Talk] 15:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Done I’ve swapped the image. Schwede66 15:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think we should link International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli figures, given that the article is about the news story at hand. — Knightoftheswords 21:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Knightoftheswords281: you can suggest a change at WP:ITN/C. The present hook was as agreed, and the article vetted accordingly. I think the proposed article might not cover it fully anyway, as Mohammed Deif is not an Israeli figure.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 29)

Monday's FL

(December 2)

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.

General discussion

Skyscraper

Why does it say "that a Skyscraper won the Epsom Derby of 1789" when Skyscraper was the name of the horse? It make it sound like it is a literal skyscraper. Bzweebl (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that was the intention. Personally, I think it's a bit annoying when DYK does that (outside of April 1). Aside from being gimmicky and misleading, it waters down to novelty of the April 1 hooks. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And here I was, about to comment that I was looking forward to the resumption of the same debate on April 1. You beat me to it, Tariqabjotu. (Incidentally, I disagree with you, in that I think the is-it-a-vase-or-two-faces approach is never out of place. Keeps our cognitive abilities flexible.) - Tenebris 04:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.6 (talk)

Except the indefinite article before a proper name implies uncertainty. Might as well have written "Skyscraper possibly won what may be known as the Epsom Derby, maybe in 1789 or maybe not". Hooks shouldn't be worded like that on days other than 1 April. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Job well done

Most front page clips are of considerably higher than average quality, but special congratulations are due to those who are responsible for the OTD blurb "1987 – Light from the supernova SN 1987A ... reached the Earth." A welcome piece of precise wording! - Tenebris 04:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.6 (talk)

Not sure if this is snark or not. — foxj 06:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) What a cynical age; and (2) is genuine positive feedback really so rare? (And yet I do understand. In my experience, most people are quick to complain, but rarely as quick to compliment. So much of what masquerades as positivism these days is really cheerleading and/or determined blindness on one side, and sarcasm on the other. How can assuming the possibility of snark upfront be anything other than sheer self defence?) - Tenebris 13:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Read what you wrote again, I think you'll forgive my cynicism.
2. Well, yes, especially here... :( — foxj 13:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into a debate about context and perspective, can we just take it as read that I meant it at face value? - Tenebris 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.191 (talk)

Yes, and thank you. :) By the way, that precision was introduced by User:Howcheng (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't even remember doing that... heh. —howcheng {chat} 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

I apologize if this isn't the place to post this. If it is not then it would be nice if someone could point me in the right direction. A tool I absolutely love on the main page is the random article section. However I sometimes find it a bit broad. I think it would be great to be able to do a random article for different categories that you could select. So it would be a random article, but in a category you are more interested in or are in the mood to read about. Art, history, politics, sports, etc, whatever categories could be thought of and decided upon. I'm not sure how feasible this would be, but I thought I would toss the idea out there. Thanks. --Politicsislife (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'Random link' link in the navigation menu on the left-hand side of the screen performs the function you have in mind; I think it also works for non-category pages. Hope this helps, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your 'Random link' is not default. It's made by this line in User:Black Falcon/vector.js:

importScript('User:GregU/randomlink.js');

See more at User talk:GregU/randomlink.js and Wikipedia:Random. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh... I don't remember adding that. Anyway, thank you for pointing that out. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Christian Wulff

Shouldn't the photo of Christian Wulff be located adjacent to the blurb about him? In its present location, it looks like he's happy about the train crash in Argentina ... Rani nurmai (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. —David Levy 06:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

copy vio on main page - again

Does anyone actually bother checking the articles that are placed in the ITN section? The article 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, in addition to being badly written (in the parts that were not copyvios) half consisted of stuff copy-pasted from various news agency reports.VolunteerMarek 05:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You realise of course that you are welcome to check the stuff coming through WP:ITN/C yourself? — foxj 07:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is of course exactly what I did here - and removed the most blatant copyvios from the article. However, the fact that I personally am unable to devote enough time to fix everything that's wrong with Wikipedia is no excuse for ITN to be putting copyvios on the front page.VolunteerMarek 20:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to discuss it before the sub-projects have committed themselves to it: April Fools' Day

We've got 5 weeks before it is upon us, so rather than the annual brouhaha over the dedication of the Main Page to silliness in honour of the date. Personally, I consider it entirely unencyclopaedic, totally disproportionate, and without parallel in any other publication that preserves ambitions of being taken seriously. I know others feel differently.

Every year recently, we have had material prepared, arguments against, defence on the grounds of past practice and on the grounds that work has gone into the preparation, confusion from readers on the day, and complaints or gratitude afterwards. Whether one is for or against the practice, the fact that it makes such a large impact on our Main Page renders it worthy of timely discussion. I hope that the subheadings I propose are helpful. I suggest that we should try to have committed ourselves one way or the other by 18th March: 3 weeks from today, 2 weeks before the fateful date. Kevin McE (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know a way to link to previous versions for comparison? Since the main page is populated by templates, I can't just browse the history to see what it looked like on April 1, 2011. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

For the reference, the discussions and pages from past years are collected at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page. As a rule of a thumb, TFA is always themed (this year we have an excellent article Pigeon photography, where the text can be written in totally serious way and it would still look like a prank - what is actually what we are trying to achieve), DYK is already collecting items that can be written in an unusual way, there has not been much of a discussion at TFP currently (though there's a funny picture every year) and ITN varies from a year to a year. Because of its nature, we cannot prepare items well in advance. Some years, the whole ITN box was filled with funny news, sometimes just with one or two uncommon and some years it keeps serious. --Tone 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• As someone who participated in promoting and writing them, I have no idea what you mean by "TFA is always themed". Today's featured article (TFA) is one article. Do you mean the rest of the mainpage is themed? TFA has nothing to do with that, and the TFA isn't even always chosen in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I expressed myself in a bad way. What I wanted to say was that in the last couple of years, we've always tried to find an article with an unusual topic or at least something where a humorous caption could be written (Ima Hogg, Museum of Bad Art, etc.). Some of these articles had been previously improved to a FA status with exactly the purpose to be featured on April 1. --Tone 14:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for dedicating whole page

April Fools' pranks are definitely not "without parallel in any other publication that preserves ambitions of being taken seriously". They have a long and noble pedigree [link removed by Art LaPella, because Malwarebytes considers it malware]. They are harmless fun and teach people the value of scepticism.

Of course, Wikipedia should aspire to more than just creating surreal front-page content. Being transparently daft misses the point. It would be good to have items in the different front page boxes that come together to effect a single hoax. --FormerIP (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that pranks are without parallel: I was referring to dedication of the whole front page to it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been highly critical of the implementation of April Fool's Day in the past, but I see nothing wrong with the basic concept. Contrary to FormerIP's comment above, and the misconceptions of some users, AF day is not about perpetrating "hoaxes" on an unsuspecting public, it's about featuring articles with content that looks preposterous when summarized but is in fact accurate. All that really happens on AF day, or which should happen, is that some of the more preposterous-sounding topics are saved up to be featured on the same day, and in that regard I don't see why it should be considered any different from any of the other special days that are featured. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But April Fools' Day is about hoaxes. Just creating nonsense content or misleading blurbs or whatever is a poor substitute. Why bother in the first place? It's like inviting your family round for Christmas dinner and then telling them that, as a vegetarian atheist, you'll be serving beans on toast.--FormerIP (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

April Fools' Day is quite widespread, and the internet has spread awareness of it. Staid and reputable institutions like the BBC celebrate it. I suspect a lot of people look at our Main Page on April Fools' Day specifically to see what we've done for it - do the stats show an uptick on that day? I am not aware that we have ever peddled misinformation, and I think we would both disappoint our readers and take ourselves way too seriously if we didn't continue to have weird and wonderful and hard to believe stuff in all the Main Page sections on April 1, especially Did You Know and Featured Article. Wife selling (English custom) can serve as a model - it's incredible but true. We didn't hoodwink the readers with that FA, we gave them a good chortle over something encyclopedic. This isn't Britannica. We aren't limited to the safe, boring information and those who like their Main Page devoid of shocks can have it back on April 2 - just as those of us who don't observe Christmas got our Main Page back on December 26. WP:NOTPAPER. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We absolutely have peddled misinformation, including hoaxes (e.g. an announcement that Britannica has acquired Wikipedia). We've tried to move away that (in favor of "incredible but true" content), but more and more outright nonsense has been slipping through.

I see no reason not to include unusual subjects (provided that the articles meet our normal criteria, another area in which we've sometimes failed). It's fine if a subject inherently seems unbelievable, but going out of our way to manufacture bizarre blurbs seems forced, unfunny and unprofessional. —David Levy 17:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Britannica hoax and European toilet paper holder, 2005 is the middle ages in internet time. I think even the most anti-AF editors can admit that we've cleaned up our act a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

David Levy and Crisco, could you both please clarify where these "hoaxes" occurred? TFA has always been written in a way that it is not intentionally inaccurate. I'm a bit concerned here that TFA is getting tarnished by some other brush than recent facts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

2005. See Signpost coverage. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to TFA. ITN and DYK are the sections in which most of the problems have arisen, along with edits to Main Page itself. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I acknowledged above that "we've tried to move away that". It hasn't been that bad in a while, but we can do much better than we have in recent years. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• To summarize the Signpost article, for about 12 hours we had "today's featured nihilarticle" which was a hoax. That was April 1, 2005. Agreed with David, we're doing better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe we're doing boringer. I fail to see what's wrong with a hoax FA. FormerIP (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When it appears on the front page of a website "that anyone can edit", it sends the message that "any article could be a hoax" (and encourages users to edit the encyclopedia accordingly). —David Levy 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because that's not how people respond to April Fools' jokes. It just sends the message that, on April 1, the FA could be a hoax. Which is a perfectly OK message. Is there evidence that it has an effect on the editing of WP. Did we go mad for a day in 2005? --FormerIP (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because that's not how people respond to April Fools' jokes.

As I noted, when someone visits Google or YouTube and finds an April Fools' Day joke, they know that it's the joke for that year. Wikipedia is different. "Anyone can edit" it, so if the featured article is a hoax, who knows what else is?

Is there evidence that it has an effect on the editing of WP. Did we go mad for a day in 2005?

Many administrators certainly did. It used to be pandemonium, with random pranks turning up all over the place (even in system messages).

If admins didn't know better, it's safe to assume that many other editors didn't either. And why should they have? The main page showcases examples of how to contribute. Placing nonsense there is an invitation to do so throughout the encyclopedia (if only on 1 April). —David Levy 04:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure having or not having a "joke" Main Page will affect the behaviour of admins and experienced users - there'll be pranks either way. Your point applies to a certain limited subset of newbies; I would suggest that the "it's April Fools so let's vandalize no matter what" group is larger, but YMMV. Also, the featured article isn't a hoax, it's just something a bit more "quirky". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure having or not having a "joke" Main Page will affect the behaviour of admins and experienced users - there'll be pranks either way.

They were significantly more prevalent in the past. FormerIP wants us to return to that (on the basis that the current approach is "boringer").

Your point applies to a certain limited subset of newbies;

No, it really doesn't. If someone sees nonsense on the front page of a website that "anyone can edit", it's downright reasonable for him/her to interpret it as an invitation to join in the fun.

I would suggest that the "it's April Fools so let's vandalize no matter what" group is larger, but YMMV.

This is entirely possible, but there isn't much that we can do about that. We can, however, avoid encouraging vandalism.

Also, the featured article isn't a hoax, it's just something a bit more "quirky".

Indeed, and I've noted in this discussion that I see no problem with that. I'm addressing FormerIP's suggestion that we make it a hoax instead. —David Levy 05:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an established tradition of running articles that look like hoaxes but aren't. Actually running a hoax that is a hoax would be doubly deceptive. And for no particular purpose. The content and the interest garnered by it would be of no use to anyone by the 2nd. Worse, people not aware of, or not familiar with April 1st traditions in general, instead of being surprised by a quirky article, would actually be deceived by intentionally false information.

(That last drawback could be solved by making the hoax so obvious that even a child could spot it, but what would be the point in that? That'd just be tiresome.) APL (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't understand why some editors assume that every culture observes April Fools' Day (and therefore expects false information). I wonder how they would feel about similar behavior on 28 December. —David Levy 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for maintaining standards and style of any other day

I agree strongly with the proposer's argument. It's not a joke any more; it's seriously disruptive to have this silliness thing. Many international readers are unaware of the culturally centric meaning of April Fool's Day; for that reason alone, it should have been disregarded after the first time, years ago, when it might have been a little hoot. Now we've grown up. Last time I looked, other websites and publishers—especially those that expect to be taken seriously—don't go for repeated, predictable, yearly indulgence in this unfunny practice. Tony (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

When these discussions are held, people invariably cite April Fools' day jokes occurring elsewhere. In particular, Google usually is mentioned.
Well, Wikipedia isn't Google, and the context isn't the same. Google's credibility isn't widely challenged. Google creates separate, easily recognizable entities that don't call into question the integrity of its search results. (Some of its other websites, such as YouTube, behave similarly.) The public can point to one special section/element of the site, with the understanding that it's "this year's joke".
This isn't so with Wikipedia. Many already perceive Wikipedia as untrustworthy. When we condone April foolery on the main page, it sends the message to readers and editors alike that we condone it within the encyclopedia as well. Because "anyone can edit", there's no expectation of demarcation (e.g. "this year's joke", clearly separate from everything else), regardless of how much effort is invested in the special content's organization. ("If this nonsense is on the main page, it could be anywhere." / "Cool, I'll add some gags too!") We make Wikipedia itself come across as a joke.
In recent years, we've sought to place "strange but true" content on the main page for 1 April. I appreciate these efforts, but the results seem to have steadily declined in quality. More and more, we've been setting aside the various sections' rules, thereby contradicting our pledge to not compromise their normal standards. In many instances, the wordings used have gone far beyond "misleading due to intentional ambiguity", instead landing at "outright lies". And now FormerIP suggests that we attempt to perpetrate an actual hoax. (What a great way to improve Wikipedia's reputation for reliability.)
As noted above, April Fools' Day isn't a worldwide observance, nor is it universally enjoyed within the countries in which it's recognized. Many people would very much appreciate a serious encyclopedia on 1 April. The foolery will be widely available elsewhere. —David Levy 15:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about AF day being misused for "gags" (usually bad ones) and other nonsense, however, again I see this as a quality control problem, not a problem with the concept itself. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The endeavor's quality control seems to have sharply declined in recent years. And even when we've managed to meet our goal, I'm not confident that this is clear to readers. We know that the main page's content is "strange but true", but it comes across as nonsense (and likely encourages the addition of actual nonsense to the encyclopedia). In my view, this is not in Wikipedia's best interests.
I don't oppose the selection of unusual topics (particularly for TFA and TFP), but I believe that we should abandon the idea of deliberately incorporating misleading wording (which has been leaning more and more toward outright falsehoods). —David Levy 16:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example of these falsehoods, and where they occurred? To my knowledge, it has never been the case at WP:TFA-- or at least not since I've been around. I can't speak for DYK, or ITN, or OTD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to TFA. ITN and DYK are the sections in which most of the problems have arisen, along with edits to Main Page itself. I can find some examples when I have the time. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry; as long as it's clear that it's not TFA we're talking about, you need not take time to find examples. I'm aware there are/were problems in other areas, which is unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Many people would very much appreciate a serious encyclopedia on 1 April." Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to use the encyclopedia for normal purposes that day. Some of our past April Fools' Day main page content has conveyed (albeit unintentionally) "Today is Nonsense Day! Feel free to vandalize articles, and don't expect an actual encyclopedia until tomorrow." —David Levy 02:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Reasons for maintaining standards" is a misleading subject heading (and such is the problem of poorly formulated RFC's). There has never been an April Fools TFA that was substandard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have made several replies that are specific to TFA, but this discussion involves all 5 daily MP elements. Maybe it has not been the case with TFA (where the main April 1 criticisms have revolved around taste and decency), but there have undoubtedly been hooks in at least some of the other sections written on April 1 that have deliberately obscured the facts that they purport to communicate, and that is not the standard that those sections normally aspire to. If you wish to propose a different section heading, feel free. Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

TFA is part of the mainpage. TFA does not lower standards. The subject heading is misleading. I have been vaguely aware of some problems with other mainpage entries, but want to be sure we're not tarring TFA with that brush. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We're discussing the main page as a whole, not implying that every section has been problematic in the past. —David Levy 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I disagree with the suggestion that TFA has not clearly mislead. I presume we're referring to the blurb, since AFAIK, the problem is limited to the main page (and this page is about the main page). The articles themselves are usually up to whatever standard is normal. (For DYK, I presume it's often higher since they have more time to work on them and they likely get more attention.)

And if we look at the blurbs, I would suggest it's rather unobvious from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2011 that the Fanny scratching was refering to the alleged scratchings of s ghost. (Note that this isn't comparable to a case like George Washington.)

Similar with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2009, it says "prompt viewers to appeal loudly for divine intervention". By checking out the our version [1], I can only presume this is referring to 'the art must have an "Oh my God" quality', but I think it's quite questionable whether the former is an accurate summation (for most people, saying oh my god ins uch a context clearly isn't going to be a genuine appeal for divine intervention).

Similarly Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008, mentions her being a 'ostrich jockey' and then goes on to mention how she rode to Haiwaii. It's not clear to me what the 'rode to Hawaii' bit is referring to even having read the article [2] (she went to Hawaii sure, but I'm not sure how she 'rode' there, perhaps part of the journey involved a horse but this isn't mentioned which it shouldn't be since it seems beyond trivial). But besides that, while there is a story about her and ostriches, AFACT she wasn't an ostrich jockey It seems all she did was mount one once due to a challenge from one of her brothers. I presume the manner of her fathers death is accurate but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article on her at all (it just mentions he dies) and even the article on her father just says he died as a result of railroad accident. Also while the wikilink may clarify what is meant by the 'doctor', it seems highly likely to mislead in the context without hovering over the link. (It's often controversial whether or not to refer to someone who only has an honourary doctorate as a 'doctor', and it doesn't seem clear that the subject herself even referred to herself as one. And definitely saying someone was a future doctor, who nursed three family members early in life would strongly suggest they were a medical doctor.) The same with saying she lived in government housing when we are referring to the governors mansion.

And from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2007 our article [3], doesn't seem to say 'and the nominator forgot to tell him about it'. It may have been a joke nominator and if so, perhaps GW was never made aware of it, but that doesn't mean the nominator forgot to tell him, there's a fair chance the nominator intentionally did not tell him.

And from 2008 to 2011 (I didn't check earlier then 2007), including Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2010 (which I didn't mention before because it doesn't have anything which I noticed that's likely to mislead, I think it's questionable whether any of these adequately summarise the article, which we normally do an okay job of since the blurb is a reworked WP:LEDE. E.g. 2011 I don't need to say more. 2010 doesn't mention the legal situation. 2009 isn't too bad but because it aims to be funny, it still features somewhat trivially things (as basically all the blurbs do) compared to a better summary. Similarly 2008 fails to properly mention her support, work and restoration of antiques, her philantrophy (it seems clear she did a lot more then giving away her sibling's stuff) and her musical interests and work. I excluded 2007 because it isn't too bad although as with 2009 it tends to the trivial (a probably joke nomination for president he may not have even been aware of).

I'm not complaining about these examples. Personally it's not something I really care about. But even if DYK etc are worse (I don't know if this is true or not), it seems clear the TFA blurb is also misleading and doesn't follow the normal standards of summarising the article in whatever space is available.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of these blurbs. The "fanny scratching" gag was particularly unfortunate, given the meaning of the word "fanny" in British English (which the British editors who proposed the wording, but not all of the American editors who supported it, knew) and its application to a child (until Raul was informed of the UK connotation and removed it).

But yes, some of the items appearing at ITN and DYK have been far worse. Editors of those sections have linked to articles not meeting the usual criteria, sometimes via gags invented out of whole cloth (i.e. not even inspired by the articles' content). Franky, it's embarrassing. —David Levy 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Although this discussion mainly concerns the main page, since people are concerned about other parts of the encylopaedia, you may be interested in Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2011, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2010, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2008, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2007, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2006, Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2005. Most of this happens in parts outside the encylopaedia proper like user pages and xFDs. (Well there is a lot of stuff in articles, but I think we prefer not to memorialise it.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Compromise proposals

• FWIW Do an april fools day FA, leave ITN, DYK and on this day unchanged. Banner the joke FA page to clearly label it as such. Remember this is en.wikipedia.org and most en countries have a clue about April fools day. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A "Joke FA PAge"? I don't believe that Wikipedia has ever done that. Certainly not in recent years.

The April fools' FA's are real articles about things that appear to be jokes but are completely real. (Perhaps with a few key sentences omitted from the summary that would have made that clear, but ideally not.) APL (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• We had the European toilet paper holder in 2005. That was marked as a hoax, but you had to understand German to know that it was marked as such. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Who is "we"? Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2005, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2006, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2007, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2009, etc. There has never been a "joke" FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We is the English Wikipedia as a whole. An examination of the edit history shows that the addition was not through the normal TFA promotion process but by an impromptu reworking of the Main page code.[4] There are a whole series of similar Main page "tweaks" that occurred in April 2005. If memory serves, the "tweaks" even included modifying the control files on Meta to relabel the tab names used by the Monobook skin. --Allen3 ^talk 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Allen3; that's hard to follow, but again, not part of TFA, just for the record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The blurb is rewritten in a completely different, more joke-like way. compare the original blurb for George Washington to the shorter, lighter, more humorous one. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at 2k11 and it was fanny scratching in London for FA. Very funny. The DYK on the other hand, at least for me, was annoying. I clicked Rudyard Kipling and I find out, ha ha, the SS Rudyard Kipling is at the bottom of the sea. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW2 how about building an april fools main page and linking to it from April 1st from the "On this date" section. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Lighten up, Francis!

Yes, some of the DYK jokes end up seeming stupid. Yes, some people have a serious problem with being, well, too serious. My suggestion? Relax, have fun and roll with the jokes. Doing so will not make our image or "credibility" problems any worse. The rest of the world has a sense of humour, no reason why we can't. Resolute 15:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed on the claim that "Doing so will not make our image or "credibility" problems any worse. I, and many with me seriously believe that it does. /81.170.148.21 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What just happened to Wikipedia?

The webpage formatting just changed. It looks... "incomplete". It was normal a few minutes ago. Can somebody fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constructman (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not much to see at the server admin log on wikitech. Was probably a failed DDOS attempt (there was one on the 13th of this month on Bugzilla).Jasper Deng (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how but the Monobok CSS file fails to load. The other skins are not affected, but once in awhile the CSS file is gone or something and it looks very bare and incomplete unless I switch skins. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)