Talk:Main Page

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 22:41 on 15 December 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

Proposed by the American Legion as a fundraiser for the 100th anniversary of Texas independence from Mexico” add possessive apostrophe to make it Texas’ LukeSurl ^t c 15:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The same possessive issue came up yesterday and it was agreed that the original version was correct. Partially on the basis of this Ngram. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks ungrammatical. Secretlondon (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Problem with the Ngram is that "Texas independence from Mexico" could be used in contexts where Texas is not used as a possessive (per Wiktionary, the adjective form is Texas; Texan is only for the people), whereas the sentence in the summary clearly calls for a possessive.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

According to MOS:'S, this should be Texas's instead of Texas'. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

President of South Korea Yoon Suk Yeol is impeached ... Speaker Woo Won-shik signing the impeachment resolution: Counter to MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Moreover, readers have a basic understanding of what a president of a country is, and it's anyways linked from Yoon and the impeachment page. The speaker isnt even core to the blurb. (I'm never clear whether there's an ITN IAR rule for this or not)—Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed by Amakuru. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(December 20)

Monday's FL

(December 16, tomorrow)

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

Punctuation @ In the News

In the first item, the sentence reads, "...a main shopping street Cyprus' divided capital of Nicosia." peanut butter jelly time, peanut butter jelly time, peanut butter jelly peanut butter jelly and a baseball bat

In any dictionary you care to reference, whether it's the O.E.D. or Webster's, the rule dealing with the formation of the possessive in English states "add an apostrophe and the letter 's' to singular nouns and names". A few exceptions are commonly made for Biblical and mythological names (Jesus' or Zeus'), but the vast majority of words in English should be handled accordingly. This rule reflects the way the genitive case in English changed between the time of Chaucer and Shakespeare (Chaucer's 'my lordes warre' became 'my lord's war'), and the way most people pronounce the possessive even today.

I realise that a so-called 'convention' has crept into the copy-editing protocols of many publications that eliminates the final 's' for the possessive of singular nouns ending in 's'. This lunacy has infected even such august rags as Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal. To me, the lone apostrophe just doesn't 'read' correctly, because it doesn't reflect how one actually says the word in question!

All I can say is: there's no justification for the perpetuation of ignorance, whatever the source. If all the periodicals in the English-speaking world were to adopt this bogus practice (and I'm happy to say, not all of them have), it still doesn't make it right. Cbrodersen (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanna have something changed? See #Main Page error reports above. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Spot on! Darn the torpedos and full steam ahead!!! I for one agree that this linguistically cognitive crap consists of nothing but communication conundrums and should be corrected. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Linguistically cognitive crap consist[ing] of nothing but communication conundrums" that should be "corrected"--unbridled alliteration at its finest! Love it!! Cbrodersen (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cbroderson and 68.143.88.2, my new heroes! May the 's always be used! I already requested a change, but someone ignorant in punctuation said either way is acceptable. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If the manual of style says it's okay then it's okay. Either reach consensus to change the manual of style (which should take place there not here), or accept that it is okay. We are not going to fix an 'error' when our own manual of style says it's not an error. The MOS is there for a reason and that reason isn't so it can be arbirarily ignored Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you're correct--this talk page is not the place to make the correction. But the MOS is flat-out wrong, and I believe the history of English grammar (and the dictionaries) are the irrefutable authorities on the matter. It should be noted that Wikipedia contains many far more serious errors than this waiting to be fixed. Most people don't give a rat's ass about grammar, and when confronted with their mistake, will defend their error to the death, or accuse the person who pointed out the mistake of being an 'anal-retentive pedant'. Cbrodersen (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no personal opinion on this 'error' except to note the MOS doesn't agree with you it is an error. If you were to try to change the MOS, I probably wouldn't be involved in that. As you have already acknowledged, this is not the place to change the MOS and if the MOS is flat out wrong, then it has to be changed. Adhoc changing 'errors' resulting from a flawed MOS is clearly not the way to go and having long arguments on irrelevant places which will achieve nothing, whenever this comes up, is also pointless. Since you seem to be a bit of an expert on this matter, I don't personally get why you don't just try to reach consensus to change the MOS. If you do, then it will be simple to fix this error in the future and ultimately this error will be removed from the whole of wikipedia over time. If you try but fail, then you just have to accept that despite your opinion, there is no consensus for your views of English grammar in this particular matter. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"This rule reflects the way the genitive case in English changed between the time of Chaucer and Shakespeare (Chaucer's 'my lordes warre' became 'my lord's war')"... "If [everyone] were to adopt this bogus practice... it still doesn't make it right."

So which one is it? English is allowed to change or it isn't? Maybe it should be "Cypruses". ;) Cigarette (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're basically talking through your hat. Dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's are the authorities governing grammar and usage in English (despite what the MOS may say). Currently, the primary rule for the formation of the possessive in both these reference works is as I have stated above--there are no 'changes' underfoot that I am aware of, unless one feels that the preponderance of errors made by illiterate, uneducated users of English on the Internet and elsewhere is justification for making a 'change'.

I, for one, feel that if these grammatical dunces can't get with the program, then they should just 'get out of the way'. There are a lot more pressing problems in the world to solve, and I've already expended more energy on this subject than I care to.Cbrodersen (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing, in essence, for prescription over description, and toward the proposition that certain long-standing grammatical rules, at least as codified by two chosen (although prominent) reference works, are immutable. One may very reasonably so argue—I, in fact, was once exceedingly sympathetic to the argument you advance—but it is the consensus of the community that our MoS properly reflects what the community, in their considered judgment, understand to be "proper English", and one, even if he/she is unquestionably correct, does well to quibble with that understanding at WT:MOS (or perhaps WP:RD/L) and not at an insular page. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather then accusing people of being 'grammatical dunces' who can't 'get with the program' and giving long off-topic arguments here, I suggest again you take it to the MOS. So far, from what I can tell, no one has defended the way the MOS is written in this particular matter, simply pointed out that it is the way it is written, so you are basically arguing with no one. If you had diverted your energy wasted here to actually trying to change the MOS, for all we know it might have been changed by now. Or perhaps not... At least you would have achieved more then going on a long off-topic rant about an issue no one has tried to debate with you Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you see here - http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50010512?query_type=word&queryword=apostrophe&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=SHad-jOMw2B-17911&hilite=50010512 (you need a subscription, however the contents of the web page should be available in any full OED under the second sense of apostrophe), you will see that Moses' uses only an apostrophe. It is widely accepted that Greco-Roman names of people and places of historical notability ending in 's' use a single hanging apostrophe: Socrates', Jesus', Cyprus', Zeus'. I really take exception to the fact that you've hidden behind the OED to make yourself look all-knowing, when in fact you are wrong. Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this punctuation issue can drag on for so long. The blurb on ITN now says "...Nicosia, the divided capital of Cyprus", hopefully avoiding the punctuation issue completely. I hope everyone is happy and can get back to writing encyclopedic articles (and more DYK candidates to nominate....) --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should all check the OED more often on other topics, too, such as the pronunciation guide for "aluminium", and you'll see how wrong Americans have been saying it all these years..... With respect to the usage of the 's termination, may I point out that it is a general rule, and, as such, is affected by a number of exceptions. Again, if you check either OED or Collins Dictionary in their entirety, maybe you'll get to see that, in fact, nouns ended in s only need to have an apostrophe added in order to denote posession, and only in the case of persons' names can an "s" be, optionally, added after the punctuation sign. So, enough of gratuitously insulting the rest of us, thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.39.161 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We respect many local variations of English in English Wikipedia. The use of American English is okay here. --74.13.130.186 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• So it's okay for language to evolve as long as it's not happening right before our eyes? The changes in the genitive case between Middle English and Modern is okay, but Modern English has to remain static? Where is that written? -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetics

I've just been browsing through the alternate wikipedias and I've noticed that the Italian version looks great and makes ours look like a joke. Better skins, icons, layout and a far more noticeable title. The English main page is in desperate need of an update. N. Roberts 07:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree adamantly. I think the Italian one is a bit crowded due to a lack of padding, but I like how there are buttons that change color, and some just look better. I like the design now, but I recall visiting a Wikipedia with an intricate design (I think it was one of the Cyrillic countries). Found it, it's the Serbian Wikipedia (http://sr.wikipedia.org/). Also, I would like to see a space between the top bar and the page title, like the French Wikipedia. The thing with the French Wikipedia is that the editors there know padding very well and they use it to their advantage. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't like the Italian design. It takes far too long to load, and I think that's why this page isn't as overly complex, for easy access for a, say, dailup connection. Sorry to disappoint, like. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you, too. Some are over the top; I'm fine with the page it is now. Another cool idea to save space is to do a tab system like the Catalonian Wikipedia. I don't care for the buttons they have, but it's a good idea. I like ours for its pure design; it strikes me as pure. In fact, I used that to makeover WikiProject Hawaii. I would put a little more padding, though. It looks so close to the edge. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The box at the top looks bland to me, though. I would bold "Welcome to Wikipedia"... and put "There are..." before the content of the third line. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but there's nothing I can do about it, unfortunately. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Serbian wiki looks pretty good, but I don't think it's as useful, considering you have to scroll way down for OTD and DYK, while stuff like the other project links are nearer to the top. Also, they don't have a Featured Pic. So pretty much, I like their style but not the layout. My only real issue with our main page is the bland and dead space around the header. The individual templates all look fine, but the top of the page could use some work. Random89 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives, specifically Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Italian-style). Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft (Italian Inspired) was a draft in the redesign 2 years ago. They were too colorful and unprofessional for many editor's tastes.

Possibly a link to Main Page alternatives should be added to the header here, as people keep asking about redesigns, but it isn't linked from here currently. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Something to add to Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Is there some way to make the Main Page look better?, perhaps? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Italians look great, with better skin, have a good eye for design and make the rest of us look like a joke" (I paraphrase somewhat). Tell us something we don't already know. Annatto (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Add interwiki

To Belarus main page: be: & Belarus classical: be-x-old: Thanks. Julie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.96.210 (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Only Wikipedias with at least 20,000 articles and a minimum depth of "5" are included, otherwise the list would be very long and not very useful to an English reader. Belarus only has 10 499 articles so far, even though it meets the depth requirement. Classical only has 9 011 articles, though it also has a decent depth. To see sizes and depths of Wikipedias, chack out meta:List of Wikipedias. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, what do you mean by 'depth'? -- Naerii 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The "depth" calculation has something to do with total number of edits and number of articles, it's a mathematical formula. It is explained at meta:List of Wikipedias Random89 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is explained at the linked page, meta:List of Wikipedias. I'll try to explain here, but you'll be probably be better off reading the three lines one the original page.
The depth is calculated as: (Edits/Articles) × (Non-Articles/Articles) × (1 − Stub-ratio). This was introduced to identify Wikipedias such as the Volapük Wikipedia. These wikis just run bots to create stubs from templates, e.g. translating town infoboxes from other languages. Therefore, these Wikipedias might have a huge number of articles, but a low depth. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article: "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989", please

Could we please add the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in a high priority position to appear in the featured article section? Reason: China selectively censors certain pages, would need to censor the homepage to remain consitent, but then it could no longer say they are not censoring wikipedia. Thanks! Enobeno (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That particular article isn't a featured article now, but it used to be, and was featured on the Main Page already. Any given article can only be the today's featured article once.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It already showed up yesterday. The 1976 one at least. 128.227.127.134 (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles appear on the On This Day/Selected anniversaries section of the main page regardless of whether or not they are Wikipedia featured articles. The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article is scheduled to appear on the main page on June 4 to mark the anniversary of the army's crackdown. The Goddess of Democracy is scheduled to go on May 30. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I believe putting up an FA just to provoke a government is silly. All it would cause would be that Chinese people would be unable to access the Main Page. Though I'd have no objection to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 appearing as a regular FA (which it already has, so it can not again) I'd be against prioritising it simply for the sake of provocation of a government. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course another related previously non TFA FA could go up and presuming there is a request for a specific relevant date, I'm sure Raul will consider it. For example, if Goddess of Democracy is a FA by 30 May 2009, I'm sure the 20th anniversary will have a good chance of being significant enough for it to be included. I would likewise oppose anyone who wants to put it up simply to provoke the Chinese government, but will probably agree with putting it up for a significant date. In any case, given the relative rarity of TFAs on China I think any article will have a good chance of being TFAed fairly fast Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been silent about FA lately because they have been much inproved. Yeah!--Pensil (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

YFZ_Ranch rescue

I believe this should be in the front page news. There's already been 401 children and 133 woman removed, it involves a major underexposed issue (polygamy) and also child abuse. It's also already recieved international attention, with Xinhua and ABC (Australian) both publishing articles on their websites about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.39.245 (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try WP:ITN/C for In The News suggestions. I will copy this there for you. Random89 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Onion Bias

I've never added a fluffy new section to Talk:Main Page before, but wow, look at Suleiman's giant friggin' onion hat. Put that massive thing on Ima Hogg and you've got a lethal April Fool's combination. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And here I was expecting a shitstorm concerning the Feature Picture.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A very long TFA means people with small screens won't see the FP unless they scroll down on the main page. Less visibility -> Less complaining. Regardless of what image is down there. --74.14.23.128 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I too am rather surprised at the lack of comment about the FP here or at Image talk:Minstrel PosterBillyVanWare edit.jpg. howcheng {chat} 19:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! --Borris the Big Brown Buffalo (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I never see the featured picture unless I scroll down. If the TFA blurb is short, I might catch a glimpse of one or two DYK hooks, but that's about it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see that- damn my usless laptop. I think, contrary to what the 'CENSOR MP PLS' brigade say, the majority of people who see the FP are scrolling down specifically to take a look. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured picture

The Today's featured picture section is a little narrower than the rest of the sections. Who can fix this please? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (latest Firefox, 17" LCD, 1280×1024). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, too. Could you perhaps show us what your alternative is in the userspace, or something? J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe he/she's referring to this Image:En.wikipedia.org.Main Page.showing FP issue.2008.04.08.png‎ which occurs in IE7 (but not FireFox 2). To be honest, I don't think I would have noticed this before, so I have no idea how long it's been like that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied to Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely the template or some right and left margins set on it, not the particular daily picture itself. I've tested it with IE 6 and 7 and it still shows the problem in both. And, yes, I mean the issue pictured in the link provided by Nil Einne. The featured picture section is narrower than the rest of the content. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I found what the problem is. It can be viewed from different angles. It's either that the featured picture section is narrower, or that the featured articles, did you know, news, and on this day are too wide. I would say the latter. This is the code that is currently being used:

-------------------------Today's featured article, Did you know------------------------>
{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;"
...

Notice the

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"

instead of

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px 0px;"

That makes the upper section wider. You could either edit it to be 0px, which I suggest, or changing the featured picture's section to be -8px instead of 0px. The last option would make the featured content to be wider (4px to each side) than the rest of the content. The result can be viewed in my Main Page sandbox.

There you have it. The dirty work is done. Someone please fix it? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive Index

Anyone object to my employing the help of HBC Archive Indexerbot to index the many archives of Main Page Talk? It could only help cut down on repeat topics as far as I can see. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that, I've just read that the bot can't handle pages with lots of archives, pitty. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Lets change the inro from "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the sort-of free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit". Its a lot more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjhfowlxjw (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Its free in that you don't pay a dime for it. And anyone can edit it, but if you act like an ass, you will be blocked. Have a nice day. Tourskin (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But 'free' isn't being used in that sense, hence the translation into all the other languages with the 'liberty' meaning. It's free in that it's not copyright. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a pun isn't it? I thought it was being used in both senses. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the primary intent by far is Free Content. Thats why if you check out Wikipedia:About or Wikipedia it only discusses that aspect. If we ever publish wikipedia in book form or on DVD or whatever, we may very well sell some but even then, it will still be Wikipedia the free encylopaedia Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And anyone can edit it, but if you act like an ass, you will be blocked. - or if you chose the wrong username, or if you don't understand COI and your first edits are COI conflicts, or if you don't understand WP doesn't like role accounts etc etc. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

-or if someone else has misunderstood the username guidelines and does not correct their mistake when this is brought to their attention... (It still worries me, thinking about the account that was blocked that day) 130.88.140.121 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not completely free in the liberty sense either. We have lots of unfree images, including the logo. You might not be able to edit if you're using Tor, or simply don't have an Internet connection.
But let's face it, it's a slogan. And "the sort-of free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit" just doesn't sound nice. Let's keep the current one. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow April 11, 2008 Main Page

The code is way uglier than today's code AND it has errors. The green section seems to be jammed on the purple one. I thought the same code would be used by changing only minor variables to reflect new content. Admins editing tomorrow's page seem to be high on something. I'm using IE. I would suggest to use this base code for building tomorrow's page. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, it looks fine to me on Firefox. But here's the important part: No admins editing are high. Why? Because no admins are editing it. The Main Page changes every day through WP:Transclusion. Admins edit each of the rubrics of the Main Page, and then the Main Page magically changes at midnight reflecting the new content.
However, the "jammed on sections" are indeed a problem. Could you provide a screen shot? Thanks. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not "jammed in" anymore since Zzyzx11 fixed coding with the (now current version) 10:41, April 10, 2008 edit, so that it is consistent with the Main Page. However, I had also addressed the Main Page's problem in the Today's featured picture section on this discussion page, for which I also posted a solution. Note that Tomorrow's page has the same problem. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why are there so many main articles on video games and wrestling and such sophmoric nonsense?--208.102.189.190 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Because you have a selective memory? FYI, you can examine all of our front page FAs here.-Wafulz (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Systemic bias. People write about what they care about; the demographics that edit Wikipedia the most are more likely to be interested in certain things than others. Although honestly I don't agree that this is the case nearly as much as I'd expect. -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Though it's partly because of systemic bias, I think your selective memory has played a larger part. I've looked through the featured articles for March. There's a grand total of one article on video games (ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion). There's a grand total of one article on wrestling (December to Dismember (2006)). Look through the list. There are plenty of other fine articles, you just don't remember them. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)