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 00:54 on 18 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)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(December 20)

Monday's FL

(December 23)

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

Citizendium

I think Citzendium, 'the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base', your sister concern, should be mentioned at the top. You should also mention that it is the forum where experts post —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.141.85 (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium is not affiliated in any way with Wikipedia. It is similar in that it is based on Wiki software (as are many websites), it's an encyclopaedia and it was founded by one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. Also please do not remove the automatic signature from after your posts - sign them yourself. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Citzendium can call themselves what they like and claim what they like- we have plenty of experts here, and we're generally more respected by the press. We're nothing to do with them, we simply inspired their project (as we did Veropedia, a target much more worthy of praise, and Conservapedia, one much less worthy of praise) and I do not support advertising them on our main page, as I can't say I support advertising anything on Wikipedia... J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Burn the Traitors! Or is that too strong? Witch trials perhaps? Oh also, the original posters proposal is probably based on the beleif that Citizendum is a sister project like WikiVersity or Wikimedia Commons. However as it is not, it would be spam. Gavin Scott (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is User:59.92.141.85 a sock of User:Larry Sanger? Deamon138 (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation and a quote from [1]:

Second, a lot of Web 2.0 advocates, whose online temples are websites like Wikipedia and YouTube, are philosophically opposed to our [Citizendium's] basic policies. They tend to be radical egalitarians and closet anarchists.

...Actually, I'm just someone who doesn't like being insulted. Since that page was prominently linked on the CZ home page, I must assume that CZ's "basic policies" include attacking Wikipedians. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A 'closet anarchist'? "I want to fight the power, but I don't want to reveal it in case society hates me for it." J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not Larry Sanger. I see that on Wikipedia, the skeptics control some of the pages and so I thought people should visit Citizendium for the expert views. I did not know it wasn't affiliated with Wikipedia. I'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.155.22 (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't offend anyone. :) Two points I'd like to make, though: First, thanks to WP's insistence on reliable sources for info, the main advantage held by "experts" is that they can find those sources more quickly than most of us. Second, as J Milburn points out above, lots of experts edit here, too. We just don't give them the last word, since experts are as susceptible to bias as anyone else. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ever tried getting copies of articles in Science without membership of an academic library? Furthermore, much as I support the wikipedia concept, claiming that experts merely find sources faster is rubbish. Modest Genius ^talk 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, that's not what I (as 168.9.120.8) said. "Merely find sources faster" is considerably different from "the main advantage held"... there are other considerable advantages held by experts, but being able to locate (perhaps by simply reaching for the nearest bookshelf), access (by having pre-existing membership in academic libraries, among other resources), and filter (by knowing where to look for very specific details) sources faster than the layman is, I think, the main advantage held by experts who edit WP. That's why we at WP are so fortunate to have among our editors so many experts in such a diverse array of subjects. I *could* take any highly technical topic on the encyclopedia and find enough sources to write a good article about it, but since that would likely take months or years of dedicated effort, I leave such things to those who can accomplish it in mere days or even hours -- the experts. 66.82.9.77 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> I obviously misread you then. Personally, I think a better and more complete understanding of the background area is a larger advantage, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. None of this is related to the main page anyway ;) Modest Genius ^talk 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Hanna

Shouldn't it Hurricane Hannah instead of Tropical Storm Hanna? If not, why then is the article titled Hurrican Hanna upon clicking it?

Upon further review, it appears that it is currently a Tropical Storm. In that case, would it be more appropriate to say that the deaths were caused by this Tropical Storm, or to still use Hurricane Hannah because that was what actually attributed to the rest of the blurb. 71.237.177.34 (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was at hurricane strength when it hit land. Cyclones are downgraded/upgraded all the time. –Howard the Duck 06:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones usually retain the name they had at maximum intensity. In this case, Hanna was a hurricane for a while, so references continue calling it "Hurricane Hanna" or "former Hurricane Hanna" or something similar. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its about time this was replaced with the more current and newsworthy Hurricane Ike, Hanna has been and gone! -Debnigo (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its good to have Hanna and Ike on the front page, but Hanna is known as HURRICANE Hanna, even though it was a tropical storm for most of its life. Once a hurricane, always a hurricane. `24.222.149.228 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory number of articles

The Main Page currently gives two different numbers for how many articles are on Wikipedia. Atop the page I see we've switched to using {{Actual number of articles}}. In {{Wikipedialang}}, which is transcluded at the bottom of the Main Page, we continue to use {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}. I don't particularly care which we go with, but it's definitely silly to have both with no explanation of the different systems. --JayHenry (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The smaller number doesn't count the main page and disambiguation pages. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. --JayHenry (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; I've updated {{Wikipedialang}} to use {{Actual number of articles}}. It would be really good if we could get similar statistics for Wikipedias in other languages, but what we have now is good enough. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why have we suddenly dropped 140,000 articles??? The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the reason above, although I myself don't think this is a good idea. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? I'm just curious, I'm not opposed to changing it back if that's what others want. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. There's no point pretending that we have more articles than we do, though perhaps a clarification could be added that the number of pages =/= the number of articles. Not sure how to word it though. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the Main Page (which generates a bunch of silliness), disambiguation pages are actual content. Their purpose is to point to other articles, true, but they still require more editing and updating than redirects, which are not counted. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are closer to index/contents pages than articles, and the index/contents pages (in portal, Wikipedia and special space) are not counted. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But lists, many of which are equally index/contents pages, are counted; there is a pretty smooth continuum among content pages from lists of links to full-fledged featured articles. For instance, Ford (surname) vs. Ford (disambiguation). Christopher Parham (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright well, I just spotted a technical problem that prompted me to revert the change. {{disambig}} is used outside the article space sometimes [2], which is going to make the article count inaccurate because these pages are also subtracted. Perhaps we could create Category:All disambiguation pages to articles to get around this problem. Does anyone know of any other disambiguation templates that are used outside the article space? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the fact that many of our acual articles are of poor quality. And yet, here we are, bragging about them at the top of the main page.

Can't we just drop the article count from there already? Haven't we reached the point at which we can begin valuing quality over quantity? —David Levy 23:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame the counter for crappy articles. –Howard the Duck 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't. I blame us for celebrating them. —David Levy 06:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, FAs, GAs, and all the other FCs are still counted, so by having an article count means we're also celebrating other articles w/c are good. Plus there are probably lots more articles that aren't crappy, they're not just listed at the "hall of fame" either because no one reads them or no one bothers to nominate them since they'll be stripped off their dignity at WP:FAC. –Howard the Duck 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that all articles other than those designated "featured" or "good" are of poor quality. But many are, and proudly boasting that our encyclopedia contains 6,925,865 articles implies that we don't care.

Displaying the article count at the top of the main page made sense when Wikipedia was relatively small and we needed to stress the fact that the encyclopedia was growing. But at this point, it merely sends the message that we value quantity above all else (including quality). —David Levy 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about that, since a lot of articles are like the 2006 FIFA World Cup or Gossip Girl (TV series) articles: informative, can be understood rather easily, yet it is not an FA or a GA. And there are tons more articles which are like these. The only really bad articles are the stubs and articles which should really be deleted if not for inclusionists.

A test is to do a random article check. In the five random articles (Mowich River, Pelican Park, Petr Procházka, Sophie B. Hawkins, A483 road), none of them are that bad. Petr Procházka is the only article that is unreferenced, although Sophie B. Hawkins is grossly underreferenced for its length; although probably most of the article can be relied upon. Then again, it's random and anyone can come up with 5 very bad random articles. –Howard the Duck 07:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From time to time, I'll load five or ten random articles. Sometimes, most look decent. Other times, most look poor or stubby. Typically, the result is somewhere in-between.

What's certain is that we have nowhere near 6,925,865 articles worth touting. And yet, that's how many we tout. —David Levy 07:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If we have a "fair articles" page I'm betting it'll reach 700k or more as long as there lots of people that'll rate. Also, some WikiProjects are so great their articles look good even if they're not rated, and many articles in a series (think of 2008 NFL season, 2007 NFL season, etc.) are fair enough, especially for the most recent seasons. Really crappy articles either get deleted or is very hard to get into (unless you're into the subject matter, or use random article function). –Howard the Duck 07:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, we're proudly boasting that these articles exist. —David Levy 07:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The "fair articles" aren't that bad. I'm OK including them in the count. I'm betting most articles on Wikipedia are like that, unlike articles such as this, now that's bad. And they're either deleted, redirected/merged or improved upon. But again, we're also boasting the other rated articles. They're a part of that count too. –Howard the Duck 07:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles.

Yes, we have many articles that are fair (or better), but we also have many that are poor or stubby. And even if most of our articles were good (which they aren't), I still would oppose the article count's continued inclusion at the top of the main page (because it serves no purpose other than to brag that we have lots of articles, thereby conveying that we value quantity above all else). —David Levy 07:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen worse articles than Oblation Run. At least the first sentence says what it is about, albeit without sources. There are articles which don't have stub template if stubs, nor categories (like that one) and impossible to understand since the English is so poor. The h2 headings are h1 and half of the text is in bold + caps. The other half tends to be promoting itself but for some odd reason these articles get knocked back if I place a speedy, prod or even AFD tag on them. OFten when the topic is notable but content is as terrible as I've said, removing the rubbish is futile because it just starts a ongoing revert war with you and an anon. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair articles... you mean something like this? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Every aggregate count has bad apples. For example the census still counts people who have no use in society (at the risk of being crucified I won't name examples of people as such) but they're still included. Same thing here.

If we'd even consider of removing that line, we should think a new tagline since there should be 3 lines there to go along with the three lines at the right. –Howard the Duck 12:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Prior to implementation, the current main page design lacked the article count at the top (which is why it's included in the Wikipedia languages section). In my opinion, it looked better that way. (Keep in mind that the "Welcome to Wikipedia," text substantially is larger than the rest.) —David Levy 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an important metric of immense interest to the outside world. Only committed Wikipedia editors who spend hours on the internal processes of this project are going to reach the sort of conclusions that we're reaching about "bragging", or "celebrating", etc. (As an aside, it seems to me that Wikipedians have an irrational aversion to stubs, presumably because many Wikipedians have never used real encyclopedias and real reference works, which are often bursting at the bindings with what we consider unworthy stubs.) It's an important metric, presented factually. Now, bragging has occurred around milestones such as the 1 millionth article, and so maybe go after those special banners. But the mere presence of the number is perfectly acceptable. Of course we should keep it. --JayHenry (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I grew up with the World Book Encyclopedia and lacked regular Internet access until my last year of high school. Of course, we should value quality over quantity, and there are decent stubs. But many (especially those that are unreferenced) are practically worthless in their current states (despite serving as seeds for future growth, which I don't mean to dismiss). And many longer articles are similarly shabby.

2. No one is suggesting that the article count be eliminated. Since 2006, it's appeared on our main page in two locations. Its presence in the Wikipedia languages section is contextually relevant (because that's where Wikipedias are listed by size). What purpose—other than to brag about the sheer number of articles—does its presence at the top serve? —David Levy 18:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Stubs are a side issue which we don't need to get into here. I was merely commenting on a general trend in Wikipedia where editors think, for some reason, that stubs are intrinsically bad. I'm glad that you don't think that, David. As for purpose of the count, I believe it is an important metric of immense interest to the outside world, presented neutrally, without any reason to interpret its location as evidence of bragging. --JayHenry (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on the "bragging" issue.

Do you agree that many of our articles are of poor quality? If so, what is the true significance of the "6,925,865 articles" claim? In the Wikipedia languages section, it serves to compare the English Wikipedia's size to those of other Wikipedias (all of which contain articles of varying quality). But in the header box, its contextual purpose (even if bragging isn't a factor) must be to stress our encyclopedia's value. In my opinion, this implies that we care more about quantity than we do about quality (because the figure is presented without drawing any qualitative distinction).

Having said that, I believe that it is possible to present the figure at the top of the page in a context that lacks this connotation. For example, what if we were to change...

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 6,925,865 articles in English

to something like...

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free English-language encyclopedia with 6,925,865 articles that anyone can improve.

—David Levy 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone can edit" is a current slogan, so I'm not sure if this is a place to talk about changing it. ffm 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia's official slogan is "the free encyclopedia" (which appears on every page). The text "that anyone can edit" is traditionally appended on Main Page, but I don't see how it would be inappropriate to discuss modifying said text at Talk:Main Page.

2. The above is merely an example. —David Levy 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Was that doubles?

"In the news" says Serena Williams (pictured) and Roger Federer win the 2008 U.S. Open. Were they playing doubles? Or were there two opens, and each won one? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This has already been fixed. To report future errors on the main page, please go to WP:ERRORS as explained near the top of this page. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DE > 800,000

On the main page, let's congratulate the German Wikipedia for surpassing the 800,000 article mark.--Ratzer (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pls see #German Wikipedia 800.000th article above. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

September 11

The featured article (with photograph) is going to be United Airlines Flight 93 [3] and the featured photograph is going to be Image:WTC-Fireman requests 10 more colleages.jpg [4]]. Don't you think this is too much emphasis being placed on the (admittedly tragic) event? Wikipedia is supposed to maintain balance; there's an awful lot going on out there that isn't 9-11 related. Having both these on the front page isn't going to help charges of US-centrism that are often levelled at Wikipedia. And yes, I know it was a massive event with world-wide repercussions, but I just think having both the featured slots on this one event is too much. 81.156.124.178 (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's one way to look at it: both the article and the image are so high-quality that they've achieved featured status, and if they're going to be recognized on the main page (as featured articles and featured images should be), what more appropriate time than on September 11th? This is a lot of emphasis on one event, but the repercussions and implications of that event were global in scope. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not save one of them for next year? --76.64.76.141 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point, but 168...'s is better. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is better at all. Why not save one for next year? There's no rush. This is the seventh anniversary - think what massive coverage there's going to be on the tenth: will all the photos and articles on the page on that day be related to 9-11?. And it kind of ironic having the brush-off to the German Wikipedia above because 800,000 articles isn't a particularly special figure, yet every year 9-11 is featured prominently, and this year, the seventh anniversary, is not a special one as anniversary-keeping goes. As Wikipedia has the systemic bias built in of having a majority of American editors, who have American interests and worldviews, I don't think this is ever going to change. But I think it is not right to have such overwhelming emphasis on this one event. 81.157.194.19 (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To say that 9/11 is an American event is like saying the 2008 Olympics is a Chinese event. –Howard the Duck 11:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to be commemorating the 2008 olympics on the main page in 7 years time? Thought not. Modest Genius ^talk 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone manages the same with the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings we may well do much the same on march 11th.Geni 12:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the 7th anniversary is relatively unimportant, and that the 10th anniversary is likely to be huge. On the other hand, how long is the usual waiting period for featured articles and images to appear on the Main Page? Do they usually have to wait a year or more after achieving featured status before appearing? If the answer is no, then why single out a certain topic just because it tends to get a lot of annual coverage? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet it's not in On This Day...bizarre. 199.89.180.65 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Preset options states "to maintain some variety of topics on the Main Page as a whole, an event should be hidden if it also is the featured article or the featured picture for that particular day". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I like how a massacre by Muslims was replaced with one by Mormons --NE2 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The time period is highly variable. Some articles wait only a few weeks, some a few years. There's definitely nothing unusual about the TFA being related to an event that happened on that day, nor was it extremely accelerated time for it to get on the main page. However there is something unusual about having the TFA + 2 TFPs concerning the same event on the same day Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I too think that there is a little overemphasis on the terrorist attacks, as they does not represent a world view of 11th September - considering billions of people on the Earth with thousands of years of human history. Yes, have a prominent article or image, but there's no need to have a 'WTC Special' of Wikipedia for today! MathiasFox (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

File:110908WP.png

Main Page on 11 Sep 08.

i for one think wikipedia puts too much attention on US articles/news but its September 11 and you know what, it wouldnt really hurt to remember what happened by featuring the articles related. Its not like the article doesnt deserve to be featured by wiki standards. so i agree with 168... there is no better time. 99.237.118.115 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much attention? How often do U.S. news articles appear in "In the News"? I can think of only four in the last six months or so: McCain winning Republican nom, Obama winning Democratic nom, Palin being selected as McCain's running mate, and Gustav making contact with New Orleans almost exactly 3 years after Katrina. That's rare to get that many in this time span. Most of the time, U.S. news doesn't get featured. As for U.S. articles getting featured A: Does it matter if they're FA's? B: We have a pretty good mix of "U.S." and "non-U.S." articles featured and C: If you feel like a "non-U.S. article" (which btw what would constitute a "U.S." article and a "non-U.S." article?) should be featured, then pick an article and get it up to FA status. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two US news items in ITN right now. Algebraist 12:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really count the U.S. Open bit though, because that's just a global sporting event that just happens to be taking place in the U.S. I get the U.S. Open is only held in the U.S., but there are players from all over the world that come, and it's a prestigious thing to win on the planet. It's like when Atlanta held the Olympics in '96: in the U.S., but global prestige from winning there. And I didn't see the federal takeover bit, so that's 5. Still rare to have that happen. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So due to recent events, this is an unusual amount? Let's bookmark this talk.Lympathy ^Talk 15:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The odds of seeing one U.S. news item on the Main Page, at least as often as I check (which is about once every other day) is rare, so yes, I'd say this is an unusual amount. If you want to bookmark this talk (whatever that means), go ahead. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there were 3. the hurricane article very recently got changed from pointing out the fact that its coming towards US to deaths in haiti. then right before there were 2 of obama's VP and mccains VP. then phelps article. there were more that i cant remember. but this is all within the last month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.15.17 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like Wikipedia's Front Page hasn't been event specific before. Never in the history of Wikipedia. Never. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not aware of anything like this before... We definitely have had TFAs and TFPs on days related to them before. We've also done some silly stuff on April fools but with a variety of articles intended to be humourous rather then articles specific to April Fools day. But I'm not aware of us previously having a TFA & 2 TFPs about one event on the same day (albeit an anniversary). This doesn't mean it's wrong, it is however the first time we've done it AFAIK Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Now we have half the page just on 9/11... ;) - Mailer Diablo 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So, one particular day 7 years ago featured the largest terrorist attack on (correct me if I'm wrong) English-speaking soil in history, dealt a massive blow to the economy of one of the most powerful nations on Earth (which, thanks to the global economy, had a ripple effect all around the planet), provided incentive for two wars, and had far-reaching political consequences within the United States and the United Nations... and when the seventh anniversary of that day is prominently featured on the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, this causes outrage among readers just because the original event didn't happen in their country? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with where it occurred. Do we really want one event dominating the page, as it does right now - featured article, picture of the day and lead DYK with photo. Lots of article exposure and three photos out of a possible five. There is supposed to be balance on Wikipedia; there is none right now on the front page. I don't think I've ever seen it so skewed. I think the decisions of whoever put these up is distinctly lacking. 86.133.215.165 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst they may be related, they are not the same articles and each has proved it's merit on Wikipedia through different channels. I think they are timely and diverse enough to be inclusive in a holistic respect to an event without domineering the main page. Lympathy ^Talk 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

86's opinion is one that I understand; my previous post was in response to phrases like "U.S.-centrism" and "systemic bias" in favor of "American interests" (the last phrase, ignoring the presence of quite a few other American nations on two continents, is deliciously ironic). It *might* be a little over-emphasized today, although as a U.S. citizen I certainly feel that the event's importance is being marginalized by some editors here. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a conversation that pops up frequently and I understand it. In this instance the event is substantial enough to warrant several inclusions so long as they focus on something different. I am non-American and very loosely associated with the event so as to speak impartially. PS. I too am wary of US-dominance on such things. Lympathy ^Talk 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) TFA and TFP are scheduled independently of one another. TFP is selected a week or so in advance, sometimes earlier, and the pictures are taken roughly in the order they were promoted. This one happened to be scheduled almost one month in advance because I happened to have a 9/11 photo, which by the way is the very first 9/11-related TFP to appear on 9/11: 2007 was a spacecraft, 2006 was Salzburg, 2005 was a praying mantis, and 2004 was a Gothic church. Earlier this year, we had another 9/11 photo which appeared far from the anniversary, because when that photo came up in the rotation, it was nowhere near 9/11. There is no site-wide conspiracy to make today's Main Page 9/11-centric; it just happened that way. howcheng {chat} 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Underground Bunker

Just wondering, how come there's nothing about the test going on tomorrow. It's taking place 300 ft undedrground near the French-Swiss border. The test is to try and recreate a Big Bang, but on a much smaller scale, to try and convert massive amounts of energy. It will, apparently, destroy our dependancy on Fossil Fuels, or it could create a black hole. Nuthin about in the Newspapers today, but was sumthin' yesterday. Seems pretty big enough to deserve a page 1 story...

mÆniac ^Ask! 20:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:ITN/c for news suggestions. Random89 20:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll make a good story tomorrow, if there's still a main page to add it on. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaaa? They aren't recreating the big bang, they're trying to simulate conditions immediately after the big bang. And it doesn't have anything to do with producing a new energy source as far as I know. 198.189.249.71 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of misinformation/varying opinions around. I keep reading completely contrary information about it. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cern Big Bang Experiment

Agreed seems like a pretty noteworthy event. I don't think the big tests are going on til after Winter time so at least we have a few months left. Here is a link [5]--UhOhFeeling (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a DYK: ...that the world didn't end when CERN switched on? lol 79.79.85.150 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I just added one to Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know Modest Genius ^talk 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

United 93 as the Main Article?

If this isn't exploiting 9/11 I don't know what is. What a shame. Melia Nymph (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC) If this isn't exploiting 9/11 I don't know what is. What a shame. Melia Nymph (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Exploiting 9/11 would be setting up shop near ground zero today and selling 9/11 t-shirts, 9/11 buttons, and 9/11 noisemakers for personal profit. Featuring a well written, well sourced, comprehensive article related to one of the most significant events in modern history with the intent of propagating knowledge is educational, informational, and enlightening, but it is not exploitation. Nufy8 (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget gaudy silver medallions with "plundered" silver from the WTC vaults.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If posting the same thing twice isn't exploiting Wikipedia's servers, I don't know what is. What a waste. Waltham, The Duke of 04:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If me posting for the sake of the fact that I can isn't exploiting my ability as a user on the English-language wikipedia, then I don't know what is. What a shame. Gabr-el 07:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel so abused and exploited by the time I took to read this thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What a shame. Waltham, The Duke of 13:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

On this day (September 11)

So.......... I guess nothing of note happened on September 11, 2001 since it's not mentioned in the "On this day" section, right? --12.43.115.201 (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's covered by Featured Article and Featured Media in place, that's why it isn't at "On this day". (And in a few hours, Did You Know?) - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Preset options says 'Also, to maintain some variety of topics on the Main Page as a whole, an event should be hidden if it also is the featured article or the featured picture for that particular day.' Algebraist 12:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think there's a case for an exception here. The main article is about one of the events, not the attacks as a whole. Some readers may well arrive looking specifically for 9/11 in 'On this day...', and be puzzled by the omission. Mcewan (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Going out on a limb here, but what about placing a banner at the top of the MP that mentions the event? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Way too much overkill for an encyclopedia. I think a FA is enough. Lympathy ^Talk 14:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't have banners for the anniversaries of far more important events, so why this? Algebraist 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity here, what would you consider "far more important events"? You make it sound like 9/11 was a simple attack. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Algebraist was alluding to but 9/11 is fairly insignificant in world history but tragic to those close to it. So please keep it in perspective. Lympathy ^Talk 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't alluding to anything specific, just to the fact that a lot of the things that have happened in human history are more important than this one. Algebraist 15:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, such as? Can you name an event? It truly sounds like you're saying 9/11 is just another Oklahoma City bombing, when it was something more than that, at the very least due to how it led us to the War on Terror, the overthrowing of the Taliban, and the damage done to a terrorist group, and it could be argued it led indirectly to the war in Iraq, the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein, and the change of government in Iraq from a dictatorship to a (mostly) democratic government. I'm not saying it's the biggest event ever, but Algebraist seems to be implying that 9/11 isn't a major world event, which I think it is, just as much as Nero burning down Rome. I don't know if he's American or not, but if he is not, can I just ask that you please try to be a bit more respectful in regards to events like this? Ultimately, its importance is an opinion to a degree, but not something that should be marginalized in the way that you're implying (or at least how I'm inferring it). Anakinjmt (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reasonable inference. Nobody is saying that the September attacks were not a major world event - any line of argument along those lines would be clearly ridiculous. The amount of attention being paid to this (non-milestone) anniversary on the main page is maybe a little unusual, but that's just the way the main page works, with stories selected more or less arbitrarily. It's certainly a precedent for the featured article to pertain to a particular anniversary or event corresponding to the day of its exposure on the main page, although I can't remember if the same applies to the featured picture. Either way, I don't think anyone is complaining about the level of coverage being devoted to September 11th today on-Wiki - but anymore would perhaps be slightly morbid and excessive. That is just my input as an disinterested observer. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Half the page is sufficient coverage. We don't need more. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just the FA. Also the FP and a rare featured sound. And, at the moment, the lead item DYK. APL (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Points taken. I still think the omission from OTD may appear odd to some, but not a big deal. Mcewan (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think pretty much the entire world knows about 9/11. I don't think it's needed, especially with all the 9/11-related things already on the Main Page. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Two items of media under TFP

Why is there both a picture AND a sound today? Surely that's against the guidelines? Modest Genius ^talk 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Links to previous related discussion (mostly about videos) Art LaPella (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note sounds are neither explicitly allowed nor forbidden at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Art LaPella (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my point - sounds are fine. The problem was having TWO items of media Modest Genius ^talk 02:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Two items of media on the same subject are also neither explicitly allowed nor forbidden at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Art LaPella (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing two before, so to shrug off the original point like that is a bit out of order. How was the combination picked? Is there a review process to decide if and when there can be two? Many (outside the USA) know why these two have been picked for today, and may even forgive this POV bias towards this particular subject, but it would be nice to know the process used to pick the two. Bazza (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find that decision easily, although I would have placed an objection to such an intentional decision at the bottom of Talk:Main Page, not among the errors. Art LaPella (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, moved. I still don't see what's so special about today that we should make a sudden break with precedent and include two items of media. I'm fairly sure the guidelines don't mention this eventuality simply because no-one thought it would ever happen. Modest Genius ^talk 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unusual, but hasn't this been done before? I'm sure I've seen picture and audio on the main page before. In addition, it's not uncommon for people that work on articles or submit pictures to request they be used on specific days because of some special significance (like Halo: Combat Evolved being the FA on the day when Halo 3 was released). Anakinjmt (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why there's a problem with it. So long as they meet other guidelines, timeliness can only improve WP. Lympathy ^Talk 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) User:Durova asked me on my talk page as a special request and I complied, with the help of User:Shoemaker's Holiday. Couldn't fit it in the regular POTD template, so it's only for the Main Page. It's not the first time we've had two items (example), although it is the first time we've had a picture and a sound, and it's the first time we've had different captions for the two items. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not doubt the procedure by which today's main page was shaped, but I do agree with those who find three (3) featured items on the same day overkill. I mean, how many of them are there? I'd prefer to see something left for next year. (Don't forget that we've probably created some expectations today; imagine not having anything to show on 11 September 2009. Anticlimactic.) Waltham, The Duke of 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

religion!

wat iz religion u may ask! well religion iz.....?? lol idk!