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 18:39 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)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Indonesia tea item: 'largest exporter of tea outside ...' so they weren't the largest at all, they were third largest. This should be rephrased as 'third largest exporter of tea, after' I've made the equivalent fix in the article itself. Modest Genius ^talk 12:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And why do we have the current name for one, but the colonial name for the other two? Fram (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Rephrased to: "that during the colonial period, the Dutch East Indies was the third-largest exporter of tea after the British Raj and Ceylon?"  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• Guru Nanak Gurpurab (Sikhism, 2023) - was celebrated on 15 November this year JennyOz (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Removed Schwede66 08:55, 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

Obama

Image of Obama should be on the news item, since it's like more important than the Israeli Prime Minister. -- Fishyghost 78.32.115.66 (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One picture of Obama on the main page at a time is probably enough. Algebraist 17:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, didn't see that down there...! When that goes tommorow then presumably the image on the other section should change. Fishyghost 78.32.115.66 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This might be a subtle image to be used if it is going to be added on the Main Page's news section.--megamanfan3 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This mis-juxtapositioning of photo and text continues to make Wiki look stupid. Sca (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Only to people who don't know what the (pictured) signifies in the blurb. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't blame the reader for the page's poor layout. 86.77.186.41 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How about an image like File:Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration.jpg, which is more relevant than the official portrait? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have we not got any decent public domain photos taken today by White House employees? They may be better still. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the new administration has taken down all things that existed before today from the White House website, and there is likely no such thing on the site yet. Doesn't really make much sense though that a picture of Obama can't be used in the In the News template simply because there is already a picture of him in the Featured Picture section. Jason (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't hurt to have a picture of Olmert on ITN for a couple of hours (maybe 2) until midnight UTC, when the POTD will be changed. Spencer^T♦C 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think there should be a picture of Obama in the "in the news" section, regardless of the picture at the bottom of the page. People are going to see some other guy there and wonder what the heck is wrong with the site, just as I was. If it wasn't for going to the talk page to bring it up (which I see it already has been), I wouldn't have realized Obama already had a picture near the bottom of the main page. Obama's inauguration is the big news of the week, so it makes no sense for him not to be the one in the news section. Also, the photo currently on the main page is from 2006. There needs to be an image from today's proceedings, preferably after he was sworn in. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Spencer: In two hours? Meh, that'll be fine, I guess. It's still a ridiculous reason not to have his image there. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's ridicilous to have two picture of the same thing on the main page. Also, big news doesn't matter much since ITN isn't about the news Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: We could always use this picture of Obama? --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The pic should be of obama! of the year 2009 (on current events) 74.67.93.68 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please go to WT:ITN. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Nil Einne - Actually, it's not ridiculous to have two pictures of the same person on the main page. Not sure where you got that idea. Now, having the same picture posted twice - that I can understand. But not having a picture of Obama on ITN (since his inauguration is the biggest news in the world this week) because another picture of him is already on the bottom of the page (requiring people to scroll down to see it) is, well, just stupid. They see two sections when they come to Wikipedia: the "featured article" and the "in the news" sections. People will see the "in the news" section, knowing that Obama's inauguration is the top story this week, and will wonder why the heck his picture isn't there. You have to think about questions which common readers will ask (namely, why isn't Obama pictured?) rather than some ridiculous "policy" about not having two pictures of the same person. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, ThylekShran/From Andoria with Love, it's not ridiculous to avoid having two photos of the same person on Main Page at the same time, either. This is Wikipedia, not Obama's fansite, nor his online photo album. And be careful when you use the word "stupid". A good photo specifically of Obama's inauguration wasn't available till later. Now, it's there. Chill it! --74.14.22.20 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Far more likely people will aski why the heck wikipedia suddenly became a Obama fansite or photoalbum as 74 suggest above. Indeed anyone who has been on the main page for so long knows this is very likely precisely what would happen. It's not surprising too because it IS ridiculous to have two photos of the same guy on the main page. Also whether or not people have to scroll down to it depends on the size of their screen and a variety of other factors. Some people may like to see TFP so they may always scroll down and not even see the ITN pic. All in all, your argumennts are unconvincing particularly since you don't seem to understand that ITN is not about the news and doesn't really give a damn what the top story of the week is. Or to put it simply, it's not stupid to keep wikipedia's main page balanced and avoid having it dominated by one event or person. It's far more stupid to suggest we should ignore common sense because some people don't understand the purpose of ITN, or wikipedia (which is an encylopaedia not a news site). BTW, were it not for the fact that the US government releases their images under the public domain we might not even have a free photo of Obama's inaguration so fast if at all in which case we wouldn't be having this whole silly discussion presuming that people actually understand wikipedia needs free photos (which they should if they want to discuss image selection). As it stands, it looks to me like the image we have wasn't available until after the TFP was taken down, so I'm not even sure what we're discussing here. With due respect to the photographer the image presented above is not really suitable for the main page. Edit: Okay it seems like we did have this image File:Barack Obama after inaugural address 1-20-09 hires 090120-N-0696M-327a.jpg which sorta worked if cropped about 1h and 10 minutes before the end of the TFP. It's still a far cry from being clearly identifable as being part of the inaguration though so doesn't provide a great clue to the reader about why we're showing it. P.S. There is no specific policy that says we shouldn't have two pictures of the same guy on the main page. There are policys which could be construed to apply, but the primary reason we don't is simple common sense and based on our understanding of what the reader wants which is not an Obama fansite/photo album. There are plenty of those available but it's not our goal to become one Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I love how probably one of the most important inaugurations in U.S. history was buried on the front page news within 4 days. Especially when I've seen severely less important/impacting news items stray on the news items for far longer (such as a week or two). Now I understand and agree that we shouldn't be so U.S.-centric with English Wiki news, but that also doesn't mean we should be so extreme as to shove them aside. I hardly ever see someone protesting for keeping a middle ground. Though, honestly, I think in reality it was probably something as shallow as political bias.JanderVK (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost

What is some weird crap about Lost doing on our main page? Doesn't anybody watch these things? --TS 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice featured article. That is where the featured articles go (main page). §hep • ^Talk 03:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a "featured article" full of bilge. This is one of the few really reprehensible things about Wikipedia: that we have so many brilliant articles but we filter them in such a manner that the most ridiculous crap is designated as the best we have. It's pretty horrible. If you're involved in this bilious process, stop. If you're not, stay away from it. Write about what need to be written about , edit the articles that need to be edited, and avoid the preciousness of "featured article" writing. --TS 04:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should keep in mind that some person spent hours, maybe days working hard on that article? I think they would appreciate that more than having their work called "crap". Regards, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How predictable of you to trash our finest writers and editors with glib hyperbole and crass generalizations, bereft of actual examples or evidence. FA standards are notoriously rigorous/fickle (depending upon your point of view), but they frequently result in minor masterpieces. This is a great article. So are this and this and this. These sorts of articles make me proud to say I'm associated with the project in some small way. I'd go so far as to say that the tiny to extent to which Wikipedia resembles an actual encyclopedia is due in large part to the efforts of our Featured writers and Reviewers. Of course, any human filtering system allows occasional bad apples through, and no process is a above critique. But Tony Sidaway's petulant foot-stomping does, well, nothing to improve the process. It goes without saying there are more important articles we'd all rather see on the front page--like, nasal sex or some dreck about Dr. Who; so hows about a little less whinin' and a little more writing? --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You make your point so well that you don't notice you've proven the opposite of what you believe. Those articles are great articles. And on reading them you immediately realise the difference between a great article on an interesting subject, and a tedious pop culture article on a tedious subject that happens to be on TV right now. One is a well-written article that makes even those who aren't interested in the subject understand why it interests those who are. The other ticks a few boxes (spelt properly, correct use of the arcane inline footnote system, and above all, long) and gets the same star.

The excellent and genuinely interesting article on The Garden of Earthly Delights was written 500 years after its subject appeared. If Wikipedia had been invented 500 years after Lost, no-one would have even bothered writing an article about the TV show, let alone a series of extended trailers. --81.157.142.106 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then do something about it instead of just complaining that everyone else in the world is less intelligent than you. If you don't like the featured articles, actually put in the effort to get an article you like to FA status, and therefore eventually on TFA. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article is well written, but the reception area seems to needlessly group reviews of individual episode by reviewer. This level of granularity seems unnecessary and trivial, detracting from a good encyclopedic article; I wouldn't have expected it FA without having that section pruned. —Ost (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell picks the daily article?

Not to insult the writers or anything like that. But today's featured article isn't exactly epic encyclopedia stuff. I'm left with the urge to ask if wikipedia got paid for running this commercial. --Theodore 03:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a featured article; Featured articles end up on the main page. If you dislike the selection, feel free to work on more significant articles. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the daily article is picked by user:Raul654. DS (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To Juliancolton; If you dislike the selection, feel free to work on more significant articles. What does that mean? Are you saying that I have to work on significant articles before I'm allowed to comment on today's featured article? Where did you come up with this rule? Please tell me - exactly which significant articles must I work on before I'm allowed to express my dislike at the selection --Theodore 06:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on, at least it's not that extremely crappy show about crappy jail guards that's finally gonna end. –Howard the Duck 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sure they left those crappy jail guards behind long ago. Isn't it more FBI-oriented now? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool it man. I'm sure you're misunderstanding what Juliancolton tried to say. Eakka (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What Juliancolton means is that if you have a problem with the articles that are selected, you are more than welcome to nominate ones that you'd prefer at WP:TFA/R. I do agree with you that it seems like a strange article to have FA status, but people spent a lot of time on that article. It's only fair that it goes on the main page - it's our best work. Thanks, Matty (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article means it's an excellently-written article as determined by the criteria, not that it's an "epic" subject. I admit to checking here because I anticipated comments on the webisodes' perceived lack of scope, but I'm displeased that the tone here and Talk:Lost: Missing Pieces#I think it's ridiculous is so harsh rather than constructive.

Also, while I was looking at the article, I noticed that blatant vandalism had gone unreverted for 17 minutes. I'm not blaming anyone, but I'm a little surprised that RC/TFA partollers didn't pick up on it. Revelian (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Common misconception

It's a common misconception that Xxxxxxx is insignificant/demeaning/bilge and therefore should not be today's Featured Article.

I was surprised that the relevant section of the Main Page FAQ focuses too much on the systemic bias complaint and does not properly address "this topic is pants". This should be addressed - it's an understandable misconception, after all.

PS A friendlier response to this complaint is a signpost to WP:TFA/R, rather than inviting people, most of whom are newbies, to write an article that passes these hairy criteria. I know only too well that even experienced users find it jolly difficult to get articles featured. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Tony Sidaway can rightly be classified as a newbie though. More importantly TFA/R requires a good reason, I think there's too much crap on the main page is simply not going to cut it. Even if you can't get an article up to FA by yourself, if you do a decent job of it it may eventually become FA. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, I think it's great that the main page includes all kinds of featured articles. I also think it's great that the FA criteria allow articles that one wouldn't find in traditional encyclopedias to qualify. To be frank, one of the things that makes WP work is the fact that anyone would be able to find a corner of the project that really interests them enough to make them want to dedicate time and effort to improving it. And once they start there they eventually move on to the rest of the project. It would be terribly unfair of us to deny the talented writers of this particular article an opportunity to have their work on TFA. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm only a casual watcher of Lost, but I found the article interesting and informative. I didn't know webisode-type material could be nominated for an Emmy, for example. Popular culture topics are interspersed with biographies, history, astronomy and biology, according to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2009. I wasn't fully aware of the point system for TFA requests that helps maintain that balance. I like occasionally reading about the unusual and esoteric, which includes Scout Moor Wind Farm and Beyond Fantasy Fiction (and the exploits of 4chan), especially when well-written. Revelian (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Would I be right in thinking that this featured on day of the United States new season premiere of the show? I've been warned not to "advertise" TV shows on the Main Page before (e.g. DYK) so I'm a bit confused at the contradiction here. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You would be right. §hep • ^Talk 03:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This was also done in that extremely crappy show about crappy jail guards that's finally gonna end and that sporting event where 22 people kick a ball for 90+ minutes. –Howard the Duck 13:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I could understand the sporting event (not specifically that one, I hasten to add, but anyone involving more than one country) as at least it is happening at the time and is a worldwide event. But fictional TV shows? I make the point because I thought I would once get an obscure documentary which was only airing in my country and was about a real-life political figure onto DYK on the day it was being broadcast but was advised that it might contradict Wikipedia's advertising policies. I would think something like Lost or Prison Break, which both air across the world (including where I am), would be more likely to be given a major boost from being featured articles for a day never mind a once-off DYK for a few hours... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused? The article about a webisode about the show about crappy jail guards that'll end soon wasn't on DYK, it was on FA. As long as an article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and people worked hard on it to please the FA gods it can be an FA. As for scheduling, the main participant in the FA process can petition his article to appear on a particular day, like for the subject's birthday, anniversary, first day of competition, election, or season premiere. There was nothing irregular about the appearance of the article or the date it appeared. –Howard the Duck 12:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: Sporting events not involving two or more countries are... banned? How about this article I had been working upon? Bye-bye Main Page? –Howard the Duck 12:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke, the season premiere date is a point in favor on WP:TFA/R. "Date relevant to article topic:[1] 1 point". I don't understand why DYK would discourage articles about a current TV show, as long as the language wasn't advertising. I know they sometimes have lots of similar theme articles in a short span (like railroads or trees) that they space out over several updates or collect into one multi-article hook. Revelian (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The hook in question had three articles. Anyway I'm not one for complaining, I was just looking for some feedback on where this applies. Thanks, I'll have a look at that. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

10 ITNs

For main page balance, there are currently 10 ITNs in T:ITN, 2 more than the recommended maximum. On times when we have a long TFA and short OTD, can DYK put on a few less items, or shorter ones? Spencer^T♦C 12:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The DYKs are put in queue around a day in advance, and cycle through every 6 hours. It's easier to just lengthen OTD; there is usually a fair number of hidden anniversaries that can be unhidden to balance out the Main Page. - Mark 12:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When putting DYKs in queue in advance, one should check the space availability on MainPage using tools on Template:Did you know/Next update. Fewer hooks and less wordy hooks should be used on days when TFA is long. Maybe there should be a word limit for TFA on MainPage. ITN should not need to bring back multiple old news items just to accommodate TFA & DYK and balance the two sides on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point; the featured article and the selected anniversaries are both on the Main Page for a fixed period of 24 hours. Evening out due to FA-length is best done with the selected anniversaries because they will both disappear from the Main Page at the same time, and the evening out will only have to be done once per day. Then all that remains to be done is to ensure ITN and DYK always remain around the same length as one another. - Mark 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark, your way will work if the only concern is the layout on MainPage, but it's not. IMO, it's not a good practice, as it's disregarding the issues with content. Please consider the following:

• Items on Selected Anniversaries (now know as OTD) shown each year are selected and un-selected for a reason. Most of the time it's no big deal to bring in (unhide) an extra item, but not always (example).
• Does ITN want to be "around the same length as" DYK? No. The purpose of ITN is to showcase articles well updated with recent news materials. Having non-recent (old) news items to go stale on ITN for 10 days is not good. Bringing back ancient items, already removed from ITN due to age, is bad. The number of items on ITN used to be "3 to 5", but often there were "5 to 8", violating it's own guidelines to help balance the layout on MainPage -- to the point that young veterans at ITN thought "5 to 8" is the way things are supposed to be and the ITN guidelines got changed ("updated") without much discussion. (At least, this is how I remember it.) This results in stale items sitting at the bottom much longer. Yesterday, there were 10 items on ITN for quite a while. We need to keep ITN short (ideally, about 5) to keep the contents current.
• How long should the text on TFA templates be? We don't need much, probably 800 to 1000 characters, for a good summary of an FA. (Today's TFA has about 900+.) I don't mind giving TFA a little more space on MainPage. It's good stuff, and deserves to be prominently displayed on MainPage. But, these days, TFA often have 1200+ characters. And yesterday's TFA template had more than 1600 characters until I trimmed it. Why so long?
• DYK is the one section on MainPage that is revised quite extensively during each day, and there are tools at DYK/NU to help fit things nicely with the other sections on MainPage. There should be 5 to 8 hooks per set, with a cap of 200 characters per hook. There are enough hooks to choose from to not have 8 hooks all almost 200 characters long on DYK on a day when TFA has a longer paragraph, closer to 1000 characters instead of 800. What's wrong with putting up just 6 hooks when having 8 hooks messes up the layout on MainPage? Why not mix in some less wordy hooks? Why are there sometimes 9 hooks? Why does cramming 12 hooks on DYK at the same time get a mention in the DYK Hall of Fame as if it's an achievement? I understand that some days there is a backlog. It's okay to adjust other sections on MainPage to help out. But when the backlog becomes a chronic problem, fix the backlog problem instead of padding the other sections every day. We need to be more selective about the hooks, throw out the uninteresting ones, and use only 6 hooks when the hooks are long, and up to 8 hooks only when shorter hooks are available, depending on how things fit on MainPage.
• Please don't needlessly pad extra items onto various sections on MainPage. You're pushing the very pretty POTD further and further down the screen. And some viewers are bound to miss out.

I didn't miss your point, Mark. I simply don't think it was a good idea. When the left side of MainPage is frequently too long, we should fix the problems on the left side so that the right side doesn't have to compensate so often. --PFHLai (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 28, 2009

The text on tomorrow's TFA template is very long at 1725 characters. Can we not have 10 ITNs again tomorrow, please? We need space on MainPage for DYKs. Help is needed to trim this TFA blurb to about 1000 characters long. Thanks in advance. --PFHLai (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sister Projects Logo Update

I think the Wikibooks logo needs updating. Globbet (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks updated over here. §hep • ^Talk 02:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see this superseded logo: but I think I should be seeing the current one: . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globbet (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Oops. Globbet (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's better. Globbet (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the picture on the top right corner, have its article next to it?

There is a picture of the President of Ireland, but her news story isn't next to it, but instead forth. Shouldn't the picture have the article it represents next to it? I know she isn't a Japanese satellite, nor a knife wielding lunatic, nor a Rwandan rebel leader, but still, there are times when people might be confused. Please make certain the picture chosen up top, has its article at the top spot as well. They aren't in alphabetical order, nor order of importance it seems. I'm surprised President Barack Obama wasn't at the top, with a picture of him, that something shown around the world. They even had a story about the Obama masks being the bestselling mask in Japan. Dream Focus (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? §hep • ^Talk 02:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the items are arranged by date, not importance or alphabetical order. Spencer^T♦C 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What would happen if you had a story about a notorious child molester, next to the picture of a famed writer or something? Would you get sued for that? Or I wonder what would've happened if the Obama story had a picture of our new president up top, and the bit about the African terrorist/rebel next to it. I'm sure with all the people involved in the wikipedia, someone could find a way to check up on that. Dream Focus (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we put (pictured) next to the person that's pictured, so hopefully people understand who is being pictured. The issue is that we don't have free images we can put on the Main Page for all of the articles on In the news. 76.205.111.240 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We'd really either have to put the item with the pic on top always or highlight the item with the pic. There can be a workaround for other pages using the ITN. –Howard the Duck 16:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, it didn't say (pictured), but today it does, and the picture matches the article up top. I click on History, but find the main page does not list history. That is odd. The FAQ probably explains why, so I'll check there later. Dream Focus (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You can find the histories of the main page components at their own pages. For ITN, it is Template:In the news. –Howard the Duck 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It did say pictured: Diff. Spencer^T♦C 16:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this on ITN?

Three killed in knife attack is world news?

I think I saw worse driving to work this morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.179.67 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to complain at WT:ITN#Knife attack, instead of here. --74.14.17.102 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you saw driving that killed two innocent young children and an adult, left three people in the ICU, and seven others injured seriously then please create an article and follow the instructions on WP:ITN/C. Maybe you don't realise a mass murder when you see one. Matty (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

'scuse me for being petty, but shouldn't it be recognise? In all other respects I agree with Matty, if you saw something, report it to your local authorities and to Wikipedia (Wikinews) too. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he was serious, guys. Garden. 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How is the 2009 Buachaille Etive Mòr avalanche more notable to be included on the main page

...than the storms that hit France and Spain recently, which have actually resulted in more deaths?--Emerald Continent (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's an article on said storms, it may be worth nominating it at WP:ITN/C. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much about notability in this case. It was more to do with me pinpointing it quickly, creating and updating the article and providing the first non-Papal, non-Presidential image all week. Quite frankly I didn't expect it to make it, given the controversy that erupted when not enough children were murdered in Belgium to satisfy some people. Anyway the storms are now up from what I can see. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Emerald - articles are showcased on the main page, not news stories. For news stories, see Wikinews. Garden. 15:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How is this any less notable than an incident in Belgium where three people also die though? What standard are we setting? How can we have an ITN section which has to wait for a period to determine how notable an item is? It will no longer be In the News... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

People are killed all the time in avalanches in Canada and its never mentioned on here. This Scotland one is totally non-notable. Thankyoubaby (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Then create an article and suggest at WP:ITN/C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.111.240 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the point is that that wouldn't be notable either. I agree, anyways. I'm from Alaska, and we've got plenty of avalanche deaths there. (And they might not even get above the fold in our local newspapers.) I don't think that an avalanche killing three people is anywhere near notable enough to be on the main page, no matter where it happens. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Robert Burns 250th?

Today is the 250th birthday of Robert Burns, the "Bard of Ayreshire" and national poet of Scotland. Surely that ranks SOME mention ont the front page, no? Art Smith 12.213.80.58 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact it is Burns' Night is mentioned on OTD, so a mention of his birthday would be a little redundant. It's a shame we didn't have something relating to Burns to have as today's featured article or picture. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As J Milburn was saying, Burns night is already essentially a holiday observing Robert Burns' birthday, so that's why his 250th is not explicitly mentioned. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives

Do we really need the archives listed twice in the title of this page? Once under the "This is the talk page" and once under "Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the most recent archive". Can we get rid of the unhidden prior? The top of this page is far too long -137.222.114.243 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have removed the whole of the top template, as it is redundant to the "NO OFFTOPIC QUESTIONS" banner. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009 Mediterranean storm

Location of naming. See Talk:January 2009 Mediterranean storm. Simply south not SS, sorry 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You can suggest small changes on the main page at WP:ERRORS even if it's not an error. --74.13.127.206 (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More ITN picture silliness

A bold but brutally effective military strategy.

The first impression you get from ITN at the moment is that the Sri Lankan army have captured Mullaitivu, which is apparently in the middle of the Mediterranean. At least to those of us who read left to right and up to down like virtually everyone else on the planet, and aren't familiar with en.wiki's stupid formatting policies. As can be seen from the current image, the Sri Lankans chose to surprise the French by landing on the poorly-defended western coast adjoining the Bay of Biscay. They then stormed through the southern French mainland, which let's face it, isn't the most difficult of military campaigns. After sampling the local wines they crossed the Mediterranean and captured the well-known Tamil Tiger stronghold of Corsica.

No, I agree, that wasn't at all funny. Either align that shit or caption it for god's sake. --81.157.142.106 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A rather enjoyable story I must say. They're probably behind all these recent avalanches in Afhghanistan, Scotland and Turkey too, an added effect of their stomping carelessly across Asia and Europe. Presumably one of the slightly more insane members of the army got lost in Belgium along the way too... I knew they were all connected! --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As it appears you are already aware, this issue is discussed in the FAQ and in a section above. Saying the same thing over and over again is not going to achieve anything. As I've mentioned before, if you do the work to come up with a solution that works and pleases everyone, you might get things changed. If not, you're just wasting your time by coming up with silly stories. Incidentally, I don't know why you aren't more concerned about the people who think that Edward III, his mother Queen Isabella and her lover Roger Mortimer all lived at the Moscow State University because of yesterday's SA/OTD Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, Nil Einne, I agree with you that ITN formatting is that way for good reasons (lets just take every single previous discussion of this as already read, okay?), but 81.157.142.106 has a good point here - this particular combination of image and lead item is very bad. More to the general point, we know that people sometimes just assume that the lead item and image are related, so we ought to be careful not to confusion. All it takes is one moment to think about how people might mistakenly associate the image and lead item, and a willingness to reject images that might confuse people unduly. I realize that our new articles don't always have appropriate images to choose from, but we should still avoid confusion like this. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

81.157.142.106, stop being silly and get a wide screen monitor. The ITN pic will be next to the corresponding news item if the column is wide enough. Or look at the top of Portal: Current events. --74.13.127.206 (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

why dont we put the "(pictured)" before the text of the item so it is immediately obvious to those with narrow screens which is the pictured item Machete97 (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Because that will either result in us having to put pictured twice or people having to guess what precisely is being pictured or having to be unnecessarily verbose in all instances. (If you don't get what I'm talking about, pay a bit of attention to ITN or even just look at some of the current headlines. I don't know if we had a picture for the de-excommunication item but there are 6 people that could be pictured there. If we had pictured Benedict or that bishop we just put it besides their names, the same if we picture all 4 excommunees?) Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(pictured) before the item, caption explaining it.Machete97 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where to put the caption? --74.13.129.119 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do captions usually go ? Great example here with the map. Machete97 (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do captions usually go on MainPage? Nowhere. And this is the problem. In the absence of captions, we use the text "(pictured)". --74.13.129.119 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Duck grammar

The POD Australian Wood Duck has a line: "They are usually 45 to 51 centimetres (17.7 to 20.1 in) in length and look like a small goose." that doesn't make sense. Just saying, Sorry, just saw they were not talking about the eggs, but the duck. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect on main page

Is there a reason that one of the DYKs is a redirect to the actual article? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly because the person making the DYK was using "Everyday I Write the Song" rather than "Everyday I Write The Song". I believe the one on the DYK is correct but this spelling is redirected to a spelling using "The" with a capital T. I think it would probably be easier changing the link on the DYK to "Everyday I Write The Song", which means this should be moved to the errors in the main page section. Dark verdant (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No harm in redirects. The question is which is the correct title- per the MoS, Everyday I Write The Book should be Everyday I Write the Book. I will move it now. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Australia Bias

The Australian Wood Duck, Banksia ericifolia and the Rum Rebellion. All Australia! I demand you get rid of of this Australia bias on the Main Page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.112.36 (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day, mate! --74.14.20.242 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions

I just saw an article on Yahoo! that says Wiki is proposing to not allow anonymous posts or 1st time posts unless reviewed by a trusted source. This is due to someone editing the wiki pages of Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. Robert Byrd. This user posted that these men had died when in fact they are still barely living. The article states that the error was corrected "within minutes". I think Wiki needs to cool their jets. The community worked. Incorrect information was corrected. No one got led astray. I'm sure some kid wasn't doing a biography and reported they died in his school paper because of an incorrect posting anyway. Maybe someone was just trying to be the first to report the news. I dont think their was malicious intent there. I am not sure why Wiki is calling this "vandalism". The word vandalism implies harmful intent. Doesn't seem to be the case here. Get with it Wiki... ease up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.178.70 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this. This is the place to discuss the main page. Places to discuss this include WT:Flagged revisions and WP:VPP. Algebraist 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Strictly on the issue of the Main Page, Wikipedia itself is somewhat in the news today (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7851400.stm, for example) on the "Flagged Revisions" point, so I came to the Main Page looking for a link through to where the discussion itself was taking place. For such a high profile debate, and for so obvious a reason for people to be visiting the Main Page in the first place, would this not be a worthwhile addition? Cncoote (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed that that's what the Village Pump link is for... but I still think that with this is the news, the it could be clearer where to head.Cncoote (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It makes little sense for people to visit the main page if they want to participate in the discussion. It makes sense for people to visit wikipedia whereby they are liable to end up on the main page. The header at the top of this page however clearly tells people this is not the place for such a discussion. And to be frank, if people can't be bothered to read a simple header, I'm not sure if they will have anything useful to add to the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

27 January 2009 Picture of the Day

...."rendered his work moot" - this is a rather novel use of the word "moot" - did the caption writer have redundant in mind? 196.2.124.248 (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No. "Redundant" would indicate that his work substantially imitated (knowingly or not) work which had already been accomplished. "Moot" indicates that his work was pointless, without purpose or useful application. The latter is the case... the naval victory made producing Fulton's submarine unnecessary and probably even wasteful. Had Fulton completed his design sooner, the submarine might have been produced and put to useful application in that battle, which would have made it not moot. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)