Talk:Main Page

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllmmn knjhhjhjhjhlkhkjhjjjiihiiugeghhhhggggnnnjhnj

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 03:35 on 20 April 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, determined not to be an error, or the item has 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)

Tomorrow's FA

Just a head's-up that I'm staying out of this one. Productive discussions are ongoing at WT:Today's featured article/April 2024#1984 world snooker championship. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

For Børsen perhaps we can do better than bland "catches fire". Suggest "is severely damaged by a fire". Brandmeister^talk 19:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Good call, done. Stephen 20:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• Could the bold in the final hook be limited to "a committee of Chinese compatriots"? Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Next DYK

• "... that the first field goal of Jake Bates's life was the second-longest in professional football history?"

Oh, American football! Not real football... Fram (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fram: I was going to correct this, but then I wondered what to correct it to... American football? Gridiron? The source is [1], and it just says "professional football"... (and the article is from "HawgBeat"... is that even a reliable source?). As a separate point, I'm slightly uneasy about the "first in his life" wording. I mean the guy must have kicked some field goals on the training field and so on... or even in games outside of the high school / college / professional axis. I feel like a bit more precision is required. Pinging @BeanieFan11, Storye book, Bruxton, and RoySmith: as the DYK's principals, for some feedback here.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

... that the first recorded field goal of Jake Bates's life was the second-longest in professional football history?

... that the first officially-recorded field goal of Jake Bates's life was the second-longest in professional football history? Storye book (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

My bad for not catching that. Yeah, it should say "American". I know that's not in the source, but it's clearly implied. How about:

• ... that Jake Bates's first recorded field goal was the second-longest in American football history?

RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably had "recorded" ones in the preseason. Unqualified "American football" is wrong, as there's been longer ones at the college level.[2] —Bagumba (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And his 64-yarder actually tied one hit in 2013 by Matt Prater. I'll leave it to others whether "tied" needs to be in the hook.[3] —Bagumba (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the sport - but is any of the hook true? Secretlondon (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

There's enough problems here that I've pulled the hook, so we can work this out without a ticking clock over our heads. This leaves 8 hooks in this set, which is fine. I was going to pull up the West Georgia Wolves football hook from Prep 1, but that's verbose enough that I think it also needs some work. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fram, Amakuru, Storye book, RoySmith, Bagumba, and Secretlondon: What about: ... that the first field goal Jake Bates ever made in a game was the second-longest in professional American football history? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: The West Georgia hook is also mine; what's wrong with it? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: The last hook above looks OK to me. Storye book (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

By the time we're talking about "the second-longest in professional American football history" it's more like a novel than a hook. Anyway, my suggestion is to work it out on the nom page where there's no time pressure. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: "it's more like a novel than a hook" – the hook is only 122 characters long (/200) and doesn't seem all that crazy to me. IMO we could also remove the "American" part since there's no field goals made in association football - we could link professional gridiron football if needed: ... that the first field goal Jake Bates ever made in a game was the second-longest in professional football history? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please pick this up on the nom page, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Please hyphenate the compound modifier to read "damselfly-relative Okanagrion". Thanks. JMCHutchinson (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

• Two opportunities for better link clarity: the links should be extended to "competed in an international competition" and "their opponent's stadium". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Done as consistent with MOS:MORELINKWORDS. Though I'd argue to just unlink "their opponent's stadium" altogether, as it's not needed to understand the hook, and leaves something for the body. —Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(April 26)

Monday's FL

(April 22)

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

Sharing feature articles via social networking

Maybe it's already possible somehow, but it'd be nice if there was an easy, one or two click type way of posting today's feature article to social networking websites.

Also, was it really necessary for me to trawl through the page's source code just to post this comment? Reentim (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles are US-centric?

I haven't looked at Wikipedia for a while, but on reading the main page today, I noticed that 3 of the 4 most recent featured articles are about US people or places. Is this a pattern? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.131 (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The only patterns that you are the ones that you perceive. –Howard the Duck 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That didn't make any sense. 69.120.147.64 (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Short answer - there is no pattern.  GARDEN  21:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I wish they were US-Centric. Then there wouldn't be these embarrassing silly featured articles about some recent song by some recent Aussie rock band. Kinda makes me miss the good old days when all of the featured articles were about old cricket players. Zenexp (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Logo

Why does the Wikipedia logo have a ' on the left hand side of the omega sign? This is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. 128.232.247.48 (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that article shows the ball both with and without that mark by the omega. It also mentions "capital omega with tonos", and tonos is explained here. Art LaPella (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Orlando office shooting

The situation currently unfolding in Orlando should be added to the ITN section 69.41.192.218 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please propose such additions at WP:ITN/C (where this item is, in fact, already under consideration). Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

London Gazette

The article London Gazette says that it claims to be the oldest surviving English-language newspaper, whereas the Main Page synopsis (under "On this day...") says that it is the oldest surviving English-language newspaper. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ivars_Godmanis_on_left.JPG

Please transfer this file on commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ivars_Godmanis_on_left.JPG --77.48.153.172 (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, although the place to bring this up would probably have been the Village Pump. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 15:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of criminals need not be displayed.

You play right into the hands of the criminals, who may be pathologically focused on garnering publicity at any cost. Very poor editorial policy on your part. If you must display a photograph of the incident, you would be much wiser to display a picture of a victim, or of the location. Haiduc (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, your editorial focus could just as well be on the victims, not on the killer, by starting the piece out by saying that "Thirteen people were killed and X injured by ..." Haiduc (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP's editorial policy should not be dictated by what alleged criminals may want. Going out of your way to avoid doing what someone wants is just another way of needlessly allowing them to control your actions. APL (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A criminal's desire for notoriety does not make his or her image any less notable and relevant. Wikipedia is not in the business of implicitly condemning or advocating criminals and their victims. Nufy8 (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The choice of focus is in poor taste, and a bad editorial decision. It is in all likelihood a reflection of the American fascination with criminals. Wikipedia is not in the business of juvenile and obsessive news coverage. Haiduc (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Taste is irrelevant, and what the blurb reflects is moot. Of course, since the image has been removed, you can now sleep soundly knowing juvenile Wikipedia will no longer be offending your sensibilities. Nufy8 (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Haiduc. The liberal media tells us that if you sign up to defend your homeland, and then some bloated parasites in Washington order you to bomb your fifth cousins and incinerate some opium fields in the middle of goddamn nowhere, there is a chance that it might drive you batshit insane.

However, patriotic Americans like us know that he only shot up his fellow soldiers because he wanted his picture to appear on the front page of a third-rate online encyclopaedia. HOO-RAH! --86.170.64.57 (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The man was shot and stopped, the only choice would be the woman who shot him or one of the victims. Under the circumstances the perpetrator is the one most associated with the act, so the picture was appropriate. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This criticism might fairly be laid in another case, but here the shooter's appearance is part of the story. We have a country in which a man can be an officer in the military, have a "foreign" appearance, subscribe to a religion which has a certain group of adherents supporting attacks on us, make anti-war and anti-American statements, and even so we let him continue his work and carry his weapons, at a now proven risk to ourselves. Now to a lot of people that may sound like a joke or a mistake, but I say it is a very expensive proof that this country isn't like certain regimes in opposition to us. Those people who died, died defending our country in the most effective way possible, by showing the world the fatal sincerity of our beliefs. Wnt (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not display Eastern Christianity observances?

Just a little curious here - today (November 8) is the "Synaxis of Archangel Michael", for the Eastern Christians. It's a pretty big day for Eastern Chrisitianity, and while it does have a western equivalent, why not display it like you would with the other national/cultural/religious dates? Just a bit of fairness, not like every Eastern christian thing should be put there. Just the major ones should be listed like the major western christian things already are. No biggy though, since I can just click on November 8. But I'd rather just scroll once, take a peek, go 'ahhh' and then go on with my usual time wasting. --60.230.224.107 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Synaxis of Archangel Michael would be listed here, if we had an article about it. howcheng {chat} 06:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As this is the second religious festivity to be notable for its non-mention, it seems that this area needs developing.

Copyed

How about clarifying the line : 'Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below' to ... 'There are many Wikipedias available in other languages, including:' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.136.61 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is meant to clarify what criterion we use to list some other Wikipedias but not all of them. Once upon a time we used to get very frequent messages here asking us to list a "missing" Wikipedia with almost no content, so the wording we have is aimed at preventing that. However, this hasn't been a problem recently so far as I can tell, so it's at least worth checking what people think about such a change. Bear in mind, though, that we rarely change the Main Page layout without broad discussion; if there's no interest in doing this, it won't get done. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No Berlin Wall?

Shouldn't OTD have something about this? It's quite important...

~Luna-chan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.199.242 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's policy not to include the same event in two different sections of the main page. Thus because the fall of the wall is noted in today's FA it will not also feature in OTD. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For those interested the relevant info is at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/November 9 in the FAQ where it says "to maintain some variety of topics on the Main Page as a whole, an event is not posted if it is also the subject of this year's scheduled featured article or featured picture", - Dumelow (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On a related note; Why isn't File:Halt hier grenze.jpg not being used in the FA area?? It's on the commons, and of a free license, and is the lead image of the article, so what gives?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon checking, the image being used in the FA isn't on the page in question. Again, why was THAT image used instead of one in the article itself?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The FA is on the Inner German Border not the Berlin Wall. Thus there is no reason why the Berlin Wall should not be included in OTD. Phillipmorantking (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, if it's policy not to include the same event in more than one section of the main page, then why was (among other things at other times) the anniversary of 9/11 on two sections this year and three the previous? 79.79.17.155 (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!! Kidding aside, chalk it up to a gradual change in policy on the front page. Remember when the FA also included copyrighted fair-use images? Nowadays, if the article has no Free-use images (Like Video Games and Books), there is no image period.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador disaster

Since someone may soon ask why it isn't on the Main Page yet it is here but is too short at the moment. Please assist with its expansion if you wish. :) --candle•wicke 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, Vitaly Ginzburg died!

Finally a worth the Main Page! And here I was thinking there was some rule preventing IMPORTANT deaths to be news items... I guess nobody IMPORTANT had died this year... until now, that is! 190.157.137.110 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean like Michael Jackson [4], Omar Bongo [5] (who's death was I believe annouced prematurely Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 26), Corazon Aquino [6], Ted Kennedy [7] (who can forget the mess/fuss that created?), Roh Moo-hyun [8], Alicia de Larrocha [9] [10] and Raúl Alfonsín [11] [12] which doesn't count Velupillai Prabhakaran [13] and very likely misses a few others as I don't have a photographic memory and don't always check the main page/ITN and although I did search in the template history for death, this presumes someone used the word death in the edit summary in association with the death which they of course don't always, and did in fact miss Roh Moo-hyun (someone used suicide but not death) who I happened to notice (do remember now but probably wouldn't have otherwise), Alicia de Larrocha who I found from the ITN talk page and Raúl Alfonsín who I found by coincidence when looking for someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There was another [14] only last week. --candle•wicke 21:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed just after I turned off my computer earlier I remembered another one. Couldn't be bothered starting it again but Noordin Mohammad Top [15] [16]. Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And then there was Les Paul [17]. --candle•wicke 19:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are frequent complaints that there are too many deaths on ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Some even try to remove them from ITN although the entries have been approved by consensus, while others keep adding certain deaths, usually American, even when they are not exactly supported by consensus. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Image location

I know it's one of these perennial issues but it was interesting to see that Elmo and Grover have joined the United States Marine Corps. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a different shade background colour around the image and also behind the related text? This will possibly help link the news item to the photo, but someone might need to make a mock up to test it out.--202.0.51.210 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That actually sounds a good idea, if done subtly. Perhaps a slightly deep shade of the same pastel colour? Modest Genius ^talk 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fundraising banner (Wikipedia Forever)

Since I'm sure we're going to get a ton of complaints as we do every year, can we keep discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Abolish the silly headers please Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Orwellian

This banner ad ("Wikipedia Forever") seems very Orwellian and frightening. Has Wikipedia been hacked? 66.31.202.119 (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See above Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Donations

Where can I find how much money has been raised each day? Thanks 128.232.247.48 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This page provides the daily, monthly, currency statistics. This page is quite handy too as it lists each donation and the donors' comments - Dumelow (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the first page, someone donated 254,486.20 USD worth in a currency denoted 'STO', which is a code which apparently doesn't exist. wtf? Modest Genius ^talk 23:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It refers to a stock transfer. Dragons flight (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And what currency is '5.0'? BTW - it's been a looooo... ong time since I've posted to the talk page of the Main Page - that 'Please make sure' banner is shocking. But probably useful. And scary. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia now owns 254,486.20 USD-worth of shares in some company? Has this been announced somewhere? Modest Genius ^talk 18:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that was quite a while ago, and I think it was converted to cash shortly after it was received. Dragons flight (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Liebniz's day

1675 – German polymath Gottfried Leibniz employed integral calculus for the first time to find the area under the graph of the function y = f(x).

That's an unusual way to format it since any function can be f(x), that just a notation. Remove the "the" and "y = f(x)", it's redundant. --84.251.122.251 (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just say 'integration' anyway? It's a term every educated adult will have encountered, even if they don't remember exactly what it is or how it works. Modest Genius ^talk 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not another video game!

Video/computer games are not important enough to be a featured article. Only people without normal lives think them important. 84.13.175.130 (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think England isn't important enough to be a featured article. Only people with bad teeth live there. EvilHom3r (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is "important enough" to be a featured article. Importance isn't the criteria. APL (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a never ending battle. Any time anything is TFA, someone moans and complains about it because they think "Oh, that shouldn't be TFA, it's not important enough, blah blah blah." If that's how you feel about it, make your own Wiki! Or, better yet, work on something you think IS important so that it can be TFA one day. Seriously people, quit complaining!

Who are you to deem what is or isn't important, and also what constitutes a "normal" life? Luckily wikipedia doesn't choose articles on their importance. If it did we probably wouldn't learn about some of the more weird and wonderful subjects out there. The FA isn't the only article on wikipedia, there are more if you want to look. Or better still, as someone else suggested, if you don't like video games being featured, write and expand articles that aren't about video games, articles that people with "normal" lives are interested in. Dark verdant (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is much easier to complain than write (any) featured article!  Francium12  11:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is very true. Dark verdant (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious point here. Many of these article are thinly veiled product placements; puff pieces for the companies concerned. Also, their references are very vague. For example, they always state that the game was "well received" with a rather flimsy reference. Surely it is not beyond the bounds of the FA selection criteria to feature a balanced selection of articles. (Also, abusive comments are inappropriate in these discussions and just indicate a lack of good manners. Awernham (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Join WP:BIAS 79.79.17.155 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Abusive comments?" If by "abusive" you mean "offensive," you should consider that insulting the work of Featured Article contributors as you have done is highly offensive, especially when your comments suggest that you haven't read the article in question. The Grim Fandango article is certainly not a "thinly veiled product placement," a "puff piece," or filled with "flimsy references" with respect to its reception. There are other articles which fit the description you offer, but they aren't Featured Articles... and Wikipedia is a wiki so that users such as yourself may spend time improving rather than insulting. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 14:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that Grim Fandago is an 11 year old adventure game and that, as the article and our main page summary says However, the game has been considered a commercial failure, which partially led LucasArts to terminate their adventure game development, contributing to the decline of the adventure game genre (emphasis added) and much to the chargrin of many adventure game fans, LucasArts by and large remains uninvolved and uninterested in the adventure game genre (despite some recent doings with Monkey Island, 'product placement' is a bit of a stretch. Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On a lighter note, I would consider anyone who spends there time posting on the talk of the Main Page of Wikipedia to not have quite a "normal" life. Oh, wait, that includes me! :) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... sigh... I started a discussion on this about a month or two ago which resulted in a general agreement that things were a bit askew -and yet here's another game. Between the overabundance of featured articles of games created by white men and the overabundance of featured articles about white men, white men have pretty much got the featured article completely monopolized. The purpose of this discussion is not to discuss what constitutes a "normal" person, but what constitutes a fair, inclusive, unbiased "featured article" page. An inability to recognize shortcomings and a failure to adapt will define the general character of the English Wikipedians.Paradise coyote (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because only white people create video games. Right. Of course. Speaking of offensive... Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A large amount of our videogame featured articles are Japanese games, which obviously aren't exactly "created by white men". And besides, even if it were true that the majority of featured articles are white-focussed, this simply means that the majority of people who have improved articles have done so on white-focussed articles (either consciously or sub-consciously), rather than that the Featured Article process/criteria is somehow biased against non-whites. This can, of course, be fixed by improving articles on non-white things. If it gets to Good Article status, but upon nomination for FA too many people say "Oppose. Not a white-enough subject for me", then the skin colour thing is an issue. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The last four video games were Grim Fandango, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Crush (video game), and The World Ends With You. Grim Fandango was designed by a white guy. 'Smash Bros', and 'The World...' were not, and I'm uncertain about Crush.

Either way, games are produced by large teams. The ethnicity of the designer doesn't really make the article "white" or not. To me, Paradise coyote's rant just seems bizarre and misplaced. APL (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Bizarre and misplaced" is about right... although if there were ever an appropriate American-produced video game article to inspire the rant, I don't think Grim Fandango would be it... given that it's based on Aztec-inspired characters and includes Latin-American and African-American musical influences. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't see general agreement (whatever that means) for anything of that sort. Where did you start the discussion? Definitely all discussions I've seen on Talk:Main Page haven't come to anything close to general agreement. Some people say OMFG too many video games, some people say STFU (I'm paraphrasing for both this and the last), some people are in between. In other words, in every discussion there's far from general agreement let alone WP:consensus. Most discussions have also had rather few people. Perhaps not surprising since 1) this isn't the best place for such a discussion 2) people tire of the same discussion every 2 months 3) ultimately you're going to need to involve User:Raul654 in any discussion. If you aren't aware of any of these 3, perhaps you should read around a bit more before continuing to partake in this discussion... Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus comes in when an article is under featured article candidacy. There, a consensus is reached on whether the article nominated is among the best of articles on Wikipedia. Beyond that I don't know of any consensus for when an article is made TFA, although I know that sometimes people may campaign to have an article be TFA for a specific day (like there was for Batman Begins shortly before Dark Knight came out). Consensus is reached where it is most crucial: is this article good enough to be an FA? But most people that complain here don't take part in the discussions over at FAC. They have no one to blame but themselves for not objecting. Not that they'd have solid ground to object anyways. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"I don't know of any consensus for when an article is made TFA" – allow me to introduce you (and perhaps others) to the "Today's Featured Article Request Page", where suggestions for TFA appearances can be made, supported and opposed. The requests and supports are not binding on Raul654, but can help him in deciding what should be scheduled on certain days. At the time of writing, the nominations are for William III of England on the anniversary of his birth, "On the Origin of Species" on the 150th anniversary of its publication, Scotland national football team on the anniversary of its first match, the history of the Montreal Canadiens on the anniversary of their foundation, and George H. D. Gossip, a chess player, on the anniversary of his birth. Bencherlite^Talk 09:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So when are the 'Computer games and assorted Sports' main page and the 'Non-work/school/library/Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' children safe front pages going to be set up as alternative start pages? Along with a 'to report errors click here' link at the top of the talk page much 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' would be avoided. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error on Main Page

The first ITN item has the word "electric" misspelled. Just FYI.--208.82.225.245 (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ERROR tab?

I notice that a lot of people use this talk page to address errors on the main page. Is it possible, in order to resolve errors in a quicker manner, to add a tab solely for error reports? By that I mean one thus: "main page | discussion | edit this page | new section | report an error | history", or one visible from the main page itself. 79.79.17.155 (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:ERRORS at the top of this page? Art LaPella (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One difficulty is that the tabs are determined by the MediaWiki software - you can't arbitrarily add tabs by editing the page contents. You'd have to modify the MediaWiki software itself. That's a significant undertaking for a change that's only going to be used by one page on one WikiMedia site. (On every other page, the talk page is where you're supposed to report errors, if you don't fix them yourself.) Practically speaking, there is little harm in people reporting errors on the main talk page versus the error page. It may not be as quick, but the errors get fixed. If it somehow disturbs you, you can always be bold and move them to the error page. As Art mentions, if people aren't seeing/aren't reading the links at the top of the page, it's unlikely that louder klaxons or an additional tab will change their behavior - at least, it's unlikely enough not to be worth altering the MediaWiki code. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it would be quite easy to do with some simple javascript. Ose (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Forever banner

I find it rather ironic that there is the banner on Wikipedia saying "Knowledge Forever, Ad-Free Forever, Wikipedia Forever" and yet it is advertising itself and the fundraiser. Simply south (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a particular fan of "For your great, great, great, great grandson". Apparently Wikimedia is now forcing me to have children. There is a section at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Abolish_the_silly_headers where all criticism against the current campaign is encouraged to be posted. I guess it keeps this page clear of the mountain of posts it would get otherwise (or keeps it out of the public eye!) - Dumelow (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That Village Pump section is rather WP:TLDR now. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia Forever may be a better destination. Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)