Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Nuvola apps important.svg
Nuvola apps important.svg

This page is for discussing improvements to the entire Main Page only.

This is not a place to ask general questions or submit content.

If your question is related to the entire Main Page please search to make sure it hasn't been answered before:

If your question is not directly related to the entire Main Page, consider the following locations:
Questions about using and contributing to Wikipedia
Submitting content to a Main Page section

If in doubt, please see the Questions Help page for details on posting a question unrelated to the Main Page.

Or search Wikipedia:
06:48, Wednesday December 23, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page error reports

Main Page Toolbox
Yesterday
December 22		 Today
December 23, 2009		 Tomorrow
December 24
TFA TFA TFA
SA/OTD SA/OTD SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.		 POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.		 POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
In the news: suggestions · discussion
Did you know: suggestions · prep area · queue
Protected main page images
Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Sandbox
It is now 06:48 UTC
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

To report an error you have noticed on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below. Please note:

  • Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered, so please be specific.
  • References can be helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Remember that the Main Page usually defers to supporting pages for accuracy or when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
  • Note that Coordinated Universal Time is used for the current date and time (06:48 on 23 Dec 2009), and this may not coincide with your local time zone.
  • Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made.
  • Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
  • Using {{editprotected}} here will not give you a faster response, and in fact breaks the template when it is placed directly on the Main Page Errors page instead of on a talk page.


[edit] Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article

[edit] Errors in In the news

v • d • e
A new item should be added to Template:In the news by Wednesday, 23 December 2009 04:55 Wikipedia time (UTC).

Current time: Wednesday, 23 December 2009 06:48 (UTC)

Last updated: 25 hours ago.   (verify · reset · purge)
The article currently has no refs for the death toll, someone needs to add a reliable source with the 23 figure before it can be updated - Dumelow (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
On a related note, the death toll for North American blizzard of 2009 is reportedly 7, according to the Associated Press via The New York Times. APK whisper in my ear 21:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The BBC is reporting that the European death toll is now 80, however some of those are road accidents (not directly related to the weather) so make of it what you will. HJMitchell You rang? 21:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian is reporting a similar statistic as, interestingly, does Al Jazeera. HJMitchell You rang? 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"A blizzard produces record snowfall, causing power outages and at least five deaths in North America." makes it seem as though it was record snowfall for North America. It was actually a record 24-hour snowfall in Washington, D.C. and Roanoke, Virginia. Jolly Ω Janner 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It's still not fixed. Washington D.C. is not a state, so it shouldn't be plural. As well as that it makes it seem as thought it was a record low for Virginia, which I don't think it is. It's just a record low for one weather station in Virginia and another weather station in Washington D.C. I think the record low temperature is not worth mentioning. Same applied for the European one as well. It's the snow and wind that's the problem. Jolly Ω Janner 19:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
How is it now? --BorgQueen (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
How about "Snowfall disrupts transport across Europe resulting in at least 18 deaths, and a seperate blizzard across North America results in at least five deaths."? You could split them into two seperate hooks if you want, but I'm undecided. Jolly Ω Janner 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If I may chip in? I'd support the two being split into separate blurbs since we are (to the best of my limited meteorological knowledge) dealing with two separate weather systems. Besides, the link between the two is sloppy (no disrespect to whomever added it). I'd suggest one of:
    • Heavy snowfall causes disruption to transport services and at least eighteen deaths across Europe; while a blizzard produces record snowfall in some parts of the United States, with at least five deaths reported.
OR
    • Heavy snowfall causes disruption to transport services and at least eighteen deaths across Europe.
    • At least five deaths are reported as a blizzard produces record snowfall in some parts of the United States.
-HJMitchell You rang? 22:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd support the split. Jolly Ω Janner 22:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Why must everything European come first? 72.39.210.23 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd assume the European snowstorm came in at a later date. –Howard the Duck 11:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
From the US article the wweather system developed on 16 Dec but the snow only came on 19-20 Dec; European snow was from 17-18 Dec. 86.139.167.237 (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I actually dunno how to deal with this one. Items in this section appear in reverse chronological order -- newest items first. If this will be split, the U.S. item should come in first since the snow came in at a later date. –Howard the Duck 12:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Why must everything American come first? Just as valid a question. 86.142.104.203 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It still reads, "A heavy snow causes disruption of transport services and at least eighteen deaths across Europe"; is it the wrong type of a heavy snow? Ericoides (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Weasel wording

"Heavy snowfall causes disruption of transport services" is the same as saying "Heavy snowfall disrupts transport services" only with more words. Please change it to the latter. Jolly Ω Janner 14:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Europe snowfall deaths update

"More than 80 dead in European winter weather". Jolly Ω Janner 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Snowfall in Washington, D.C.

Speaking of that, the exoplanet will be pushed off soon, and here's a suitable image for the snowfall stories (this particular image is from the US snowfall). 67.220.5.154 (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gay marriage in Latin America

"Mexico City's Legislative Assembly legalizes same-sex marriage, the first such recognition in Latin America." Mexico City is not the first in Latin America. See Buenos Aires and Uruguay. 66.30.7.161 (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? Recognition of same-sex unions in Argentina says that a judge approved a same-sex marriage in Buenos Aires, but the marriage hasn't occurred pending a decision from a higher court. The Uruguay article says they have civil unions, a phrase chosen to avoid the word "marriage". (I won't be available for replies.) Art LaPella (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Barcelona

Grammar: it should be 'FC Barcelona win...' (not wins) Modest Genius talk 07:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"FC Barcelona" is singular, so "wins" is appropriate. HJMitchell You rang? 23:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, "win" is British English (depending on mysterious intangibles; I'll take Modest Genius's word for it) and "wins" is American English; see American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement and WP:ENGVAR. The issue is whether Barcelona and football/soccer are British enough to justify changing it. Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to start an argument, especially not here, but I'm English and I use British English and "wins" after a plural is the norm because "FC Barcelona" is singular (it's one entity, comprised of multiple individuals). If you were going to name individual platers (X, Y and Z) then "win" would be correct. Having said that, it's somewhat ironic that we should be having a conversation this long over one letter in the alphabet!! HJMitchell You rang? 02:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
GJ 1214 b image

This image is likely WP:OR and is part of an ongoing discussion about the appropriateness of artist's conception images in exoplanet articles. It is no longer part of the relevant article. It should be removed and replaced with an appropriate image. — Aldaron • T/C 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hey, where could we find a new suitable image? *ahemlookupahem* BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 01:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

[edit] Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

Reporters: please first correct today's or tomorrow's regular version.

Description of picture has singluar muddled with plural: Its curved beak is adapted to taking nectar from flowers, but they will also eat fruit and insects. 203.167.230.129 (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by BrownHairedGirl. Thanks for the report! Shubinator (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in Did you know?

v • d • e
Earliest time for next update: Wednesday, 23 December 2009 11:42 (UTC)

Current time: Wednesday, 23 December 2009 06:48 (UTC)

Last updated: 3 hours ago.   (verify · reset · purge)


[edit] General discussion

Shortcuts:
T:MP
WT:MP

Contents


[edit] In the news

The ITN piece about the octopus is not accurate. The results were just published, but it's not a new finding. The study began in 1998 (and the thing is called a coconut octopus, for heaven's sake). The study didn't "make" the octopus the first invertebrate known to use tools; on the contrary, the octopus' previously observed tool use was the impetus for the study. Does the publishing of a story warrant a place on ITN, even though the discovery is not new? Kafziel Complaint Department 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. How would we know about a scientific discovery unless it is published/announced? However, some rewording might be necessary for the current blurb. Do you have a suggestion? (As for its name, please check the article's talk page to see why the article was moved.) --BorgQueen (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Marley. [Edit: Scratch that. We know about it, obviously, because it was published in regular media sources instead of scientific journals - such as this one from March 2005 which points out that the octopus "hides out in the shells of coconuts, drawing two halves around it to hide."] We've known for years. What we're announcing here is the publication in a particular journal, not the actual discovery, which is considerably less monumental. As for the name of the octopus, I wasn't questioning the article's current title; I was pointing out that the animal is commonly called a coconut octopus, ergo this coconut business is nothing new. It's common knowledge to the locals. Why is it suddenly validated because a couple of white people put it in a magazine? Sure, it's nice for our purposes (at Wikipedia) to have better citations, but it's not really news. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The monstersandcritics.com link gives me a 500 Internal Server Error, so I can't comment on that. But the "It's common knowledge" argument is rarely meaningful in Wikipedia - we need verifiable, reliable sources to state it as an encyclopedic fact, as per WP:OR and WP:RS. In addition, the ITN stands for In the News; it is a section that features our articles about topics that happen to be in the current media reports. It is not a collection of news items like Wikinews. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't even make any sense. Where, exactly, would you suggest I add a source? We're talking about whether or not this belongs in the ITN section; I don't have to add sources to my opinion on this talk page, and I'm not suggesting we add the "common knowledge" thing to the article, so what's your point? I gave you a link - it still works fine for me, by the way - that shows that the behavior was known at least 4 years ago and is, therefore, not news by any stretch of the imagination. Is the object really just to bullshit me here until the whole thing blows over? That seems to be the typical strategy on this page. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok the link is working now, and the article doesn't say whatsoever about its tool use. The article is mainly talking about its bipedal locomotion, which has nothing to do with the current topic. It does mention coconuts though: "The octopus, with a head about two inches long, lives on the sandy bottom in water some 20 to 30 meters (60 to 100 feet) deep, among lots of sunken coconuts, and even hides out in the shells of coconuts, drawing two halves around it to hide." And that is not the point. Our article says: "By the researchers' definition of a tool as "an object carried or maintained for future use", the behavior of A. marginatus is the first documented case of tool use in invertebrates.[4][6] While the hermit crab reuses a shell which it maintains,[7] what makes A. marginatus different from the hermit crab is that A. marginatus collects shells for future use, so when the octopus is transporting the shell, it is not getting protection from the shell. This is considered by the researchers to be highly unusual behavior.[4]" You see the difference? Please pay attention to the researchers' definition of a tool as "an object carried or maintained for future use". While the article you linked does mention on the species hiding in coconut shells, that is irrelevant as far as the researchers' definition of a tool is concerned. Many sea creatures use foreign objects as shelter anyway, so that fact itself is nothing unusual. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so apparently your goal is to be deliberately obtuse, ignoring the points I make and arguing semantics instead. Fine. The event is truly groundbreaking and should definitely be on ITN. Hooray. Ice cream sundaes all around. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact, you are supposed to pay attention to semantics when dealing with scientific topics. If you don't wish to, I suggest you refrain from making comments on them, because such an approach tends to make you confused when discussing such topics, as you are now. In addition, your repeated assumption of bad faith makes me wonder if you take our WP:AGF behavioral guideline seriously. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
KAfziel, There is a difference between "Here is an octopus hiding in a coconut shell." and "Here is an octopus that has deliberately collected coconut shells from 30m around to form into a primitive shelter." The first is relatively mundane but the second is news. APL (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
If you choose to define a orange as something square and black, you can draw your own conclusions but don't expect anyone to understand you. Please at least put "scare quotes" around this non-standard definition of "tool". 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually I wouldn't have to explain it if Kafziel bothered to read our article and its sources (there are not many) beforehand. And no, it is not "my" definition, it is the researchers' definition who made the discovery. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
We are discussing misleading information on the front page of Wikipedia - not qualified statements buried near the end of the linked article. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The Main Page ALWAYS deferrs to supporting articles. No matter where it is located in the linked article, if it says it and is not contested, the main page can also say it. FWIW, scientific research isn't really scientific research until it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Modest Genius talk 04:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand what Kafziel is getting at. The novelty here is the claim that the shell is a tool. That claim hangs on another claim: that carrying a shell is of no immediate benefit to the animal. The heart of the problem is the claim of no immediate benefit, which I found unlikely when I first read the Wikipedia article. If the octopus has a predator that hides in the sand, then carrying the shell in fact does protect the octopus, and the shell is not a tool. In any case, if there is a problem here it lies not in the Wikipedia article but in the source article. --Una Smith (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this has been discussed before...

In contrast to all other sections of the main page, In The News articles stay up for days and days. Seems kind of a waste of space and after all old news is no news, or so I've heard. Isn't there enough going on in the world to put up 5 or 6 newsworthy items each day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.6.220 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please visit WP:ITN/C to see how many candidates are being rejected there. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedias by size update

The categories of Wikis in other languages seem to be NOT up to date and understate the size of these. I suggest following categories:

Current category Nr. of languages listed Total nr. of languages (any quality) Proposed category Nr. of languages depth >5 Option 2 - balanced Nr. of languages Nr. with depth >5
250,000 11 11 500,000 8 300,000 10 10
100,000 16* 17 100,000 19* 100,000 18 17*
40,000 14** 19 50,000 12** 50,000 15 12**
TOTAL 41 47 39 43 39

* Volapük not included ** Hindi not included Elekhh (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the omissions, I'll quote Template:Wikipedialang/doc:

This is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 40,000 or more articles; Wikipedias below a depth of 5 and those manually determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted.

—David Levy 13:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Leaving aside the quality issue, Elekhh's suggestion to bump up the three article quantity section requirements might well deserve a look. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
We periodically tweak the numerical thresholds, and a "500,000" tier might be worth considering. We must be mindful of the overall balance, as we attempt to keep the three tiers roughly even or slightly bottom-heavy. —David Levy 06:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with David Levy here that the size of the three sections should be reasonably balanced. But for me that means I see no reason to use a 500,000 level since that would make the sections less balanced. Also, I don't think the lower limit of 40,000 should be increased, since I instead would like to have links to more languages so I would prefer to lower the limit instead.
--David Göthberg (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Olny 2 of the 3 omitted ones with 50,000+ articles have a depth of less than 5. Is unclear for instance why Hindi is not listed. Elekhh (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Quoth the explanation once again (this time with added emphasis):

This is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 40,000 or more articles; Wikipedias below a depth of 5 and those manually determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted.

Some Wikipedias' depth measurements have been artificially inflated (along with their article counts) by minor automated edits resulting in thousands of "articles" devoid of encyclopedic content (e.g. one bot creating an empty article, another bot adding a category, another bot adding generic section headers, and another bot adding a navigational template leading to other empty articles). —David Levy 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Good idea but perhaps premature. I'd like to wait for 10 wikis having more than 500K articles before we implement this. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If balance is more important than round numbers, you could still change the thressholds. My point is that the general impression is that all non-English wikis are very small with the largest being in excess of only 250,000. In reality 8 of 11 in this category are aboove 500,000. Added another, more balanced option to the table above. By lifting the categories to 50K, 100K and 300K, the number of languages with depth>5 would be remain the same. Elekhh (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
So you're replacing decent Wikipedias containing 40,000–50,000 articles with Wikipedias containing more than 50,000 articles that are mostly stubs and placeholders, yes? —David Levy 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
No. That was not my intention. Quite the contrary, I am talking about raising the quality bar not lowering it. Elekhh (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, as long as you now realize that you were accidentally proposing the above. —David Levy 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Your proposed configuration substantially increases the middle tier's size advantage over the bottom tier, which is the opposite of what we aim for. —David Levy 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Not substantially: only two wikis currently listed would fall slightly below the 50K mark. If pyramidal shape is of such concern the lower tier could be expanded to 120K. Anyway, the tone of this conversation does not give me any hope for progress, so I give up. Elekhh (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your criticism of the discussion's tone, as we've been quite cooperative in addressing your concerns and expressing ours. —David Levy 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Secure server

I am planning to fix the links in the sections "Wikipedia's sister projects" and "Wikipedia languages" so they work correctly also when viewed through the secure server. See discussion at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Secure server.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now coded and tested the new versions, and I am ready to deploy this. See the code and discussion over at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Secure server.
--David Göthberg (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pulling back the curtain

Currently the main page is very much pitched towards readers, rather than treating visitors as potential editors. But we need more editors, so shouldn't we try to convert more of our readers into editors, and what better way than presenting more of the 'inner workings' of Wikipedia upfront on the main page?
For example, we could include {{cent}} to show the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, {{Signpost-subscription}} to make more people aware of the wonderful Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and {{opentask}} to show all the many things that we need editors to do. These are currently hidden away on the Wikipedia:Community portal. And what about {{Policy list}} and {{Deletiondebates}}, to make more readers aware of these important parts of the functioning of the encyclopedia, so they no longer have to just stumble across them? Thoughts? Fences&Windows 16:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The current setup encourages readers to familiarize themselves with and edit the encyclopedia proper before delving into behind-the-scenes activities. Why is this a bad thing? In my assessment, your proposed changes would result in more users attempting to participate in processes of which they lack sufficient context to understand, becoming discouraged when they encounter difficulties, and leaving the project in frustration. —David Levy 16:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think that 'we need more editors'? We have plenty.Have you read the signpost recently? Modest Genius talk 12:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course we need more editors, to think otherwise is very complacent. I don't believe the analysis of drastically falling numbers, but we need more editors to deal with our massive backlogs. Anyway, comments on the proposal, please. Fences&Windows 14:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with David Levy here. A centralized discussion should not be THAT centralized. The main page is a frontispiece and should remain as a resource in order to explore the encyclopedia. If someone wants to contribute, they can click on the second line of the main page where it says "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I think further instruction on the main page would just be confusing to those who are just here to search or even those new users who want to contribute. The latter are better served by being introduced to the enyclopedia, not being thrown into the deepend. Valley2city‽ 22:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Historical main pages made available?

Wouldn't it be great if someone could just enter a date in the past to see what the main page looked like then? __meco (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess it would be great. --Pakos (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It's called the page history. Want to see January 2005? Click http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history&year=2005&month=1&tagfilter= Fences&Windows 15:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
However, F&W, looking at the page history won't show you the main page as it appeared in Jan 2005, because it transcludes the current versions of TFA, DYK, OTD etc rather than the Jan 2005 versions. BencherliteTalk 15:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to see this feature managed somehow. I agree with Bencherlite that you cannot simply use the history due to how templates are being used. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This might be kind of what you're looking for. Of course, it's not perfect, and not complete with every single date, and some of the photos are missing. But it does go back to 2002. 130.49.212.156 (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Really, what would be nice is a software feature that lets you go through a page history and then also uses the then-current versions of templates etcetera. But I'm sure the developers have better things to do than that. Ucucha 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another fly as a featured picture

There's too much of these. The last one was on December 12th. There are too much of these flys being nominated as a featured picture and being put on the main page. They also look a little tiny bit nasty. December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! 06:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Flyist. 86.138.46.145 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Meh. Go take photos of something else. Put them here. Relax.  GARDEN  11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And if there were a number of snakes, and road-junction-features alternating with the flys, and a picture of Montgomery of Alamain would there be Monty Python's Flying Circus jokes? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There might even be a featured picture of flys on April 1. December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! 17:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Haven't you heard? The first rule of Talk:Main Page is, you do not criticize the Main Page. The second rule of Talk:Main Page is, you do not criticize the Main Page.
This page is only to be used to tell the editors who run the Main Page that they're doing an outstanding job. Otherwise you are a dick.[1][2] Kafziel Complaint Department 18:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I will do my best from hereon to schedule as many fly photos as possible, since they seem to be so popular! howcheng {chat} 00:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, everybody loves babies, do you have any maggot pictures in the queue? APL (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes!!! Actually, this link reminds me of days when were less concerned about flies and more concerned about owls. I do believe that there are better pictures out there though other than flies. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Mr&MrsSantaClaus.jpg
Like this. Look closely and Santa might even be said to be strangling his wife. --candle•wicke 03:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page"