Talk:Main Page

Sections of this page older than three days are automatically archived.

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 11:24 on 11 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)

Errors with "In the news"

Olaf Scholz

• The German ruling coalition (Chancellor Olaf Scholz pictured) collapses over disagreements on economic policies.

The word "collapses" seems too strong as the linked article, 2024 German government crisis, does not use it. What it actually says is "...FDP effectively moved into the opposition, rendering the current coalition a two-party minority government." So, there's still a coalition but it has lost one of its members and so will continue as a minority government for now. Scholz is negotiating what happens next and it seems to be too soon to say exactly what that will be. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN given that the government is still very much in place. There will presumably be elections soon and we should post then.

  Also, when I first read this I thought it was Scholz himself who had collapsed. It's a poorly worded hook, given the presence of the photo caption in the middle, making it look like the Chancellor has had a mishap.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN ...: Met WP:ITNSIGNIF:

  It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits

  —Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the first two sources at the ITNC nom were "Scholz sets stage for German snap election as government collapses" and "Germany’s Coalition Collapses, Leaving the Government Teetering".—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are news headlines which, per WP:HEADLINE, tend to use "exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers". And note that those examples are contradictory – one says the "government collapses" while the other says "government teetering". These are metaphors but these can be confusing when we are blurbing actual physical collapses too such as the recent canopy collapse. We should have a more precise description using the encyclopedic language of the article rather than the journalistic hyperbole of the news headlines. In this case, the finance minister was dismissed and his party left the governing coalition. A vote of confidence is now expected but hasn't been scheduled. So, the blurb might be:

* German chancellor Olaf Scholz (pictured) dismisses his finance minister and the resulting resignations leave his coalition without a majority.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to a gross error that will get resolved here. Since it appears to be "major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates" (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Suggesting_updates), the ITNC nom seems like the best venue to gain consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

How can the lead paragraph of Carlton Colville Scouts Memorial, deemed good enough for placement on the main page, fail to say where it is located? And why is it so unclear in the article body as well, where mentions of a memorial lack wikilinks to its location? Echoedmyron (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed by JennyOz :) in the future, Echoedmyron, DYK doesn't protect the pages it runs, so you're more than welcome to make any improvements you feel need to be made. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Next DYK

Meijer de Hond (nom)

The hook currently uses italics (''Volksrebbe'') to mark the Dutch-language term Volksrebbe. Per MOS:LANG, this should instead be {{lang|nl|Volksrebbe}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done by @Schwede66 Sohom (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I restored the quotes that you removed. It seem like its italicized because its a foreign language, but quotes are also used as its referring to a nickname (MOS:QUOTENAME).—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I wasn't sure about the quotes and got dragged away from the computer the moment I had hit "save". Otherwise, I would have asked here. Schwede66 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 15)

Monday's FL

(November 11, today)

• We can add "(pictured)" after Kublai Khan in the blurb. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Main page general discussion

Battle??!!?

Many people mistakenly believe the ship shown exploding is USS Arizona, whose destruction during the attack accounted for over half of the men killed in action during the battle.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was always under the impression that a battle was a fight between two sides.[1]

Whereas the event in Pearl Harbor is commonly referred to as the Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor. Why? Because Uncle Sam took it in the bum without response.

In fact, the clause "during the battle" strikes me as superfluous given that the reader is made aware that this was "during the attack" earlier in the sentence. So get it fixed. --220.86.152.103 03:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken:

• A battle, as you yourself described it is a fight between two sides, more or less. This was a fight, a fight which was one-sided due to the surprise achieved by the Japanese. Whether or not it was one-sided does not make it any less of a battle - you can call it an ambush, treachery etc but its still a battle.

• The United States managed to shoot 29 planes so it was not totally without loss for the Japanese. If you had read the article, you would know that it was one of the reasons why a third wave was avoided by the Imperial forces of Japan.

Next time please report possible errors at the top where it says "Errors in picture of the Day/Today's Featured Picture" Tourskin 05:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if I walk up to a stranger on the street an beat him about the head, you call that a battle? I'd call that an attack. That's why it is called the Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor. --220.86.152.103 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet that's not what happened - taking on your poor analogy, the stranger retaliated and broke your arm --> battle. 172.202.161.119 11:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps before arguing over word choice, you should consider style. The word "attack" is used twice in the blurb, so using it a third time (and second in the last sentence) would sound redundant. Sasha Callahan 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Two people constitute a battle? Don't you need at least a small army or naval fleet for that? --199.71.174.100

Battle fits fine. They did shoot back at the attackers. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should give such a poor analogy because battle comes from the word batuere which means ‘to strike, beat’. So yes if you were to beat someone on the street, that would be a battle. Or more like a bateure. Tourskin 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

...ok buddy. Anyway, I agree with this post - Pearl Harbor isn't generally referred to as a battle. The stylistic complaints are valid too. -Elmer Clark 09:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be referred to as a battle but then again how many people call the 1st Iraq War Operation Desertstorm? Few if any, theyc all it the Gulf War. You see theres a difference between what something is (a battle) and what something is called. Any military or aggressive attack in war is a battle, no matter how small or how one-sided or how sneaky. Full-stop. Tourskin 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

87.244.73.107 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation? Oh You want citation? How bout every single recorded encounter in history? Thats called a battle? Hmm? Tourskin 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this a little personally Fourskin. I suggest you chill out. And for what it's worth, it wasn't a battle. It was an attack. --JohnO 09:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Great Freudian slip - or were you calling him a dick? Either way - kudos.64.37.159.196 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh gees. The only dicks around here are people who leave such immature nonesense. If you check out Pacific Ocean theater of World War II#Major campaigns and battles, it has Pearl Harbour beneath. Hmmm, looks like it was a battle. Tourskin 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr mystery guest - yes, user 64.37.159.196. We at wikipedia don't normally call each other dicks. And we try not too. So understand that there is no room here for immature cuss matches. Tourskin 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not meaning to patronize you, but it's quite clear that you are not a native speaker; English is obviously not your first language. So trust me on this, you are wrong. --JohnO 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke guys - lighten up. And still - it wasn't me who first wrote "Fourskin", so get off of my case - all I was doing was making a comical observation.

Also - "Mr mystery guest"? - give me a break, I can't possibly be the first WP user to feel lazy and not log in properly just to leave a Talk comment.

Finally, "we at Wikipedia"? Get off of your high horse, I have just as much cause to speak for WP as you do. I am no stranger here and I have seen much more vulgar, much less civil behavior displayed at WP.Drewson99 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fourskin? Aha! It all becomes clear. I must have made a typo. I didn't realize. So sorry. Tourskin, I may not agree with your opinion and I think your supercilious attitude is a disgraceful advertisement for the Wikipedia project, but had I wished to pun on your name, I would have gone with Foreskin. Why? Because I can spell and I know the meaning of words. Thanks. --JohnO 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My high horse? I was addressing the person who hadn't signed in - and I didn't notice that it was you at the time. You knew this. Nice contradiction to yourself. Now my advice to you, as an over-reacting and high-horsed wikipedian is that you stop the personal attacks. Some users here can be on wikipeda for a long time but they still can't get th hang of the game, just as your talk page does with its comments about incivility. No English is not my first language. Aramaic is. Do you know what that is? Can you speak more than one language? I wouldn't believe that you would answer yes to these questions. I don't give damn if my first language is not English. It means that I, unlike native users, have an excuse to mispell once in a while. Tourskin 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing Drewson99 with me. But I can guess which comments are aimed at me, so allow me to respond.

1. I have made no personal attacks on you.
2. I keep the "warning" from P.B.Pilhet on my talk page because it reminds me of just how many wankers are patrolling these pages as self-elected policemen.
3. I do know what Aramaic is.
4. I speak three languages. (One Romance, one West Germanic and one [possibly] Altaic.)
5. I don't care what you believe.
6. The poor syntax of your sentences and your atrocious spelling (mispell!! [sic]) leads me to question your expertise on the meaning of words such as attack and battle.
7. But most importantly, while the original poster (User:220.86.152.103) was being a little provocative with the phrase Uncle Sam took it in the bum, his point that "the clause "during the battle" [is] superfluous given that the reader is made aware that this was "during the attack" earlier in the sentence" is wholly valid. What is wrong with the reading "Many people mistakenly believe the ship shown exploding is USS Arizona, whose destruction during the attack accounted for over half of the men killed in action."?

• The final phrase is superfluous. (That means extra, if you didn't know...)

--JohnO 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I never stated my beliefs so i dont know what u r on about. I think that this argument is "superfluous". Tourskin 04:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Size of wikipedia

Has anybody ever stopped to think that this encyclopedia could be getting too big? Its mind numbing knowing how huge it is and how many articles it will have in the future. Is there any maximum limit it could have? The Wild West guy 16:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, owing to technical limitations, the title of each article has to be under 256 characters (though ones of a similar length to A Dissertation on the American Justice System by People Who Have Never Been Inside a Courtroom, Let Alone Know Anything About the Law, but Have Seen Way Too Many Legal Thrillers or Stereophonic Musical Listenings That Have Been Origin in Moving Film "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" start to display uncomfortably), there is a practical upper limit to the number of potential article titles for the English Wikipedia. I suspect we may run out of topics to describe before we hit that limit, though :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And of course, that limit could be removed with a bit of work in the future, if it became necessary. The next practical limit would be something akin to The Library of Babel, with the maximum article length set at ~300kb (The only article currently over that limit is the monstrous List of Unicode characters WARNING: Clicking that link may cause your browser to crash.). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol thats at AFD. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've come across larger stuff before especially unarchived talk pages. I think one was like 800k or something. It didn't cause any problems with my browsers altho on slow internet connections and mobile phones and the like I guess it may be problematic. Editing it was very annoying especially when you had an edit conflict or had to edit the whole page for some reason Nil Einne 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As long a Wikimedia continues to be supported by public and private contributions, the only real limit to the quantity of articles will be proportinal to actual harddrive space on the servers. Rsrblm1 17:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus on quality, instead of quantity, shall we ? --74.13.131.37 05:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving existing articles generally involves making them longer, better reference, etc, which still takes up more hard drive space... -Elmer Clark 09:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as noted above, there is no limit to hard drive space potentially available as long as the Foundation has enough funds. However, lovely Mr Anon above is correct - let the number of articles steadily increase, but at the same time let's focus on improving the current articles as much as we can, whether this involves cutting out the crap or adding in material. To a thousand more years! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanderdecken, you are lovely, too. :-) --74.14.17.200 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

When improving Wikipedia's quality, don't forget to delete the junk. Anyways, size doesn't matter in this case. Quality is more important. --74.14.17.200 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Longpages Shows that, apparently the page updated just as 2 pages were vandalized, showing them to be 800,000+ long. 76.84.12.144 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's weird. Special:Longpages doesn't seem to work properly. APL 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with it? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I missunderstand how its supposed to work, but why is it listing stubs and other short articles and listing numbers like [288,466 bytes] next to them? 24.2.176.64 01:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's gone now, but yesterday, someone vandalized a few pages (one was the E-mail pages. don't remember the others) and increased there size by a few hundred thousend bytes. Before they were reverted, about a minute later, the Long pages page updated itself, and so it read pages like the E-mail page as being really huge. Tesfan 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't the E-mail page =/ 76.84.12.144 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it was E-mail_address. 69.95.50.15 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical article

Let's say someone wants to make an article on something called Main Page. How can they make that article if there is already a page titled "Main Page" -- the main page. If this page is moved to the Wikipedia namespace, then somebody can create an article on Main Page if they want to. Someone the Person 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this "main page?" Is it a band? A book? Something else? Then the page would be named Main_Page_(band) or Main_Page_(book) or the like. We'd probably need some sort of disamb at the top of this main page if such a thing happened, though... which might mar the way it looks... that is an excellent question, that I don't know the answer to. Gscshoyru 16:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard of anything actually existing that is called "Main Page," but just in case... Someone the Person 16:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We'd cross that bridge when we got to it. 17Drew 16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before quite a number of times. Many people agree that having Main Page in the article space is a bad idea for many reasons including the one you mention. Many people have pointed out that crossing the bridge when we come to it is a bad idea because amongst other things it means that we will have to carry out the change much faster then we would like and we may not be able to have a simple redirect which we could do at the moment. Unfortunately (IMHO anyway) many other people disagree for a variety of reasons so there is no consensus either way. It has been a while since we've had a serious discussion (it's brought up every so often but usually by people who aren't aware of the previous discussions so usually people just recommend they check the archives and it ends there) so you're welcome to try and resurrect the discussion but you should familiarise yourself with the previous discussions in the archives first. The last major discussion occured some time in December last year I believe (it we definitely either late last year or early this year anyway): Nil Einne 18:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why is Main Page in the main namespace? The latest proposal was in February 2007. - BanyanTree 07:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple. We just put a dablink at the top. "This article is not actually an article but is in article space for reasons too complex to explain here at the top of the Main Page. For other uses of Main Page, see Main Page (disambiguation)." :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, and against what I intended to do, the link I just provided was deleted once before, in December, so Nil Einne is probably right with his dating of the last major discussion. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are any namespace diehards out there, now's your opportunity to write the perhaps-not-bestselling-but-nonetheless-notable book Main Page: A novel receiving reviews in several major newspapers and force the issue.--Pharos 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There probably is something out there called Main Page, but just you try searching for it on Google... Lots of chaff. Carcharoth 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several encyclopedic meanings for "main page", actually; Homepage is thae sense that we use it in, and it can also be used as a synonym for the Front Page of a newspaper, or the main body of the page as opposed to the footnotes. But these uses are probably not specific enough.--Pharos 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we lucky the Main Page wasn't called Front Page... I see we have a hatnote there pointing at our Front Page. Silly. Carcharoth 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, if it had actually been called Front Page, it would have been moved out of the article space years ago, and there would be no issue at all today.--Pharos 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that on Wiktionary, the main page is titled Wiktionary:Main Page. This is probably because there would be a dictionary entry for "main page." Also, if we make the change, we could, instead of a redirect, make a page under the title "Main Page" that says, "The main page has been moved to the Wikipedia namespace," leave it there for long enough to get rid of most ot the confusion, and then delete it. I noticed that Wikipedia:Main Page redirects here. Someone the Person 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it redirects here, I think its a mirror of the page, because the URL remains on the Wikipedia name space. The problem with moving the page would be the many, many pages out there that link in, those would all have to be update, an article about mainpages would be one of the highest hitted ones on Wikipedia for no real reason, lol.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, Wikipedia:Main Page does indeed redirect to Main Page. (Link with redirect suppressed.) The URL's staying the same is how all redirects work.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

All good, my main point was the external links bit, I had a quick look at your main page and I'm totally the same with Avatar btw :)
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Czech Airlines Logo

Someone put this photo on czech airlines please. CSA airplane in new livery! http://www.flightsim.cz/forum_prispevek.php?id=184264&lan=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You should go ask this at the discussion page in the Czech Airlines page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop this. This is at least the third time you've posted this here. You've been told it's not appropriate, and where you should bring it up. Harassing people on the main page won't get things done faster. -Elmer Clark 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? It wasn't me who posted this, only the response the first time. Just to clarify. Tourskin 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

By indenting at the same level as you, Elmer Clark was too responding to the original poster. If Elmer had indented further, as I have with this post, he'd have been talking to you. Have a read of Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation. Hammer Raccoon 09:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Have you read everything in Wikipedia? Can you assume that everyone out there knows the rules about indenting? Don't assume everyone knows what you know. Tourskin 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You seemed to be confused about who Elmer was replying to, so I sought to clarify the situation, and provided a useful essay to further explain indentation. I don't assume everyone knows the "rules", which is why I directed you towards the supplement. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you; my intentions were only to clarify who was talking to who. Hammer Raccoon 10:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sep[2]. You did post on the talk page, so why post it here? And stop posting here. AxG ^{@ ►talk} 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont mean th logo. I mean th photo of a real aircraft in the new livery

Talk:Main Page is still the wrong place to ask. Try Talk:Czech Airlines. --Howard the Duck 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

shambolic

In today's TFA, it has a transwiki link to "shambolic". Besides the fact that there is probably a better word (or at least one that sounds better) than shambolic, is it standard form to have transwiki links in main page content? Mbisanz 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it before, but it can't hurt to give wiktionary a bit of prime-time advertising. —METS501 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Or to provide a definition for a word most users are unlikely to know. Atropos 05:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia even use words that the average reader is unlikely to know when an alternative is available, especially in such a high-profile location? Why not just change it to "chaotic?" This does seem silly. -Elmer Clark 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why dumb down Wikipedia? When you read an article are you just supposed to be learning about the subject alone? Or is it possible to learn a new word at the same time? Dismas|^(talk) 06:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point - you beat me to it at an edit conflict. As an encyclopedia it does its job by teaching others "words that the average reader is unlikely to know", quoting from you. Besides, my arguments with the word Plurality, a word never used in the British or the American media taught me that you can't say things like "the average reader" - because you do not and will not ever know what the average read knows. So you can't argue that shambolic is unknown, only to yourself and others who post a response.Tourskin 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the OED says its been in use since 1958, I don't have a problem using difficult words, it just seemed awkward in the article and the link to wikitionary threw me. Mbisanz 07:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We might not be able to argue that shambolic is unknown, but we can argue that it's less known than chaotic or disorderly—words that almost any English speaker will understand. There's no good reason to use British slang introduced in 1958 when plainer, more widely known alternatives are available. Teaching words is not the job of the encyclopedia. Punctured Bicycle 14:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether or not the word shambolic is appropriate. My message was more a polite reminder that the transwiki link is far more important as a method of education than a method of advertisement. Atropos 01:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the word and would've thought it fairly well-known, but it's probably not as internationally known as it is in the UK. If there is a direct replacement that is more readily understood we should always look at using that instead, but we should also be wary of repetitive wording (which is not a problem in this case, I don't think). violet/riga (t) 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a simple matter. It's true that as an encylopaedia we should aim to make our content accessible. However most people would probably agree we shouldn't aim to be the simple English wikipedia. While we probably would lose content if we go that far there are a lot of words which are perhaps less known then some alternatives but in many cases IMHO they should not be replaced even if it doesn't lead to repetition. While it's not an encylopaedia's job to teach words it's also not an encylopaedia's to assume all readers are stupid and incapable of looking up a word they don't know. Where to draw the line between being unnecessarily inaccesible and allowing less known but valid words ultimately comes down to personal opinions IMHO and I'm not convinced either way. Also, if the article has a clear WP:ENGVAR preference (as in this case), and one word is equally understood in this ENGVAR (not sure if this is the case here) then IMHO there is definitely no justification for changing it even if an alternative word is understood much better in other areas. In more neutral articles where we're going by first author's preference that's a different matter Nil Einne 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

good point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.148.122.100 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam bridge collapse

Collapse kill 56 and 132 missing. Should be in main news http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20986875/ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298068,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7013711.stm http://www.novinky.cz/zahranicni/svet/zriceny-most-ve-vietnamu-zabil-nejmene-60-lidi_123421_7g3sd.html http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-26-voa38.cfm--85.71.211.66 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C. Since you went through all the trouble of finding the news reports, you are undoubtedly the most qualified person on the wiki right now to start the article. You can create an account, required for creating pages, using the link in the top right of the screen. We look forward to your contribution, BanyanTree 22:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sick of people with this attitude, the one shown in BanyanTree's comment. You know what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 September 2007

What's wrong with BanyanTree's comment? --199.71.174.100 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking if you want an article the best thing to do is to create it yourself. If you do want to ask others for help in creating articles, there are various ways to request it. The Main Page talk page isn't the proper place. There is no harm in pointing either of these out to people. 85.71... has repeatedly posted off topic 'requests' to the main page and has previously been directed at more appropriate places so frankly BanyanTree's comment is extremely polite given this Nil Einne 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he was polite but would just like to note that the anon's post, while not in the "correct place" could still prove beneficial and inspire people to create the article, giving them appropriate sources. As things stand on this page such things are not welcomed, but I think we should be more accepting of people posting things here - it gets quite frustrating seeing people moan that an error has not been reported in the correct place when a person may be making their first, inexperienced edit in a good faith attempt to help fix a problem. violet/riga (t) 12:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well as I've said, this is not the first time the anon has posted offtopic stuff to the main page talk page and said anon has been told multiple times there are better places to do this. More importantly, you see moaning, I see a helpful comment informing people about the best way to do things in the future. If someone replies to a comment with 'fuck you, you fucking idiot learn to fucking read before you post' then when have a major problem. If someone says 'The best way to do this is to go to XYZ' how is harmful to anyone? Especially when it's the first response... Isn't it better to politely tell people the best way to do things rather then to ignore them and hope they learn themselves (and if they don't get annoyed at them)? Speaking of error reports, personally if I see an error report I usually just move it (along with a mention of that) if it hasn't been dealt with yet. If it has and no one's already mentioned it, I just politely mention it might be best to report it to the error report in the future. I'm not saying this is what everyone should do, I'm a strong believer in lettign people deal with things in their own way to a degree but I don't see anything wrong with this approach and IMHO getting to worked up about which approach is better is usually more harmful. It's not as if we remove comments. Nil Einne 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When someone comes here trying to help some people moan. Others might be nice and friendly (as in this case) but some people aren't particularly helpful. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the news links should be on Portal:Current events, not here. I've moved the BBC link over there. If there isn't an article about this news story, this shouldn't go to ITN/C yet. --199.71.174.100 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Genghiskhanviet started the article Collapse of Can Tho Bridge of 2007 earlier today, and it's now featured on ITN. How nice. --199.71.174.100 23:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying BanyanTree wasn't helpful, but it's sounds like such an automatic repsonse. It's also how he/she makes it sound like this anon user is now obliged to start an article - instead of thanking the anon for the links which could be to some use to someone who does have the time to start an article. The comment was polite, but it was "forced" politeness - kind of like how people at supermarkets tell you to "have a nice day". It is also was a bit sarcastic, using phrases like "Since you went through all the trouble" and "you are undoubtedly the most qualified person". I'm sorry to pick on BanyanTree like this, but many other comments on talk pages are like this to new users, so it's just a bit of an example. 203.208.110.207 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When I first read BanyanTree's response I didn't feel the politeness came across as forced. I especially didn't think the reply was sarcastic... just honest. I feel a lot of people who read this talk page don't necessarily assume good faith, which in itself is a problem (and that wasn't sarcasm). Fakelvis 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I came to this talk page wondering why the article about this news event, is totally uncited. But, now that I have found the list of citations above, I am going to take the initiative and copy them to the article... In general, I find that by using the pronoun "I" instead of "you", people rarely take offense to my comments. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GE New Horizons error message

Hi what would cause me to get this message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.221.196 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are experiencing a bug, you can report it. ffm 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FA image...

Why can't this image be used: Image:Clark2-Pilot.jpg? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's unfree. Regardless of how relevant, I can't remember the last time a fair use image was allowed on the Main Page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There use to be an exemption on the main page, but after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page", and this edit by Jimbo, it has been removed from policy. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly after the edit by Jimbo, anyway. The debate didn't really have any sort of consensus. 69.95.50.15 19:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would just get rid of this image. It is not discussed in the short summary and seems completely out of place. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-27 16:02Z

I'd say get rid of it since it's not Lana Lang. hahaha --Howard the Duck 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of Michael Rosenbaum's picture! 92.80.16.56 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would object since I think ignoring our female and gay male is systemic bias but he's hardly a hunk so I guess there's no harm :-P Nil Einne 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shills?

Just thought it interesting that the day "Smallville" has its premiere, the featured article is for a "Smallville" episode. I'd find it extremely hard to believe if that's just a coincidence. 216.146.94.235 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. --Howard the Duck 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, this request Raul654 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I tried peer reviewing the holocaust once, but they were all cowards and couldn't be bothered to do it, because they're cowards. So anybody brave enough to peer review the holocaust --Hadseys 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I'm sure this is the best way to get what you want. After all, everyone loves being called a lazy coward. WP:POINT: "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable or improper" 128.227.53.228 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Since when did peer review constitute as you say, "everyone"? --Hadseys 22:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And can you explain to me again what this has to do with the Main Page? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Lazy coward was spoken in jest, i thought i made it evident but clearly not. Although ignoring an article with POV issues is cowardice because nobody wants to say anything "out of turn". Placing it on the main page, what does it have to do wth that. Well, firstly, peer reviewing is the first step towards being featured and hence on the main page. And given that the article has been patently ignored on the peer review system, this is a page which is frequently visited and hence the submission may be noticed and my request may gain momentum by speeding things up a littly. --Hadseys 22:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh how about WP:REVIEW. 128.227.98.47 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review ignores everything, controversial or not, because it is perennially understaffed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hadseys, you need to clarify your statement. The Holocaust has had one peer review, here, which was not started by you, unless you are claiming that account as a sockpuppet. Nor is The Holocaust article currently at Wikipedia:Peer review. What you did a while back is move the old FAC nomination page to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holocaust Archive 1 and then blank its original location, which was interpreted as a request for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7, I assume by a recent changes patroller. (Log) Please link to the review subpage you created, or the deletion log for that page if it has been deleted. - BanyanTree 02:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, fewer people now tend to peer review. They all congregate at the FAC/FLC/F_C pages. --Howard the Duck 03:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the main page? For "a page which is frequently visited", Hadseys, try WP:VP. --74.13.126.145 05:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

search box

Moved from WP:ERRORS

I notice that when I come to the home page that you have no search box up-top for words or articles - such as Find: ? It would be a real help if someone would introduce this to the Main page. Otherwise a person is at his wits end trying to find a topic on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.109.188 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be because the searchbox is on the left of any page, and this really isnt that place for this kind of query
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

For better places see Wikipedia:Questions, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Art LaPella 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)