Talk:Main Page

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 08:08 on 11 July 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 12, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(July 15)

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

EU v Microsoft

Why does the news report of a fine for breach of European law use the American legal term "antitrust"? 11:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, said in a statement: "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did he/she say that in English, or is that an American translation of what was actually said? 12:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.119 (talk)

The European Commission uses the expression 'antitrust', as in this sentence from one of its official English language press releases: "The Commission will continue to conduct antitrust investigations in the energy sector." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, 82.20.11.85. Please be encouraged to get an account and contribute your knowledge to Wikipedia. --PFHLai (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. What does it tell us about the way the world works that they use American terminology rather than that of their own English-speaking members. 11:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.119 (talk)

That cultures and languages borrow words from each other on occasion? Tempshill (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

True, many "English" words are from other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJRocket53 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would not be far fetched to say that most of the English words are either from German or French. Cheers.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot Latin. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.12.221 (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be misleading though? Both English and German are Germanic languages; it's not the case that German developed first and then English stole its best words. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it would be more like English stole its worst words :)

Actually, the first form of English was Germanic, then it became predominantly French when France ruled Britain (i.e., all the exquisite vocabulary is derived from French). Of course, here I am using German for OG, ME etc., i.e., for the whole family.

These are the big effects. Greek and Latin were used quite late, more as a symbol of renaissance than need.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-educated (as in, those whose English is not primarily learned at school) English speakers in the Netherlands mostly speak and write in American English. I assume Kroes belongs in this group. User:Krator (t c) 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

How many times can one article be featured as the featured article?---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick answer: 1. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I think they should be allowed more than once.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 02:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But there are so many which have not yet been there... Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok...---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And apparently the rate of FA passes is greater than one per day so I last heard when this issue was raised, so it is in fact impossible. Tourskin (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In January 2008 82 articles were promoted to FA status and 9 were demoted. So the number of FAs increased by 73 articles. That's 2.355 articles promoted a day. In February 2008, 69 articles were promoted to featured status and 10 were demoted. So the number of articles increased by 59, that's 2.034 articles a day. Source: Wikipedia:Featured article statistics. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time that Plano Senior High School has been featured, by the way. --Zadernet 08:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? When was it featured before? Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago I think.--Zadernet 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked the FA archive for February 2007, March 2007 and April 2007. Plano Senior High School isn't there. I looked at the milestones listed at the articles talk page. It isn't there. Are you sure you didn't confuse it with a different article? Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Computer game article yesterday

This comment relates to the featured article ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which featured a link to Hot Coffee minigame controversy in its main page blurb.

Is a link to Hot coffee on the front page featured articled combined with a wikipedia 1.0 promotion to schools a bit bold? Maybe it wouldnt be censored as an article, but is it worthy of the front page? New release hardcore sex movies dont get the six o clock news in the Netherlands or the Dutch lands, do they? Would you give Debby does Dallas a pulitzer prize? No, but you would give it to Freddy does Dallas and provide special links to Debby does Hot coffee. I could see that topics involving both children and sex are monitored so that "no bias" may be implied in one manner or another. Should sex and violence not be banned from the main page? Would such graphic sex and violence fiction be notable enough for the front page of an encyclopedia?
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem - the hot coffee article is an article about lots of relevant social issues. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rubbish, Frederick. The article was 99 per cent description of hot coffee. If it was about the social issue, the pictures and description would be of the "controversy".ThisMunkey (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR. I don't think sex and violence should be banned from the Main Page. That would mean we couldn't feature military related stuff. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is that what excluding sex and violence fiction from the front page would mean to you, Puchy? Censorship? You have no opinion on anything that is not suitable for the front page?ThisMunkey (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well hang on. War is not as corrupting to a person as is sex. People can commit sexual acts, but how many ordinary people (so not state leaders) who read wikipedia have the ability to wage war? Few, if any. Tourskin (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• War is an informative topic. Graphic sex and violence fiction is an eyesore or a questionable passtime. It is not informative. Fiction that gets a prize for peace or something is notable. Fiction that gets banned for being disgusting is hardly notable for the front page. A good article on blow job might get a few laughs, but its hardly fair to put it on the front page and then advertise it to little kids as Wikipedia 1.0 is to be. For instance- "Blow jobs were banned from public places. Here is a detailed description of them and a load of pictures." - Hardly suitable for the front page. How are the computer game articles any different to this? Anyone wants to see porn and violence fiction on the front page of the encyclopedia is a wind up.ThisMunkey (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• What? Whoever said we want kids to be visiting the wikipedia website without supervision anyway? We don't... WP:DISCLAIMER Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My God, I am sick and tired of people saying 'Wikipedia is not censored, but we mustn't let people see anything that might offend them.' We cover all topics; if people want to pretend that things they don't like don't exist, then they can go elsewhere. People may be interested in these topics, and the featured article is to offer people something they may wish to learn about. Seeing as everyone else is throwing their opinions around as fact, I will too- a controversial book is of far more interest than a Booker prize winner. Booker prize winners suck. If given the choice between Lolita and The Sea, I know damn well which one I would read or read about... J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Look Mildew I said ON THE FRONT PAGE SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS ON THE FRONT PAGE and I can see exactly what you said which is a child molestor not only perverted but corrupted by accepting other perverts. You are the casual acceptance, fickface, that I had in mind when displaying this idea. The local nutcase is easy because when he does something wrong he makes a lot of noise but the casual fickface keeps quiet and promotes it on the internet. You are the fickface that makes a nice bloke slit throats. Wow, I can really see this idea getting somewhere. And your page says you are an administrator. With that comment an administrator should be cancelled. What kind of thing is that to administrate the encyclopedia? ThisMunkey (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored, but nothing is said about the main page. RJRocket53 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• this is exactly what I could see when reading the two computer game articles yesterday but with perverts like Mildew in charge of administrating there is little point discussing it. Where can you report this <libelous accusation redacted>? ThisMunkey (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ThisMunkey has been blocked for 48 hours because of incivility. I don't feel it's necessary to refute his comment. RJRocket, since the Main Page is a part of Wikipedia, I'd expect it not to be censored either. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My oh my, what would we do if we didn't have people like ThisMunkey to tell us what we can and can't watch, see, hear, or otherwise experience. We might have nudity on actual public broadcasting or in our video games like the British or the rest of Europe, and look how awful they turned out (sarcastic). Knowledge is for everybody, but please use it responsibly. -KriticKill (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And what does it mean to use responsibly? Lets take that advice and be responsible ON THE MAIN PAGE. Tourskin (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Using knowledge responsibly means not hiding it away from the masses. On a very simplictic level, that is what not showing something on the main page is doing- we are hiding it away and pretending it does not exist. Handling these controversial issues with care shows Wikipedia in an extremely good light, and the articles often make extremely good reading. J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even talking about this? Wikipedia is not censored, not, nip, nadda, case closed, we don't do it. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, but doesn't the word "responsible" place limits on behaviour or exposure? Thats what I always thought. Tourskin (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Certain things should not be widely dispersed in public forums, for the direct well-being and safety of the general public. Instructions for making homemade explosives, for example. I was asking people who edit here to think responsibly and not promote knowledge that serves no good purpose except to hurt or destroy other people. There is a place for responsibility with knowledge. However, I don't think the Hot Coffee scandal really counts. If we ban that from the main page, then we should think about banning a lot of other stuff. Lets start with Michelangelo's statue of David. Male genitalia! Shameful! -KriticKill (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here here. The front page is a promotion of the knowledge within. The concern should be not restricting it to science. Something ought to be out of the question. As I should for outbursting. Sorry. Have respect for Wikipedia. ThisMunkey (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nakes statues and works of art are different from pornography or art produced for ones lustful desires. I can see that even if you don't answer my point I won't make a difference, I'm arguing here to prove that one can be responsible with information without censoring everything. Tourskin (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a service, not a public service. We don't need to be "responsible" towards anyone. The information is free. The website has to be visited to see. If people think it can be offensive, they should not read it. If people think it can be offensive to children, they should censor it before delivering to children. If they think their children are sheep and internet is wolf, they should use filtering devices to block wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to work according to personal or social prejudices. I mean come on! Don't you guys ever have a photo of hot women in the newspaper? If you are not in Afganistan I am sure you do.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 07:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia logo

Hi, this is my first actual comment on wikipedia, so please forgive me if I post this in the wrong area/if it has already been discussed already. Basically, I was looking at the Wikipedia logo and I noticed how the edges of the globe has a white outline around it, possibly from the program used to make the transparency. I was wondering, why this has not been rectified and the edges of the globe alpha blended? In my opinion, this would be a very easy edit and would increase the overall aesthetic quality of the main Wikipedia logo.

Thanks, 78.148.97.236 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding, from a discussion of this at a meetup, is that the original file in which the logo was created has been lost and we're stuck with it (Isn't there also an upside down Indian letter or something)? Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez, we're not "stuck with it", it's a tiny texture, it'd take a couple of days for a good artist to fix. Tempshill (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible if I modified the original logo to get rid of the white outline, it could be uploaded and used as the main wikipedia logo? 78.148.97.236 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There are already numerous Wikipedia logos already on here, most without the white outline. Plus you have to have an account to upload. --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's possible but I'm not sure where to look! Do register a username and then ask again, either here or on Wikipedia:Village Pump in the Technical section. Tempshill (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has this fixed already. Might be worth combining it with fixing the typographical errors on the logo that are long-standing and haven't been fixed. -62.172.143.205 (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Random articles

Am i the only one who thinks there should be a random article generator that only generates featured articles? The random article link is great and im sure lots of people use it, but a seperate link that filters out only the high quality articles would be a great addition. Natterjack1 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Natterjack1, no, your not, I think that would be a good addition, but the fact is that this page is for discussing the Main Page only, for general topics like that, I would suggest taking it up at Village Pump:Proposals ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You can get a random example of each type of featured content at Portal:Featured content. Graham87 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This link does the trick. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavy American Bias

Why is it that four of five anniversaries, three of five ‘did you knows’ and the main page article are America? The idea that wikipedia is not American bias is laughable. Seriously, who gets to pick these things? --SSman07 (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The last time this happened an admin replaced one OTD entry with an animé one. --Howard the Duck 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At least there won't be any complaints today about the main page being heavy Australian bias.[1][2][3] :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that there's a heavy bias bias on the main page. Some days it's biased to Brits, some days to Americans, some days to South Asian cricket competitions. Alas! --Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.115.242 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well The US has a large control over the Internet. Most english-speaking internet users are in the US I think. Personally I'd like more British and Australian representation.--Zadernet 08:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Write a Zimbabwe-related new article, nominate it for DYK, and it will appear there. Write an Antarctica-related blurb for OTD and it will appear there. Write a Laos-related FA, and it will appear on the Main Page. You can't expect WP:CSB to disappear if you don't play your part to counter it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page has a decided bias against the !Kung. 69.129.145.210 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Zadernet, what on Earth are you basing that upon? In any case, that has no bearing- we are an international encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia for people who surf the web. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Not an encyclopedia for people who surf the web"? *confused* 203.97.51.149 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do eventually aim to release Wikipedia in other media (and, to an extent, we have already) so that the information is accessible to all. However, what I meant specifically is that it should be written from a worldwide perspective, rather than be about issues of interest to those who surf the web. We're an encyclopedia, not Digg or Slashdot. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page is specifically designed for people who surf the web :) even if the actual encyclopedia is meant for multiple mediums. Gracenotes^T § 23:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, today's OTD has a heavy French bias... --Howard the Duck 02:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, I see pro-moon bias is showing its face on the front page yet again (ITN). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one cares about bias not involving countries, at least not as much. --Howard the Duck 11:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Um cough, football, cricket, fish, Eurovision songs, can't remember what else, cough..... Okay I guess you could argue most of those have some geographical involvement but not fish. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since when we had a fish-bias? Was that the one on DYK? Maybe it's the way DYK works were one guy mass produces a lot of articles (we also had a Michigan "wave" of sorts, too). But mostly the complaints are on the American bias on ITN and OTD were the selections are planned beforehand. --Howard the Duck 17:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ITN isn't planned ahead. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some items are, especially scheduled events like elections and sporting events. --Howard the Duck 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly when the forefathers of the US nation established the constitution, they timed the elections so that they would cause a heavy amount of American bias on the front page of wikipedia two hundred years later. Tourskin (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Slavery in Ancient Greece

I would respectfully suggest swapping out the current picture for the first picture at Slavery in Ancient Greece as being both more representative of the subject and also more readily identifiable. (I.E. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stele_Mnesarete_Glyptothek_Munich_491_n1.jpg instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Black_slave_Louvre_Br361.jpg) Rorybowman (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please report the inadequacy of the current image and suggest the replacement at #Main Page error reports above (WP:ERRORS) --199.71.174.100 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Discrepancy

The Featured Article's blurb on the main page claims that Early Christians supported Greek slavery, but the only mention of Christianity in the article actually claims that they took credit for its downfall. May I ask, WTF?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're free to ask, but a better place to do so would be the article's talkpage. --12.169.167.154 (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem seems to be the blurb on the main page, which is why I asked here.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement was originally in the aricle but has been removed, but this appears to be controversial. I suggest you take apart in the discussion and if there is consensus for the removal come back and make an error report above Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Early Christianity never supported slavery - this is yet another fallacy taken out of the context of the bible. Letters written by the Apostles spoke of equality among gentiles and jews, slaves and freemen. Then anti-Christians take this out of context to suggest that Christianity accepted the rank of slave in society, not realizing that in fact it was addressing the down trodden and attempting to give them light in the midst of their miserable lives. I know this was not the place to add this but sorry, could not hold it in my system or be bothered to add it in the talk page. Tourskin (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment does not agree with Christianity and slavery. If you are sure you are right and have sources, I suggest you take part in improving the article there Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kit Fox

It says on the main page that the Kit Fox is endangered, but in the kit fox article it says "least concerned" Someone should make the two pages line upMikeonatrike (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the blurb and article carefully, the blurb is specifically referring to the San Joaquin Kit Fox subspecies which according to the Kit Fox article, is indeed endangered; even though the Kit Fox species in general is not. BTW, it is usually best to report these above in the error report place Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eight people are killed in a shooting at the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva in Jerusalem.

How the hell is this newsworthy enough to be on wikipedia? 8 people? only 8? why are these 8 people so special? is it because they are jewish? what about entire tribes being wiped out in africa? or chinese slaves being worked to death in chinese mines? this stinks of racism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.2.32 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to join the discussion at WP:ITN/C#Jerusalem Attack, instead of whining here. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For your part, you may want to take your contributions elsewhere, if you are of a temperament that enjoys calling the raising of issues whining. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)