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 08:14 on 1 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 "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• Zwei Gesänge, Op. 1 (Schoenberg)

  The hook says: ... that the first public performance of the two songs of Arnold Schoenberg's Op. 1 was met with hostile audience reactions? (Template:Did you know nominations/Zwei Gesänge, Op. 1 (Schoenberg))

  I don't know English enough to tell if, when not giving the name of a piece but only the opus number, it should be "Opus", not "Op.". I'd prefer if we'd give the full name and not pipe, which leaves an Easter egg to op. 1. A minimum decency perhaps to the master work by a composer whose anniversary of birth we remember this year. A bit of historical correctness could be achieved if his name was given as it was at the time of this composition, "Schönberg". (Please read the article (and listen perhaps) to understand that he didn't change to Schoenberg until decades later, and that "songs" describes the work poorly.)

  ALT1: ... that the first public performance of the two songs of Arnold Schönberg's Zwei Gesänge, Op. 1, was met with hostile audience reactions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Why even bother with "Republic Day" in Ghana and "Independence Day" in Rwanda if there are no articles for those actual holidays? It seems to violate WP:ASTONISH. Also, per MOS:OVERLINK, countries shouldn't be linked. The Main Page is supposed to be a showcase of the best Wikipedia has to offer, not something that looks like somebody was scouring the archives looking for something, anything, to post on their blog. Abductive (reasoning) 01:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hm. For Ghana, we could point to 1960 Ghanaian constitutional referendum, but that article is much below par. And for Rwanda, we could point to Public holidays in Rwanda, but that's also nowhere near good enough. I'll nuke those two items; sing out if you disagree. Schwede66 04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 5)

Monday's FL

(July 1, today)

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

Lost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who the hell picks the daily article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common misconception

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 ITNs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's now 1237 characters long. Hope it's short enough. Thanks to BorgQueen for the initial cuts. --PFHLai (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this on ITN?

Three killed in knife attack is world news?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No mention of Robert Burns 250th?

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

January 2009 Mediterranean storm

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

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

More ITN picture silliness

A bold but brutally effective military strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do captions usually go on the Main Page? Nowhere. And this is the problem. In the absence of captions, we use the text "(pictured)". See Nil Einne's post at 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC) for an explanation to why putting "(pictured)" before the item won't work. --74.13.129.119 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand the problem with the current situation, surely any new poeple to wikipedia are going to read the whole of the ITN section and see (pictured) next to the pictured article, and anyone who has been here longer will know that the picture is not always of the top article. I believe the problem is coming from people who are just too lazy to bother reading beyond the first article, yet can spend the time writing a big long argument demanding the picture be moved. If it is moved to be alongside the correct article the rest of the layout would look wrong as all four boxes use the same format of picture in the top right corner. It also seems to just be the ITN that gets the most complaints when DYK and OTD also do the same thing. Dark verdant (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"surely any new poeple to wikipedia are going to read the whole of the ITN section"? dont think so. even if you do scan the thing for the (pictured) it takes a minute to find it (should maybe be in bold?) and if you aren't looking for it ie. a newcomer, it could appear that the Sri Lankans had invaded the Bay of Biscay and fought their way to the Mediterranean.

As per the post you mention, why not put (pictured) in bold at the start of the item, then elaborate in brackets and normal type at the end of it. this makes it easy to zone in on the pictured item, which leads you to read it, and with it a description of the picture.Machete97 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like this will take up quite a bit of precious space. --PFHLai (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Duck grammar

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

Redirect on main page

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

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

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

Australia Bias

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

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

Flagged Revisions

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

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

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

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

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

27 January 2009 Picture of the Day

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

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

This should be reported and discussed on WP:ERRORS. Not here. --74.13.129.119 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. A question about a potential error on the Main Page should not be discussed on Talk:Main Page? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up and go to Talk:Main Page#Main Page error reports. --74.13.129.119 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha, but there is not actually an error. I have frequently seen discussions moved down here when the error report was found to be mistaken. Is this an incorrect practice? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is meant for minor grammatical problems. There's no great harm in having this discussion here, especially as there is disagreement. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ERRORS is a good place for these things. It's on the watchlist of those involved in maintaining MainPage. Lengthy discussion shouldn't take place there, though. --PFHLai (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I used to watchlist the errors page, but I took it off. I only watchlist the main talk page now. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear 196 felt there was an error so the error report section was indeed the best place for this. The fact that they were wrong doesn't change this and although PFHLai is right it's not suitable for a lengthy discussion, the only reason this one is lengthy is because we're discussing the best place for a discussion. Discussions concerning only one aspect of the main page are usually best held in the talk page for that section anyway. POTD is one area where we don't tend to get a lot of discussion but even so, in this case the best thing would probably have been in the error report section and if the discussion got unwieldy move to Template talk:POTD/2009-01-27 with a wikilink in the error report section. (As the error report section emphasises, discussions about anything which occurs in the article should always take place in the article talk page first.) BTW one of the advantages with the error report section is people are not left scratching the heads as I was as to where on earth the issue occured. Nil Einne (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)