Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 05:08 on 7 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"

• Why are we using ‘wins’ instead of ‘is elected’ in the blurb on the US election (we used the same wording back in 2016 as well)? Such wordings are typically used for show elections in authoritarian countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't sure exactly which wording was most accurate so I looked back at Biden's ITN, where we used "wins" and went with that. I wasn't sure how accurate it was to describe him as having been elected, when at this point it's just that major news orgs are calling the race. Sam Walton (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, "wins" was used previously for Biden.[1] —Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  At this time, "wins" is more correct than "elected" as he is only elected in early January when the electoral college votes are certified. --Masem (t) 13:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• US Senate Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election and Republicans take control of the Senate.: The bolded presidential election link doesn't cover the Senate results. 2024 United States Senate elections should be included, but that page does not have updated sourced prose on the results. Recommend pulling the Senate results from the blurb until that page is improved.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking, the Republicans won't "take control of the Senate" until 3 January 2025. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I noticed this too and agree with all the points that Bagumba makes. Note that the blurb now reads: "Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election and Republicans are set to take control of the Senate." which makes the Senate bit sound even more tentative and inappropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's not tentative at all. The results of the election will put Republicans in control of the Senate on 3 January 2025. That is as definite as election results can be. It's just that most of the world seems unfamiliar with the multimonth waiting periods for many American election results to go into effect. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, none of the linked articles verify this and so the claim fails core policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election and Republicans are set to take control of the Senate. Change "Republicans are set to" to "the Republican party is set to" for context. Cremastra (u — c) 20:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've tweaked it. Schwede66 21:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Should this say "In the 2024 United States elections, Donald Trump.... " or some sort? The blurb seems to have no context, and the Senate mention seems awkward with context. Natg 19 (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, we don't include election years ITN as it should be clear from context that we are talking about the present election. I can't quite understand the second part of your concern, Natg 19. Could you please clarify what you mean? Schwede66 03:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose my 2nd concern is the same as the above ones, in that the wording for the Senate victory should include the election article for clarity. The current blurb doesn't flow well, as it is discussing two separate (but related) elections. Natg 19 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. Can you (or anyone) make a specific suggestion what the blurb should be? Schwede66 03:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Nov. 6, 2024 DYK states Vivian Stranders is a "British-born Jew" who became an officer in the SS ,,, nothing in the main article suggests this Nazi was born a Jew or ever practiced Judaism. This person was an officer in the RAF who became a German intelligence asset and then a German and a Nazi officer. Again, the DYK is wrong. Better might be DYK " Vivian Stranders was a British -born RAF officer who became a German spy and a Nazi officer." —68.129.185.93 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind I added an "a" before "German" in that suggestion. Art LaPella (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Per article "Stranders was Jewish and some of his SS colleagues suspected him of being a British spy." The ref 31 supporting has "Vivian Stranders, an Englishman who had served in the British Army [...] Astonishingly enough, this long-standing British member of the NSDAP and SS was also Jewish — a fact known to at least some of his colleagues" (no page numbers available) JennyOz (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• The new entry for International Inuit Day should be bolded and maybe have its inaugural year added... however, it's a stub? JennyOz (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've nuked it. If someone can expand it beyond stub level in the next 20 hours, please say so (here) and we can put it back. Schwede66 03:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

• Intersex Day of Remembrance should be bolded? JennyOz (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• 1932 – The Australian military withdrew from their "war against emus" in - Emu War appeared at OTD last week, on November 2. JennyOz (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 8, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(November 11)

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

In the news

As a Democrat, I deeply resent the implication of today's text-and-photo juxtaposition that Barack Obama is "an unknown type of ancient human." This seems racist and certainly highly POV politically. Sca (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Although the image doesn't refer to the first ITN item, we could compromise by putting the Pope back up. He's both old and still listed on ITN. 147.72.72.2 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ITN readers are not necessarily door knobs who can not figure out that the picture is for item that says (pictured). i dont think there is any need for compromise. its fine as is. will get replaced soon by some new blurb anyways. -- Ashish-g55 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that those who complain about this aren't taking the time to really examine the ITN section, it is also true that it's design is contrary to what experienced readers have been taught by the entire history of Western publication. I found it jarring the first time I looked at it, because the text and pictures were not related to each other in a logical manner. In all print media pictures are placed next to text that refers to the picture. While wikipedia is not print, it is silly to discard useful design principles. Instead of insulting anyone who finds the current situation confusing or even just strange, perhaps some time should be spent on redesigning the section. Khajidha (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The above statement is so utterly untrue that it is laughable. Throughout the vast majority of the history of printing, images had to be separated from the text to which they referred, as images were so much more expensive to reproduce. Physchim62 (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is ITN is in chronological order by update. Unless that gets changed (which would make it far more confusing, both in order and in updating) the proposal to always have the image correspond to the lead story would disqualify any ITN update that didn't have an image to go with it (as it would be the top story, but would have no image). DYK doesn't always have the pictured lead at #1, I believe. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Khajidha - Perhaps some time should be spent reading the FAQ and/or archives before proposing something which has been discussed to death? Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So, the fact that it's been "discussed to death" by a handful of Wikipedians means there is no other possible way of doing things? — even though that means that millions of viewers/readers/surfers around the globe may be confused/bemused/amused by it? End of story? Sca (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No. However the discussions do explain why it hasn't been done. The 'some time' part is perhaps key. If you can redesign the template including making it work on common alternative main pages an in all main browsers and then go thorough the other alternatives and if it doesn't work, either fixing it or making them use the traditional alignment (a setup which requires two templates and each one has to be manually updated is unlikely to be acceptable) as well as devising something for people who transclude the template on their individual user page etc then when you bring it here I'm sure it will get widescale acceptance. However as long as people just say 'it should be done' and blame others for it not being done and no one bothers to actually do it, I doubt anything is going to happen since it will almost definitely require 'some time'. Personally, I don't care that much (& don't understand the intricities of complex templates nor am I web designer), so I'm not volunteering but since you and Khajidha do, why don't you do it? That's my point and yes and as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of story. (Until someone actually does it rather then starting another pointless discussion of something that has already been discussed to death, that'll be the real end of story, sadly I've participated in enough of these discussions to know people are all concerned when it comes to talking about it, once you ask for people to actually do it, they go quiet.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section could use a redesign (how about getting some date stamps in?) but that it would have to be an organised process that takes a significant amount of time. If this particular instance is such a big deal, surely the simplest solution would be to have "(pictured)" in bold? Shouldn't be able to miss it then. --.:Alex:. 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bold is reserved for the focus article in each item. "Pictured" is already in italic. And why are we not assuming that people are able to read? --Tone 19:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting "(Pictured)" In bold was done once. I don't think it lasted two days before everything was back to normal. Personally, I liked the bold, because my eye always catches on the picture first, so I want the "Pictured" to be really obvious so I can go from image to related blurb as easily as possible. Sadly, IIRC, most people just found it distracting. APL (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done This talk page is here to take suggestions on improvements, not to defend to the death every template and/or bad formatting decision we make. Another blurb with a free image will come along soon enough; in the meantime, we're fine without one. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with removing the picture, it seems to have been done already. You left the "(pictured)" though, which should be removed. (cross-posted to errors section above). Random89 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed even before this was posted. Thanks, though. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that this is quite possibly the most extreme case of political correctness I have ever seen on the internet. Removing the image of Obama, because when it is taken together with the completely unrelated item next to it, it may be seen by an absolute minority of people, as racist, is quite frankly remarkable!

As an aside, whatever happened to the principle of WP:NOTCENSORED. I mean, a couple of people take offence at what is quite clearly an issue of their own mis-interpretation and all of a sudden we start changing what has been done since I can remember. Aside from the fact that there is nothing to be offended at, since when has there ever been a precedent to alter something on the main page on the basis that someone doesn't like it (as opposed to the normal issues that relate to grammatical and formatting issues and factual inaccuracies) --Daviessimo (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing the image; this is nothing but appeasement of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. There's no way any reasonable person who bothered to read the section would think we were being racist. Modest Genius ^talk 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have restored the picture. I don't want to get into any WP:WHEELWAR but I really can't see the perceived insult here. More importantly there was no consensus that removing the picture was the next step to take - Dumelow (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Saying you don't want to start a wheel war doesn't cut it - you just did start a wheel war. Not even so much as a note on my talk page. I have not been unresponsive at all. Self-revert, or I will take this further. Consensus is not required for removal of a photo, and it does not support undoing another admin's actions.

WP:NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with this. If you want to talk about WP:NOT, let's talk about WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Someone had a reasonable concern—shown to be reasonable by the fact that none of us are mystified by what he/she was referring to—and the only arguments for keeping the photo revolved around syntax, formatting, and esoteric template norms. All of that stuff should be ignored if it improves the encyclopedia, which it did. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I have better things to do than get into an argument over this. I briefly replaced Obama with the Pope but as far as I can tell if there is a problem with one person being adjacent to that blurb then it remains if another is there. Frankly I find this whole thing ridiculous but I'm sure some intelligent discussion here will resolve it - Dumelow (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)The problem here is that after loads of requests (and normal accusations of ITN being anti-american) Obama picture was added. It was not even the first item when this was done. So the reasoning behind the removal doesnt make sense. I agree with Daviessimo that this is simply political correctness. If pope was up there (which was suggested earlier as compromise) then then would not have happened. No one here was trying to be racist or implying that Obama is some ancient human and removing the picture for this reason (when i dont remember this happening in past) is whats wrong. It inaccurately supports the notion that ITN infact was being racist. -- Ashish-g55 21:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me knows I'm hardly a bastion of political correctness. And I tend to agree with everyone else that it's really not a big deal. But the reasons for keeping it are every bit as weak as the original complaint. Weaker, really, since they all have to do with Wiki process rather than readership. We should be focused on what our readers want, not what's easier for us (or what we're used to seeing). Someone up there even refused to budge on whether we could use a bold font, for heaven's sake. Come on, guys.

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time ITN has been without a photo. Ashishg55, you yourself pointed out that the photo would be replaced soon enough by some new blurb, and the same holds true for the lack of a photo. Don't Panic. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what about changing the order of first two items? Abel prize was announced on the same day so it can be on the top. Would you still oppose having an image in the box in that case? Frankly, that's highly ridiculous, not having an image if there are images we can use. The only case when there's no image is in TFA, when there is no free one available. --Tone 21:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually dont mind making (pictured) bold. but then it should be bold in all 4 sections. since OTD runs into similar problem. -- Ashish-g55 22:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That John Tate sure lux lots like Mister Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.240 (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tone, you're still focused on the bureaucracy of it all. What we would normally do as far as formatting and syntax is irrelevant to our readers. Losing the photo is only ridiculous to the handful of us discussing it here; the rest of the world isn't grinding to a halt in shock. 99% of our readers won't even notice that a photo should be there. And it was up for a day, when the story was relevant - it really adds little or nothing to the section at this point. Wheel warring isn't helping your case. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am just trying to find a compromise for the time being. The thing I see is that people do not like to have no image in the box and that a combination of the previous first item and the image is seen weird by some other people. We are having those problems relatively rarely and until something better comes up, a compromise seems the easiest thing to do. --Tone 22:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people don't like not having an image there. Main Page regulars, to be specific. None of it excuses the wheel war. See you all at ArbCom. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather confused by this whole discussion. This obviously isn't the first time we've had a complaint, I don't recall we've ever gone to the extreme of completely removing the picture. And even when we don't get complaints, the lack of synchronisation happens quite often. Is Kafziel trying to set a new policy that we remove the picture when it's not for the top item? If so, this is hardly the way to go about it. If not, I see no rhyme or reason for this removal.

This hardly even seems the worst incident, what about the times when we've had a picture of someone and the top item has related to some sort of terrorist attack or shooting or court case relating to something like that? If anything, it seems to me offensive that we made this case special, as if there is any logical reason why people would associate Barack Obama with a type of ancient human and not instantly recognise the items are unrelated, particularly since Obama is well known thoroughout much of the world.

It seems to me when we have some relatively unknown person and entry on something criminal act or whatever, that's far, far worse since it's much more likely that people may think that person was somehow involved. As it stand nows, we're associating John Tate with a picture of Barack Obaam. In the unlikely event someone really doesn't recognise that as Barack Obama, this is surely offensive to John Tate (not because there's something wrong with being associated with Obama but because he isn't Obama and deserves to be recognised for who he is, not some other random person), again far worse then the earlier juxpiction.

In fact I don't even think this is an over PC reaction, rather we're giving (even if unintentionally) heed to racist ideas by suggesting there is some merit to the idea there might be real confusion when in reality any non-racist person, even someone who doesn't know Barack Obama is going to recognise that's a picture of a modern human being (note I didn't even mention race, it's irrelevant), not some ancient one. And yes, I do think this wouldn't have occured if it was a picture of the current pope.

Also what wheel war? Dumelow made several changes but all self reverted. Tariqabjotu is the only one who made a reversion that he? didn't revert. (I'm not counting Tone who attempted to alleviate the problem by compromise, some may argue he/she should have achieve consensus first, but some may say the same for the unilateral removal.) While not a good look, given the unilateral and completely out of process removal of the picture, it hardly seems a terrible thing.

BTW, while I appreciate if the dates of the items are the same, it's somewhat arbitary which one is at top and winning the Abel Prize is a significant achievement so don't have a particular problem with this change of order, it would be problematic if we set a precedent to automatically put higher up the item with the picture or if neither has a picture, put one where it's somehow deemeded less offensive to associate the item with the picture.

P.S. Is there some sort of scientific survey of our readership that just came out where people said they would prefer no picture to a picture of Barack Obama next to unassociated items and the item of Barack Obama below? If not, I'm confused how Kafziel knows what the readership wants. Is he/she psychic? I do know we get complaints all the time about the lack of pictures on TFA.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

^Good post. It does seem to me that Kafziel has come in and tried to change long-standing policy without discussion, and then cried wheel-war (and ArbCom!) when the MP regulars have objected. In the discussion above, those arguing for removal seem to be in a minority of two; consensus is clearly against them (so far). There was no good reason for that picture to be removed, and it should not have been removed until there was a clear consensus to do so. Modest Genius ^talk 00:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My kids aren't home, so somebody ask someone unfamiliar with guidelines, what it looks like when a story about lower life forms is illustrated with a picture of Obama. I bet they'll say it's vandalism. (To me, liberals are lower life forms regardless of race, but I still wouldn't have posted that.) I'm happy with the mathematician on top; I can't think of a non-bureaucratic objection to that. Art LaPella (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally supportive of Obama's actions and saw no problem with that picture next to a news blurb about an ancient human. (Current placement's fine too.) It was obvious to me that it relates to the news that begins "U.S. President Barack Obama signs..." and it's showing him signing something.

What about a slight coloring around the image and news blurb? TransUtopian (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, My biggest complaint with Mr Obama is that he isn't liberal enough, but I still had a moment of confusion when this complaint came up, and am honestly surprised that the complaint was taken seriously. I see now that it isn't, but I initially assumed it was one of the intentionally nut-ball complaints designed to troll the admins. (Such trouble-causing complaints turn up regularly on Talk:Main_Page.)

(If it makes any difference, I browse the main page at a reasonably high resolution, so that the entire ITN and usually all of OTD are visible at once.) APL (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the problem was that Obama was black and therefore there might be some suggestion from the juxtaposition that black people are lower life forms. But, obviously, if the acceptance of this interpretation as sufficiently feasible to require the removal of the image is not in itself racist, at the very least it is recognition that people with such racist predispositions do exist. And, to be honest, I fail to understand why we should be considering that group when writing this encyclopedia. -- tariqabjotu 02:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The initial complaint struck me as so far-fetched that I mistook it for a joke. But it comes across as far more sensible than Kafziel's apparent assertion that an administrative action is sacrosanct, with any reversion (irrespective of consensus or the lack thereof) automatically constituting wheel-warring warranting an ArbCom case. Good grief. —David Levy 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by who can shout the loudest. Opinions are not negated simply because they are posted by anonymous editors; you and I have been over that before. And consensus is absolutely by no means required to remove content. It is required to keep content. If you think for one second that I need your permission to correct potentially libellous (or even unintentionally offensive) content, by all means take it up the chain. Good luck. Go ask Jimbo whether he thinks we should sit around debating before fixing it. Go ask ANI. Let's hear it. Let's hear how the simple removal of a photo is such a massive travesty that it called for edit warring and all these personal attacks.

As for the wheel war: Editing any fully protected page is an admin action. Undoing that action once—which I did, by removing the photo—is permitted. Undoing that action (which both Dumelow and Tariqabjotu did) makes it a wheel war. End of story. That's not my opinion, that's the policy. I'm not interested in getting anyone desysopped over this, but sometimes these things find their way to ArbCom on their own. Particularly when they happen on the main page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

::Congratulations. This is the single stupidest "complaint" I have seen on T:MP for some time. If people are too stupid or too lazy to scroll down and read "(pictured)" we shouldn't be accommodating for them. You can't go crying "wheel war" or arbcom because somebody a reverted a poorly judged but good faith edit. Images on ITN and OTD are not and do not have to be related to the top item. We don't have a free image of the newly discovered species so there isn't one on the MP. That doesn't mean we should remove the current one and disregard consensus on grounds of political correctness brought up by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Kafziel, you made a mistake, you were reverted, as happens all over the wiki thousands of times a day and just because you're an admin doesn't exempt you from that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Stupid. Lazy. Crying. Yup, these arguments get more and more mature. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

i believe the words good faith are in there somewhere too -- Ashish-g55 04:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So anyone can say whatever they want, as long as they also say "good faith"? Is that how you think it works? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

i am not trying to say how it works but merely suggesting that you should assume some good faith on part of reverting editors. if not then atleast try to understand the reason behind revert instead of labeling it a wheel-war and waving arbcom around like a threat... -- Ashish-g55 05:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm baffled by your reference to anonymous editors. When have I ever stated that their opinions don't count? And how does this even relate to User:Sca (the non-anonymous editor who posted the complaint)?

2. I wrote nothing about anyone needing my "permission" to do anything, nor did I claim that your removal of the image was "a massive travesty." I've merely criticised your response to the reversion of your action, which I regard as overblown. "See you all at ArbCom"? Is that really called for?

3. I disagree with your interpretation of the events. The issue of disparity (and mistaken association) between the section's top item and an unrelated image has been discussed on several occasions, with consensus always being that this isn't highly problematic (because we identify what's "pictured") and no format changes should be made to address it.

So my interpretation is that the initial administrative action of direct relevance was your change from having an image to not having one (based on a concern repeatedly opposed by consensus).

But please understand that while I disagree with you, I'm not deeming your view invalid. I'm pointing out that this is far from the cut-and-dried instance of administrative abuse that you make it out to be (or anything remotely warranting an ArbCom case). —David Levy 05:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem was not simply another instance of the common "photo not depicting the top story" complaint. And Sca may have started this thread, but other IP users posted here with identical objections. Essentially, they said "This is conceivably racist and offensive", and they were told "too bad, luck of the draw, that's how we do things". If you feel that's an adequate response, there is a serious problem here.

All I did was defuse a possibly offensive situation, and almost every editor on this page immediately went off the deep end. I'm not even going to bother going through to count all the instances of regulars calling other users variations of "stupid" and "lazy". I'm comfortable with every one of my actions, and wheel wars automatically warrant an ArbCom case - again, not something I made up. If you think what any of those editors said and did was defensible, let's head on over. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1. In addition to the "photo not depicting the top story" issue, previous discussions have specifically addressed concerns regarding potentially problematic associations.

2. Can you please direct me to the identical objections posted here by IP users? I was unaware of their existence.

3. Your statement went beyond this situation:

Opinions are not negated simply because they are posted by anonymous editors; you and I have been over that before.

To what were you referring? That seems to imply that I've made such a claim in the past.

4. I don't condone the "stupid" and "lazy" remarks. Note that you haven't seen such comments from me.

5. I think that all of the pertinent template edits (including yours) were defensible. I don't understand why you apparently find it preposterous that the other editors even could reasonably perceive their actions as anything other than blatant wheel-warring. —David Levy 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Previous discussion isn't binding for current circumstances. And I'm sure you'd agree it's not reasonable to expect anyone (except Main Page regulars who were here when it went on) to be aware of some obscure, archived discussion that may or may not have set a precedent.

2. The objection that first caught my attention

3. You and I have discussed at length the issue of main page regulars discounting the opinions of newcomers. At the end of that conversation, I said, "I think the best possible outcome for all of this is that maybe a few regular editors will take a more proactive role in making sure rules like WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE are followed a little more closely." Clearly I was wrong. Even before I removed the photo, regulars were stating that anyone who was confused was a "doorknob" and that "Perhaps some time should be spent reading the FAQ and/or archives before proposing something which has been discussed to death". Lurk moar is not a civil reply to anyone.

4. Appreciated, as always. Your input came hours later, unfortunately. Not everyone here made personal attacks against the complainants and myself, but almost everyone did. I was particularly shocked by Modest Genius's immediately uncivil remarks that "ITN looks stupid" without a picture (the policy basis of which I can't seem to find) and that there was "no way any reasonable person who bothered to read the section" could possibly be confused. An editor who is normally quite reasonable and eloquent became absolutely outraged... over the removal of a photograph? Clearly some people have a serious hot-button about censorship—probably most of us, actually, or we wouldn't be editing a free encyclopedia—but censorship this was not. If Obama was found to be a lower form of life, and I removed that from the main page, that would be censorship. This was correcting what boiled down to a formatting faux pas. We're not censored, but we can still have a modicum of journalistic integrity in our layout.

5. Anyone was free to disagree with me; I was answering the objections with civility, appealing to reason and Wikipedia policy.[2][3][4] But there are specific exceptions to WP:WHEEL, and disagreeing about photo placement is not one of them. If an editor breaks 3RR, even if he is also participating in talk page discussion, it is still a violation of the edit war policy. The same goes for wheel warring. In fact, in this case, neither of the admins participated in the discussion at all beforehand. The first time Dumelow posted was to admit his error and self-revert. Tariqabjotu never explained his action, either here or on any other talk page. I feel I should also clarify, for those who do not know, that the first undoing of another admin action (in this case, it was me undoing the addition of the photo, as you pointed out) is permitted. It's the second revert—Dumelow's and then Tariqabjotu undoing Dumelow's self-revert—that made it a wheel war. That's a fact. Wheel wars go to ArbCom. That, too, is a fact.1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6

Now, as I said earlier, I'm not interested in anyone being desysopped. But I'm also not willing to see new users (or old users, for that matter) bullied by regulars. That behavior is always explicitly denounced after the fact, but tacitly accepted while it's happening. Even after your polite suggestion that HJ Mitchell apologize to Sca, did he do it? No. So what's to come of all this? If the answer is "nothing", and we're just to sit and wait for this to be "archived" again, then I think there is a serious problem here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I really have to respond to this. I was particularly shocked by Modest Genius's immediately uncivil remarks that "ITN looks stupid" without a picture (the policy basis of which I can't seem to find) and that there was "no way any reasonable person who bothered to read the section" could possibly be confused. I don't understand why you think I wasn't being civil. I wasn't calling you (or anyone else) stupid or unreasonable. I thought the layout looked poor. Admittedly 'un-aesthetically pleasing' would have been a better way of putting it, but it still looked bad. As for the second quote, I stand by it, and don't think any reasonable person who read the entire section would think ITN was implying that Barack Obama was of a different species to modern humans. I was not implying that the complaint itself was unreasonable, but that anyone who actually drew that conclusion, rather than merely noting the possibility that others might, would have been acting unreasonably. Oh and if you insist on being bureaucratic, the relevant policy is located at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Images: "One and only one image shall be included on Template:In the news at any one time." Modest Genius ^talk 01:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction. You said, and are still saying, that the person who did think it was inappropriate was either lazy or unreasonable or both. Now, I don't know him, and I'll admit it's possible that he is both of those things, but pointing it out is still a personal attack. People don't need to actually draw the conclusion that we are racists; just drawing the conclusion that we are having a laugh is enough to make it irresponsible, and it's not unreasonable for someone to draw that conclusion. We're not racist, we just don't mind winking at a racist joke. Which one can you picture on the Colbert Report: "Photo of Obama next to cave man story", or "In the News goes a day without a photo"?

As for the rest, ITN doesn't say any photos are required, just that there should be no more than one. And let's be very clear that ITN is not a policy. Neither is Wikipedia:Editing the main page. Neither is any part of the manual of style. Nothing related to page layouts and templates is a policy. Ignore All Rules is a policy. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is a policy. No wheel warring is a policy. No personal attacks is a policy. [By the way, I hate when people link to really basic pages as if you've never read them, and I'm not doing it to be patronizing. I'm linking them so it's easy for everyone to see that they are, in fact, policies. Not guidelines, not help pages, but official policies.]

Hey, I know WP:ITN kind of becomes your bible when you work on it every day. That's how it goes. But everyone here should be operating according to the policies that have wider consensus than those found at ITN. Actual policies, not just a list of aesthetic norms. To an outside observer, the aesthetic difference between no picture and the wrong picture is nil at best (and offensive at worst). In most cases, I'm fine with a gentle "Yes, it can be a little confusing at first, but that's how we do it". But in this case, this specific case, it called for more than that. Not a lot more; not a wholesale removal and restructuring of the section or anything like that. Just removing one little photo while we waited on a new story. And the policies I went by trump the usual ITN guidelines. It's as simple as that. Of course, people can still argue about the application of those policies (without edit warring, of course) but I have yet to see anyone actually do that. I see a lot of personal opinions about the content, but no policy saying I was wrong to err on the side of caution by removing it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue, as I see it, is not whether you were wrong to remove the image. (I personally disagree with this action, but you've made a reasonable case for it.)

The issue surrounds the determination of an appropriate response to the reversions that followed. In my opinion, immediate invocations of "wheel war" and "ArbCom" (evidently dismissing as utterly inconceivable the notion that others might have perceived the situation differently than you did and sincerely believed that they were acting in accordance with policy) did not constitute such a response. —David Levy 03:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if they thought I was way out of line, even if they thought I had gone insane and removed the photo in blatant and demonstrable violation of policy, that's still not one of the exceptions. Unless they thought there was the "reasonable possibility of actual, imminent, serious harm to the project or a user." Surely that's not it. They didn't think removing the ITN picture would literally destroy Wikipedia, did they? Or that it might cause someone to die?

Of course not. Dumelow knew it was a wheel war, and reverted himself to avoid it. He did not debate that for one moment. What the objection now seems to be is that I said "wheel war". That I said "ArbCom". That I called it what it was, and said where it could end up. That I dared to speak the words. Well, you bet I did. I tell it like it is. Apparently a lot of editors on this page think that constituted some kind of baseless, petulant threat. That I did what I felt like doing and then "cried" ArbCom. Well I've been in far bigger disputes than this, with far bigger admins than these, and I invite everyone to look through all my years of contributions and see if they can find even one other instance of me doing that. Do I actually need to go file an ArbCom motion and add this one to the list, just to prove I was justified in saying that I could? That seems absurd.

I let it go because it would distract from the actual issue—the issue of the photo's placement in ITN, and the larger issue of how main page editors treat main page readers—and I wanted to solve that, but evidently nobody can focus on any of that at this point. So is my only recourse to follow through on it, at the expense of others' time and user rights, while the original problem sits unresolved? Is that what needs to be done? If the issue was whether I was right to remove the image, I would be (and have been) willing to discuss it. But not if we're talking about a wheel war, because it is that clear-cut. So, aside from going to the ArbCom, what other option do I have here? Is that it? Because it seems like what you're saying is I either drag this over there, or I'm the bad guy. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

1. You're still missing my point. You continue to assume that the other administrators perceived their actions as (and consciously decided to engage in) wheel-warring. You treat this as a given, with all of your arguments stemming from this indisputable fact (in your mind).

As I've explained repeatedly, my interpretation of the situation is such that your edit constitutes the initial relevant change, not a reversion.

But again, I'm not asking you to agree with that. I'm asking you to accept that such a view is (or at least was) defensible.

2. Dumelow self-reverted in direct response to your demand (accompanied by the accusation of wheel-warring and threat that failure to comply would lead you to "take this further"). You now cite this response (followed by the explanation that Dumelow wanted to avoid an argument) as an admission of guilt? Wow.

3. I don't know how to take your comment that you're dealt with "far bigger admins than these." What does that even mean?

4. People are focusing on the image placement below. It turns out that the polite suggestion of actual ideas better facilitates that than hurling threats does.

5. No, you aren't "the bad guy." The problem is that you believe that there has to be a "bad guy." —David Levy 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

1. That's interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way and, I'll admit, I did miss your point. I will concede that it's possible Dumelow's revert was within policy. At the very least that he thought so, and I should have given him the benefit of the doubt. So the wheel war didn't actually start until Tariqabjotu reverted Dumelow. I can see how that's possible.

2. As above.

3. Are we really going to go off on yet another tangent, with you taking the position that all admins are the same? I'd rather not. Let's save the "some animals are more equal than others" debate for another time.

4. On the contrary, it seems to me that sometimes this kind of dust-up is the only thing that gets regulars here to be civil and receptive. The basis for the ideas being discussed below were dismissed out of hand yesterday when Sca and Khajida first brought them up. If this is what it took for to let him be heard, I'm comfortable with it.

5. The fact that you still claim I was "hurling threats", rather than standing up for what I believed in good faith to be policy, tells me you do think there needs to be a bad guy. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

1. A procedural self-reversion is an indication that the user wishes to effectively remove his/her prior edit from consideration (as though it never occurred). There was no edit war between Dumelow and Tariqabjotu, the latter of whom "reverted" the former only in a technical sense.

3. Okay, I think that I understand what you're getting at. Indeed, let's drop this.

4. I disagree that the concern was dismissed out of hand (apart from specific comments that I agree were inappropriate).

5. I have absolutely no doubt that you were standing up for what you believed in good faith to be policy. You did so by hurling threats. This doesn't make you "bad." In the heat of the moment, you responded in a manner that I regard as misguided. That's all. —David Levy 19:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do have one suggestion. I'm willing to drop all of this, and won't even oppose archiving the thread, if we can all agree that flippant responses on the order of "that's just how it's done" and "we've already discussed this to death" are not helpful to casual users asking questions here, and that someone other than me is willing to be truly proactive about that. If another regular is willing to be an advocate for new and anonymous users on this page—even if it means being the devil's advocate—I'd feel comfortable leaving the main page alone entirely, and we can all go back to work. Anyone? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I reject the premise that no one other than you provides helpful responses to such inquiries.

Please note that Sca has acknowledged that he worded his post as a joke, so it's hardly surprising that some of us (myself included) perceived it as such and didn't realize that it was intended to highlight a serious concern. —David Levy 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Sca's was not the complaint that brought me here. Also note that he didn't say he worded his post as a joke, he said it was a joke. Is it really true that people screw around on here so often that it becomes hard to tell when a valid point is being made? That may be the root of the larger problem. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sca's was the complaint that some of us (myself included) read, interpreted as a joke, and treated accordingly. (I did so by simply ignoring it.) When it later became clear that the joke stemmed from a sincere concern, we shifted to serious discussion.

The usual problem is that satirical messages are mistaken for serious complaints (and addressed as such, sometimes leading to rather emotional responses). —David Levy 19:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Indeed, consensus can change. I don't assert that past decisions are set in stone or that further discussion is inappropriate. And yes, I agree that it would be unreasonable to expect most users (including Sca) to be familiar with the aforementioned discussions.

My point is that consensus thus far consistently has been that we should not make changes in response to the concern in question, and there is nothing outrageous about an administrator perceiving your removal of the image as an action contrary to this consensus and (and therefore reverting it).

Please understand that this is not a statement that such reversion necessarily was called for; it's an explanation of why it was reasonable for an administrator to believe that it was called for.

2. You said that "other IP users posted here with identical objections." In the thread's final revision before its removal, I see one complaint from an IP user, two replies from IP users explaining that the image didn't illustrate the top item, a reply from you in which you acknowledged the possibility of confusion but referred to it as "a bit of a stretch," some posts that followed the image removal (including a comment from Modest Genius that you quoted above), and zero responses along the lines of "too bad, luck of the draw, that's how we do things."

3. Where in that discussion or any other did I advocate discounting newcomers' opinions?

I don't condone (and did not take part in) the denigration that you describe (e.g. the "doorknob" remark).

4. Your assessment of Modest Genius's comments strikes me as unfair. The statement that "ITN looks stupid without [a picture]" is the expression of an aesthetic opinion (and not remotely uncivil). And I find it difficult to refute the statement that "there's no way any reasonable person who bothered to read the section would think we were being racist," which is very different from saying that no one could be misled at first glance.

Again, while I disagree with the image's removal, I'm not opining that it was unreasonable or worthy of outrage. However, from my perspective, you were the one who appeared to become outraged (in response to your perception of outrage that I'm not seeing). Yes, some inappropriate comments were made, but it seems that you detected a level of underlying emotion that simply wasn't present.

5. You misunderstood what I wrote. I view your action not as "undoing the addition of the photo," but as the initial relevant edit: changing the template from its longstanding state of containing an image to the state of not containing one.

But again, I'm not asking you to agree with me or claiming that your interpretation is indefensible. I'm saying that it's unreasonable for you to hold your interpretation as the only defensible one (meaning that no rational individual could possibly regard the other administrators' actions as anything other than wheel-warring). The situation simply isn't that clear-cut.

6. This thread was temporarily archived seven minutes after I posted that advice, so perhaps HJ Mitchell still will apologize. I hope so. —David Levy 03:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I await your reply. —David Levy 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"All I did was defuse a possibly offensive situation, and almost every editor on this page immediately went off the deep end." Perhaps that should indicate that you might have been over-zealous? And that those who are disagreeing are not insulting you by doing so? Modest Genius ^talk 18:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, David. That was the point I was trying to make, but you made it much better than I did. This has been blown out of all proportion and is getting truly absurd. I suggest we archive this and move on before it gets even more ridiculous. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So you show up 8+ hours after the fact, call me "stupid", now declare my position "absurd" and "ridiculous", and that settles it? I think not. And if you think David condones your insults, I think you're very much mistaken. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kafziel is correct on this point; I don't condone those remarks. —David Levy 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies to you, David. It was far from my intention to imply that you endorsed my remarks. Kafziel, if you had bothered to read my posts, you'd know that none of the words you misquote above were directed at you. I said "This has been blown out of all proportion and is getting truly absurd. I suggest we archive this and move on before it gets even more ridiculous." I also said that you made a simple mistake and that you were acting in good faith, but you chose not to quote those. It's a shame that you persist in taking this so personally, but I came here to express my opinion on this thread in the hope of participating in a sensible and rational discussion. Your refusal to accept that anybody who disagrees with you could even believe they have a point is unhelpful, as is misquoting me in order to advance you own position. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't owe me an apology, but I suggest that you apologize to Sca (and others with the same concern) for the "too stupid or too lazy" comment.

I agree that your 05:29 post wasn't explicitly directed at Kafziel, but I can understand why he may have genuinely interpreted it that way (particularly given your tone above). After reiterating your assumption of good faith, it isn't helpful to accuse him of intentional distortion.

I urge both of you to calm down and try to be more considerate of each other's position. —David Levy 07:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we assume that 'most people' know the difference between 'Barrack Obama' and 'an unknown type of ancient human' - unless used in some satirical magazine. Occasional peculiar/inappropriate juxtapositions will always occur with ITN and some of the help topics on the community portal. Jackiespeel (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should just let this die but the extremely saddening events in Russia have created a situation partially like I described above. We now have a picture of Obama next to a story of bombings in Russia. Obama isn't an unknown so this isn't a perfect example however given the problems between Russia and the US isn't the risk people may somehow think Obama or the US is associated with the Russian bombings greater then the risk people may think Obama is 'an unknown type of ancient human'? Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And now we have Alan Mulally, who I've never heard of. I like the suggestion to color the background of that item and the picture a different color to relate them, but obviously that would require some work on someone's part. 130.126.130.161 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

picneds cap[itISconfusin asis{istil ofnlink pic-1st item,evnKNOWINbynow'boutdeBADlayout!}-NOTevry1hasdeTIME2readEVRYTIN+befriendly!!--i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.hard4me!! (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN format

I'm quite shocked that my comments yesterday about juxtaposition in ITN have been deleted. Sca (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Talk:Main Page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They have been archived. and im not sure if your welcome comment is meant to imply that comments get deleted from main page talk. if it is then its not very helpful. -- Ashish-g55 18:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I too am rather confused as to why they have been archived, when the discussion was clearly ongoing. Only threads which have ceased to be discussed should be archived, and the bot does that already. Modest Genius ^talk 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

i think someone archived it because the talk wasnt going anywhere and was getting offtopic... normally it should be archived with a blue box if its ongoing. -- Ashish-g55 18:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Howcheng archived it. While well-intentioned, such an act rarely is a good idea, in my opinion. Abruptly halting discussion—however controversial—doesn't solve anything. At best, the underlying tensions are suppressed from view (but likely will reemerge at some point). At worst, the conflict might even intensify. —David Levy 19:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me if you want. howcheng {chat} 22:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've brought it back out of the archive: it was barely 24 hours old after all. Physchim62 (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I do appreciate that.

Alas, I am not a techie, and cannot myself redesign the computer language to achieve one of the following two possible solutions:

1. Linking the photo and the text which it illustrates, so that as the text moves down the ITN column, the photo would move, too. or...

2. Making the lead ITN item the only item which is to be illustrated by a photo.

As an old (62) newspaper editor, I think these are the only real solutions to a problem that contravenes logical practice in nearly all media, past and presnt. Thank you for your consideration. Sca (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that something has to give somewhere. For example:

1. if we make the photo move down the list, we lose the symmetry of the Main Page layout. We don't always have full symmetry, as we cannot always illustrate the "featured article" which occupies the top left corner, but usually we manage something.
2. if we say that the illustrated ITN story is always the top story on the list, we lose the chronological ordering of stories. In fact, we do sometimes tweak the strict (minute-by-minute) chronology to move a story with a picture up the list a little bit, although we try to keep the day-by-day chronology correct.
3. we could also simply not include images in the In the news section – they are rarely great pieces of photojournalism after all – but then of course we lose the image and the Main Page becomes a little more of a "wall of text".

The one thing that we can't do is the solution that a commercial newspaper might adopt, which is to go out and buy an image from an agency. If we're lucky, we can get a photographer to take one for us and give it to us, but that sort of luck only comes around pretty rarely for news stories. Please don't think I'm defending our current solution as ideal – indeed, we get frequent and amazingly varied complaints about the image on In the news, although I must admit that the idea that we were suggesting that Barrack Obama is a newly discovered and probably extinct species of humanoid is a new one. The layout of the Main Page is a compromise between esthetics and "content", as is the case for any media, past and present. Physchim62 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I too don't really like the way the picture doesn't lie next to the relevant item, an issue which also occurs in the OTD section. However, I've yet to see a working suggestion of a better layout, that still looks good and works on multiple resolutions and platforms (including mobile browsers). If someone comes up with one which is superior to the current status quo, I'll immediately support its adoption. Modest Genius ^talk 01:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish President Obama would just go ahead and discover a new species of hominid. That would pretty much resolve the issue. APL (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out mentioned a suggestion to slightly color the background around the picture and news item, to associate them more clearly. It's from this archive. Can someone create a mock-up of it? Does anyone else think it might be a good idea? TransUtopian (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Having the photo move down the column would serve the reader better than the current practice, which I think nearly everyone agrees is confusing at best and silly at worst. Sca (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be my preferred option, but I seem to remember it being attempted before (during the redesign proposal maybe?) but running into technical and compatibility difficulties. As for colour, that has to be careful about maintaining the current colour scheme and not overly compromising the aesthetics. Feel free to try a mockup. Modest Genius ^talk 12:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Three points, related to this topic but not that closely related to each other:

Firstly I don't want to stir things up (but accept that I may be doing so and apologise if that is the case) but it seems to me that the trigger here is not racism (perceived or real) but the highly polarised nature of US politics.

Sca's initial comment did not start by saying that the juxtaposition of the picture and the piece about an ancient hominid was (or could be taken as) racist but actually started "As a Democrat, I deeply resent ..."

I am English but I have worked and had holidays in the US and have American relatives & friends who live there, so I know a little about the nature of politics in the US. It is extremely partisan and people who associate with one of the parties seems to be hyper-sensitive about anything that could be considered an insult to their side. So much so that it seems to me that they scrutinise thinks looking for something they can construe as an insult.

This is not an attack on Sca but a observation about the environment in which he lives and which, inevitably, affects him. I wonder if he would have complained about the juxtaposition of a picture of, say, a black sportsman and the hominid piece.

Having read through the debates I think that Sca was the only person to say that this juxtaposition was racist. Others have said things along the line of 'this might be perceived as racist by some people' but I think that is a different point.

Secondly Sca (just above, not in his original post) says "As an old (62) newspaper editor, I think these are the only real solutions to a problem that contravenes logical practice in nearly all media, past and presnt" which makes me wonder if this might be a difference between US and British printing practises.

When I first looked at DYK, and the picture & first hook were not related, I scanned the text for "(pictured)". To me it was obvious that the picture was at the top, for æsthetic reasons, and the relevant text would be linked in that way.

I can only assume that this seemed obvious because I had come across it before and had done so repeatedly for it to become ingrained like this. Hence the DYK formatting must be common in British printing.

When Sca says that the way DYK is formatted "contravenes logical practice in nearly all media" I take it that what he actually means is nearly all media that he is familiar with, most of which will follow US practise.

Thirdly, irrespective of what the cause for the confusion is, we have to accept that there is confusion. The suggestion supported by TransUtopian above seems like an eminently sensible one to me. If it is feasible I would support its implementation.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should everything be about them Americans? Sca didn't mention that, and it just comes outta nowhere... –Howard the Duck 15:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Howard I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Sca started his original post with "As a Democrat" which gives a hint to his nationality and a quick look at his user page confirms that. FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"As A Democrat"... so? He didn't said "as an American", even if the Democratic Party is an American party. And even if he did said as an "American" do we have to rub that fact that he is American? Can we throw out nationalism in the discussion?

P.S. On DYKs the thumbnail is always related to the first blurb. –Howard the Duck 17:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't insulting or otherwise inappropriate to suggest that someone's viewpoint might have been influenced by experiences typical of the country in which he or she resides. —David Levy 17:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The point I was making was that when starting with "As A Democrat" Sca, to me at least, seemed really to be making a point about the tribal nature of US politics rather than a point about racism. I don't see how I can say that without mentioning nationality.

David Levy makes a clear point. I would take it further and say that someone's viewpoint *will* be influenced by experiences typical of the country in which they reside.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Mockup attempted! Physchim62 (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In the news

American mathematician John Tate wins the Abel Prize for his work on the theory of numbers. Scientists identify a previously unknown type of ancient human through analysis of DNA from a finger bone unearthed in a Siberian cave. Sir James W. Black, British pharmacologist and Nobel laureate, dies at the age of 85. Google redirects its .cn domain to Hong Kong servers and stops censoring its search results within the People's Republic of China. U.S. President Barack Obama signs the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law (pictured), enacting a set of health care reforms. Pope Benedict XVI issues a pastoral letter to Catholics in Ireland apologizing for sexual abuse of children by clergy. In rugby union, France win the 2010 Six Nations Championship with a Grand Slam. Former Nepali Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala dies at the age of 85.

In the news

American mathematician John Tate wins the Abel Prize for his work on the theory of numbers. Scientists identify a previously unknown type of ancient human through analysis of DNA from a finger bone unearthed in a Siberian cave. Sir James W. Black, British pharmacologist and Nobel laureate, dies at the age of 85. Google redirects its .cn domain to Hong Kong servers and stops censoring its search results within the People's Republic of China. U.S. President Barack Obama signs the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law (pictured), enacting a set of health care reforms. Pope Benedict XVI issues a pastoral letter to Catholics in Ireland apologizing for sexual abuse of children by clergy. In rugby union, France win the 2010 Six Nations Championship with a Grand Slam. Former Nepali Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala dies at the age of 85.

Mockups

(outdent for comments) The left one looks good, but the picture needs to move down a line to be level with the start of the hook it refers to. What does it look like when the item pictured starts to get close to the bottom, so the picture would intersect the base? The right hand one looks rather nasty IMO. Modest Genius ^talk 14:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, see this: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 6#Highlighting item with picture. –Howard the Duck 14:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the mock-ups, Physchim62!

On first glance, I prefer the "move the picture down" mock-up too.

And thanks for the link, Howard the Duck! I don't have time to read that discussion right now, but I like the two ideas there. (lighter background color, color box around the whole news item, either the L-shape or not's fine with me) TransUtopian (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That link is useful to see the previous discussion, though it took place in April 2006. Great work on the mock ups. Personally, I'm not averse to the idea (I'd probably support it in principle) and my preference would be the one with the highlight, but I can't help thinking it looks a little untidy. Could somebody try making the colour a little more subtle? I'd try myself but I'm useless with anything more than the most basic markup. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How does the mock-up look on P:CE? --74.13.125.80 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If it screws up in P:CE, we can make 2 versions: one that works in the Main Page and another for P:CE. –Howard the Duck 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't screw-up P:CE, but we might need some ParserFunction magic to get the image in the right place. Physchim62 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

you know most of these problems would probably go away if we just make (pictured) bold. only complaint here is that its hard to associate picture to the blurb. Both ITN and OTD can have this since they can be out of order. other changes like moving picture down to blurb or colouring the entire blurb is rather steep for something this minor. Some people will complain about everything no matter what changes we make. -- Ashish-g55 17:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Complaints are already and rather frequently raised regarding this issue, so it's no matter - which is not to say that any change should be made without due consideration. I rather think that the current situation is inadequete unless necessitated by some technical concern reagarding these alternatives. All other things being equal, I think it would be more appropriate for the image to simply be situated next to the item being illustrated - position is given, and so it is best to leverage it rather than rely on textual or visual indicators such as highlighting. Ennen (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Question : Are you advocating this change for OTD as well? APL (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if feasible - but I hadn't considered it. Wouldn't this apply to DYK as well? Although these sections don't receive the same image position-related complaints as ITN (that I'm aware of) it would seem best to be consistent. Now that I do consider it, however, I wonder if each of these pictures being variably positioned would detract from the visual flow of the page - but it's difficult to say without actually seeing it. That aside, my advocacy stands (for what it's worth). Ennen (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK doesn't have a chronological format, so the item illustrated by the image always is placed at the top. —David Levy 03:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that DYK items are arbitrarily ordered, so whoever is in charge of DYK (Forgot who, sorry.) just re-orders the list so that whichever has the best picture winds up on top. APL (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. At any rate, I think a fuller mockup-in-context is in order. I'd like to attempt it myself, but I really must get to bed, and I won't be back for a few days. Ennen (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What's with this idea bolding the pictured is going to magically make complaints go away? As I've said before, we've tried that /Archive 108#Suggestion - "pictured" ITN item highlight and abandoned it when it got too many complaints. Perhaps we didn't try it for long enough. Perhaps things have changed since then. I'm definitely not convinced it's the best solution (I'm not saying I'm opposed to trying simply that you should hopefully be aware of the history and not imagine it's definitely going to work) Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I think the mock up on the left is clearer and better than that on the right and, to a non-technical eye, it is more pleasing. Denisarona (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway: I MUCH prefer the version on the left. Why? Because it makes sense!

In the print world, a photo is sometimes referred to as an "entry point" for the story — a device that encourages (or entices) the reader to actually read the text. It's just basic logic to have this "entry point" within or next to the text that it illustrates — just as it's basic logic to put the headline (another "entry point") above the story it summarizes, and not above some other story. Sca (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And, this is what we over here, in typically American tactless and grating manner, would call a no-brainer.

The layout on the left only lessens the problem, (Is that Obama signing a bill, or the Pope writing a letter? Or possibly somebody from Google redirecting searches by hand?) and will render differently at different window-sizes. (Remembering that not everyone browses full-screen, so window-size does not equal screen-size!)

With the layout on the right, it's not at all obvious what purpose of the blue highlight is. The connection to the photograph of Obama is very weak. The outline is overpowered by the section header. (I had originally wrote "There's nothing at all to connect it with the photo of president Obama.", but realized I was wrong just before hitting the "save page" button.) APL (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if the image were situated to the left of the blurb it would be more obvious which item is being illustrated, given that the image would cause the blurb to be indented - especialy if this were done without causing the rest of the items to be indented. Of course, this wouldn't help with the screen size problem. Ennen (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha!

Hello! I was joking about being "deeply offended," etc., to make a point. I know what the problem is. I also know that your average reader won't know what the problem is, and that the less astute among them, i.e. the majority, may indeed be offended, confounded or otherwise put off by faulty juxtaposition of text and 'art,' as we call it in the noosepaper biz. Sca (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You probably were unaware of this, but it's become something of a tradition on this page for users to express mock outrage regarding the main page's content (with wording along the lines of yours), purely for the sake of humor. Please note that some of us (myself included) mistook your comment for such a message (and didn't realize that it was intended to highlight a serious concern). —David Levy 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly was aware of it — that's exactly what I was doing, and I've done it before. But there was a serious issue behind my mock outrage. Sca (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC) (a.k.a. Incensed in Idaho.)

I'm having a difficult time reconciling the above acknowledgment with your distress at not having your comments (posted "purely for the sake of humor") taken seriously. —David Levy 22:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I sought to stimulate debate, not to offend anyone. Sca (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of seeking to offend anyone. I just don't understand how you "sought to stimulate debate" via a message written "purely for the sake of humor" (which seems contradictory) or why you took issue with people's reactions (despite your familiarity with the customs surrounding jokes posted to this page). —David Levy 00:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you are quoting with "purely for the sake of humor." I've mentioned several times that I was joking about being offended, but that there was a serious issue behind the joke. Indeed, it was that issue that made the joke possible. So my intent was twofold all along: To point out the anomaly in a (hopefully) entertaining way. At any rate, I seem to have succeeded in stimulating debate. Regards, Sca (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quoting myself. I referred to the convention of expressing mock outrage "purely for the sake of humor," and you replied with "that's exactly what I was doing" (which seemed inconsistent with your other statements). Did you actually mean "that's sort of what I was doing"? —David Levy 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, well, I suppose I should have said, that's partly what I was doing. Actually, I think my initial intent was humor, but this problem with ITN was in the back of my mind — it bugs me every time I see it — and I guess I expected possibly both humorous and serious reactions. But, David, is this a friendly dicussion, or an exegesis of our previous statements? Sca (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a friendly discussion, I assure you. Thank you for clarifying. —David Levy 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: The problem wouldn't be so acute if we weren't locked into this relatively narrow vertical column with the photo always anchoring the upper right corner. I'm not suggesting the layout be redesigned; it's attractive and functional. But with short news briefs stacked vertically, the reader always will tend to associate the top item with the photo at the top.
It's different when you have, for example, a horizontal box with a single longish story about, say, politics, quoting three or four people. In that case, you can float the speakers' mugs in the text without worrying too much about getting them exactly next to the text in which they're quoted — and anyhow you'll probably identify the mugs with namelines. But that's a format mainly for print media.
BTW, I read The Economist occaisionally, and I don't recall seeing faulty juxtapositioning there. Nor have I noticed this problem on the various news websites I scan from around the world, such as BBC and Spiegel online. Sca (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC, CNN, The Economist, etc, don't really have this problem, because they produce or purchase an image to go along with every headline-worthy story. So they don't have to make any of the compromises discussed above.

The BBC for example, is able to 1)Keep it's headlines in any order they choose. 2)Keep the illustration in a constant location 3)Illustrate the top story on the list, regardless of how the list is sorted.

Wikipedia on the other hand, does not have main-page acceptable images for every story, so one of those three goals must be broken. APL (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured Picture: Paper Clip Surface Tension

I am very disappointed by this choice of featured picture of the day. This picture, while fascinating and technically impressive, has been the subject of significant discussion at Talk:Surface tension#Paperclip image, where for three months there have been a number of editors who have objected even to the inclusion of this picture in the article, because in their opinion it is simply a poor choice to illustrate the concept which it purports to clarify. In the most recent discussions (from December to March), the only editor to give unqualified support to the picture (other than the photographer himself) is the now retired User:Franklin.vp, who had less than 1300 edits when he stopped contributing. User:Diliff also provided support for the picture's inclusion in the article, but he also acknowledged that the image might only work with an appropriate caption[5], which to me indicates that even he recognizes that the illustration is not 100% clear. The remaining editors in the discussion (of whom there were at least four more) all opposed the image as confusing and felt that it was a poor choice.

Clearly consensus was not achieved for this photo's inclusion in the article, and I wish that this had been taken into consideration when it was considered for use on the main page. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

TFP is governed almost entirely on a first-come, first-served basis. Images are shown on the main page in the same order (with a few exceptions for anniversaries etc) as they were promoted to Featured Picture status. Issues such at those you raise above are supposed to be taken into account during the Featured Picture nomination; they are assumed to have been resolved if an image maintains that status. If not, the images should be taken to WP:FPCD. Modest Genius ^talk 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's an interesting photo & OK as long as the blue appearance of the water is explained. Of course, a non-blue photo of the same sort would be better. Sca (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, how come this picture doesn't credit the photographer? Is this something new we're doing? Daniel Case (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was just an error. I mean, for a while today we had a non-featured image as "Today's Featured Picture". Pyrrhus16 01:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Image for FA

Why is this image used? it is not even in the FA? It looks nothing like the Screen shots in the article? Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For a number of reasons, for the last couple of years the Wikipedia front page only uses free content. (Only exception : The Wikipedia logo itself.)

That particular image looks like it comes from a patent application, which would place it in the public domain. APL (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

interesting i suspected something like that....Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And it's annotated with French text... really, what's this doing on the English Wikipedia? --NE2 06:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded File:Iridion 3D Interface en.png, which is an English translation. Would someone more familiar with the whole TFA image shebang replace it with that? bibliomaniac15 06:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.  f o x  11:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical question

What would happen if a notable movie/book/video game/song/etc came out that was titled "Main Page" came out? Would the top of the Main Page then forever say "This is the Main Page of Wikipedia, for the film of the same name see Main Page (film)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.119.5 (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Blue Rasberry 04:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're just asking to make a point about the perennial suggestion that the main_page be moved to a different namespace, but in case you're not : Don't worry. It could be dealt with. The current main page could be moved to a different namespace, or the search feature could be easily hacked to make sure that people wind up at "Main Page (Comic Book)" instead of here. Or the latter could be done temporarily during the transition phase for the former. APL (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Computer games and insects

Why does the Wikipedia front page have to be so obsessed with computer games and insects? Surely there are other things in the world or the universe of interest also. Someone with time on their hands could monitor the subject matter of the front page over time and point out if it gives too much attention to particular subjects. 92.24.134.65 (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give your own statistical analysis then? Because every time I have seen someone bring actual numbers into it, there seems to be less of a bias than is claimed. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a pretty even coverage. Yesterday there was a horrorcore duo, few days ago a hurricane, a film, a car, and some hills. Feel free to look.  f o x  11:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it is the second video game this month, but most people (including, until recently, myself) unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes working of TFA would be very surprised at the amount of thought that goes into choosing the TFA- it achieves a much broader spread than of the full list of FAs (the media love to tell us how biased we are towards video games and American popular culture, but you see surprisingly little of it on the MP).

So far this month we've had:

• some hills
• a moon
• a typewriter
• some horses
• a bridge
• an ancient battle
• a song
• a king
• a video game
• a bird
• an actress
• a magazine article
• a biotechnology firm
• a nazi
• a novel
• a lemur
• an explorer
• a composer
• a book
• a road
• a princess
• a hurricane
• a dinosaur
• an admiral
• a political history
• a film
• an engine
• some dancers

and a cuddly toy. I'd say that's an excellent topical and geographical balance, especially when you compare it to the list of FAs. I hope that helps, I don;t have the patience to come up with statistics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a point that, in the grand scheme of things, video games very much do get an imbalence, when you consider number of topics and other factors. That said, the answer is VERY simple -- people who work on video game articles tend to make FAs. The reason is probably related to the fact that game lovers have a lot of free time, or perhaps are very 'tech' and thus are likely to be here, or whatever else, but it's simply a natural systemic bias. As for insects -- and I'm assuming the OP means how there's so many FPs of insects on the main page -- that one is even easier to explain: it's really easy to make free and high quality pics of insects, so there are a lot of them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A better question is why does one man get the power to chose which articles are featured each day. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 14:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Because he's good at it. APL (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Or a different (more complete?) answer is a typical one for wikipedia. 1) Historical reasons 2) It works 3) Anything else will lead to more drama i.e. more time wasted and more ill-feeling between editors 4) Proposed alternatives have not appealed to many so has been shot down faster then you can say Raul654. (After wasting a lot of time searching thorough the archives, I finally found this memorable proposal as a page of its own.) 5) We've added processes to help satisfy some of the requirements people have (like WP:TFA/R) 6) Jimbo likes it like that as does the WP:cabal 7) Most people don't really care 8) Of those who do care, no one has had the stomach to put up with the very long and ardous process any possible change is going to entail before probably still failing Nil Einne (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading that proposal. It gave me a good laugh. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 23:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We get a lot of insect photos because our very talented photographers take lots of great insect photos. I do my best not to show more than 3-4/month but we really just have a lot of them. We go through phases like this ... a lot of historical restorations all bunched together, or birds, or opera posters/sketches ... it all depends on what people submit to WP:FPC. howcheng {chat} 07:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: If you want more front page articles about X - go and improve some articles about X to the point where they meet the FA criteria. Since more or less 100% of FA's make it onto the front page, and no articles that are not FA's are ever placed in the "Featured Article" spot, working to bring articles up to standard is the only way that the balance can be altered. It's really hard work to meet the FA criteria and to push your pet article through all of the hoops to get here (trust me - been there, done that, scored two out of three attempts so far!) It would be harsh indeed to tell the author of a hard-won FA gold star that (s)he isn't going to get his/her day in the limelight because there have been too many other articles of the same general type already. SteveBaker (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DST updates

Since DST's been implemented, the day starts one hour earlier. On the wiki, our updates to TFA, if not others, are made pre-DST. Could someone fix this? Buggie111 (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows UTC rather then any countries timezone. As such DST issues don't come in to it Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

picture illustrates the wrong news item

Can't wikipedia manage to put the picture in the "news" section next to the news item it illustrates? This has been a nuisance for years!--24.85.68.231 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

One difficulty with that is unpredictable user choice of the browser, screen resolution and font size, as well as the modular nature of the main page - it's several sections can change any time. Materialscientist (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you bothered to take a look at this discussion page's two massive sections on this very topic? --72.197.202.36 (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Because there's no easy way to reliably put it next to anything other than the top item and still allow the section to re-size naturally to fill your browser window at any size. (There may be a hard way of doing it, of course. See discussion above.)

Because wikipedia does not have free-for-mainpage images for all new stories, it is not possible to always illustrate the top story the way professional news sites do. APL (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What they said. ;)  f o x  16:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

??? What ???

1. A Japanese multinational conglomerate (headquarters pictured) investigates how some of its customers were accidentally sent back in time to the year 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.156.146.237 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a calendar? Rodhullandemu 00:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good job

Big fan of the current April Fool's Day page. Thanks to all that were involved. Remember (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks everyone. I always love seeing the April Fool's page. (I just wish the OTD section could have different stuff from last year. ) Alphabet55 (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought someone had snuck in and vandalized the front page again... Then it struck me. Good job :-). 152.7.20.77 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

cue comments from confused readers....another great april fools day main page! Antimatter--talk-- 03:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice job - love seeing the front page on 4/1. Haven't logged on in a while, but glad to see we still have our sense of humor. :) 140.247.152.175 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

EOKA

Perhaps make it clear the EOKA campaign starting on this day in 1955 really is Greek Cypriots and not Turk Cypriots. The Turks had the Turkish Resistance Organization and a Turkish-British paramilitary taskforce to keep order. Only the Greek community tried to get rid of the British who sided with the Turkish community.Eugene-elgato (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC) see under On This Day errorsEugene-elgato (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"International Joke Day" WTF?

Why is this listed in the observances? It's called April Fools' Day. Someone please change this, the page is protected from editing. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 01:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You can edit Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 1 and change it. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 01:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That page can only be edited by administrators while it is transcluded on the main page (others may see an edit link but be unable to edit). I guess somebody thought that writing "April Fools' Day" instead of piping a link on International Joke Day would be too big a hint that something unusual is happening on the main page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ps3 TimeTravel?

"A Japanese multinational conglomerate (headquarters pictured) investigates how some of its customers were accidentally sent back in time to the year 1999." Someone needs to reword this now.Its very misleading. If you don't know what I am talking about look at the news.98.82.151.242 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's intentional. Check your calendar. --S-man (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The cool thing is that it's still accurate. The days fall out the same way in 1999 and 2010. APL (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems a little flip and clever. I.e. not clear at all, in fact quite obtuse. Vranak (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked your calendar, as suggested above? APL (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd think that senses of humour weren't so hard to find. 205.200.18.71 (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)